United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Hmm. Have to admit. From the beginning I questioned why the BBC seemed to be the target.
If the star broke the law. (And paying a 17yo for explicit pic def is). Then why the hell are the parents not calling the police.
If it's not illegal then as scummy as it may be. It's all consensual, adults make a choice.
As bad as I feel for younger people taken advantage of by older. The reason we have the 18 law. Is 18ys ha #ve a right to make their own choice. Good or bad ones.
No other employer would have the right or expectation to address a member of staff following the law. And the police would be involved if it's a crime. So why an attack on the BBC rather than a call to the police.
To be honest, this is the whole reason I've been telling people that the story isn't nearly what is being reported. If I was attacked by someone that I knew worked at Tesco, I wouldn't write to Tesco to demand they investigate, I'd go to the police. So why involve the BBC? Why involve The Sun? If the "dossier" that The Sun has is so definitive, why are they not handing it over to the police like the BBC has with their evidence? Then, as the story developed: why did the step father change the complaint to the BBC after more than a month? And are we supposed to believe that this change just happened to occur less than 24 hours before The Sun's front page headlines?
The problem is that the allegations are playing second fiddle to a dangerous, damaging witch-hunt clearly being played out to cause maximum damage to a public service broadcaster for the benefit of not just any tabloid, but a nasty, vindictive tabloid backed by one of the most sinister and manipulative people in the world. Murdoch will never face anything like justice for the evil he's caused, but I seriously hope that this whole shitshow massively blows up in his face.
Wouldn't they actually be able to publish his name if they really did have evidence? Due to public interest?
The simple answer is: because the right wing press will use any excuse to put the knife into the BBC. Quite how the Murdoch papers get away with such an obvious conflict of interest is a question that needs asking.
The only way or becomes a BBC matter is if it isn't a crime but the shiftiness of the behaviour could bring the organisation into disrepute, especially after all the previous scandals and mishandling of situations, and they would want to think hard about letting the guy back on telly.
Many other professions have a "disrepute" law that while legal can get you struck off
And most don't. Those that do. The actions tend to have to be related to the professional status of the person.
IE if he was the guys therapist teacher or even a manager etc.
Heck if the teenager worked for the BBC in some way. Or had been interviewed. Fine the BBC would be seen as having some responsibility.
But this is no different to testcos being asked to investigate a warehouse worker. Because he/she met an 18yo in a pub and partook of consensual, acts.