LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pblakeney

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Why is it up to the employer to investigate? And why has the PM just been asked for comment? Is it really that important?

I can't understand why the first port of call for an alleged crime is the employer closely followed by the gutter press rather than the press (well, I can but not when looking at it as a concerned parent).

Who has the biggest pot of cash to cough up when/if it comes to that?
Always follow the money.

First.Aspect

In order for something to be libelous, it has to be untrue and for someone to be named.

So it isn't clear whether the BBC has any cause of action, and an unnamed person doesn't seem to.

The various presenters who have been guessed at could well have a case, but likely not against the Sun, because they are too far removed.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

In order for something to be libelous, it has to be untrue and for someone to be named.

So it isn't clear whether the BBC has any cause of action, and an unnamed person doesn't seem to.

The various presenters who have been guessed at could well have a case, but likely not against the Sun, because they are too far removed.

Doesn't need to be a named person AFAIK.

shirley_basso

I've recevied a photo on the "lads" whatsapp group of the rumoured presenter with his pants and trousers round his ankles, looking over their shoulder, ar$e facing the camera, but no genitals visible.

briantrumpet

Even if it's not directly applicable here (Bercow named McAlpine), the reasoning behind the ruling is worth a read... see "extrinsic facts".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow

wallace_and_gromit

First.Aspect said:

In order for something to be libelous, it has to be untrue and for someone to be named.

So it isn't clear whether the BBC has any cause of action, and an unnamed person doesn't seem to.

The various presenters who have been guessed at could well have a case, but likely not against the Sun, because they are too far removed.

My understanding is that defamation (libel is written defamation; slander is spoken) is that a reputation is unfairly damaged via a published statement. (Publish = made to someone other than the subject.) Publishing a false statement isn’t necessarily libellous, though proving your statement is true is the ultimate defence.

Corporate defamation requires the organisation concerned to prove reputational damage via financial loss, which will be tricky for the BBC, one imagines.

Caveat - not a lawyer but have read a lot.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

In order for something to be libelous, it has to be untrue and for someone to be named.

So it isn't clear whether the BBC has any cause of action, and an unnamed person doesn't seem to.

The various presenters who have been guessed at could well have a case, but likely not against the Sun, because they are too far removed.

Doesn't need to be a named person AFAIK.

It does for the unnamed person to be defamed. It is possible for defamation to occur by elimination, but would be hard to pin that on the Sun. Also possible for some other presenter to be defamed, but again, the Sun haven't done that and won't be responsible in law for some bloke on Twitter.

At this stage, not clear if the BBC have been defamed, if the report is in essence that there has been an allegation in relation to a BBC presenter and what the allegation is, because that is just factual. The BBC dont seem to be disputing this.

Nor is it the same as saying either that a BBC presenter actually did something - illegal or otherwise - or that the BBC have acted inappropriately. Plus, the allegation could turn out to be true anyway.

Pretty sure the Sun have their own lawyers you know.

Conceivably the public comments by the family could still be libellous towards the BBC, because those directly allege they are being dishonest and misrepresentijg what has happened. However it's not going to be a good look if the BBC sue them. No doubt someone has already had a quiet word and told them to zip it for a while, though.

skyblueamateur

Kelvin McKenzie commenting on any of this makes me sick to my stomach. Utter lowlife, piece of shit.

First.Aspect

Could be worse. Back in the day, Max Clifford would be representing someone involved by this point.

surrey_commuter

shirley_basso said:

I've recevied a photo on the "lads" whatsapp group of the rumoured presenter with his pants and trousers round his ankles, looking over their shoulder, ar$e facing the camera, but no genitals visible.

a gentleman at work got caught* producing this sort of graphic image in the shower room though he was in a state of excitement and had the situation in hand. Anyway interesting that he had the same "over the shoulder" pose.

* caught as in the photos were seen on his laptop

briantrumpet

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

orraloon

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Spaffer continues to tell the Covid Inquiry, Parliamentary Stds et al to F off.

Oh look, a dead cat.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

TBF, BBC News have reported the same.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

TBF, BBC News have reported the same.

I'm referring to bunching these headlines together. I don't think it's coincidence.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

TBF, BBC News have reported the same.

I'm referring to bunching these headlines together. I don't think it's coincidence.

Also a fair point.

First.Aspect

Told you this one had a while to run.

wallace_and_gromit

orraloon said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Spaffer continues to tell the Covid Inquiry, Parliamentary Stds et al to F off.

Oh look, a dead cat.

I’m no fan of Boris but if a couple of days of “dead cat” news stories is enough to kill off another story then that story likely isn’t really that important. Nothing stops the really big stories eg “Partygate”.

Johnson is yesterday’s man nowadays.

rick_chasey

Had a debate/disagreement with the wife over private schools, given that's going to be Starmer's equivalent of Fox Hunting, so I thought I'd test run a rather more radical idea with the forum.

How about we bin off all the fee paying schools but rather than just go full Lenin, turn them all into grammar schools, with as brutal or not academic entry requirements, as a sort of compromise between social mobility and equal opportunity and the advantages of elitism and competition?

It's not actually super fair and will still favour the better off, but then at least it is in part defined by the child's ability themselves and not exclusively by the means and desires of their parents.

Jezyboy

I think effectively making a load more grammar schools would be popular with parents who don't necessarily hate the idea of private schools, but wouldn't quite have the means to send their child to one.

I'm not sure on the mechanics of it. I don't think many of the classrooms in my school would have been physically big enough to hold the class sizes you get in the state sector (including the selective state sector).

Pross

In theory that sounds OK to me bit I'm pretty sure that if they stopped being fee paying they would just cease to exist (or at least the vast majority). I've never understood why people get worked up about selection on academic ability. It also gives comprehensive schools a chance to specialise more in vocational subjects.

pblakeney

I went to comprehensive school and we were graded. It can be done.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Had a debate/disagreement with the wife over private schools, given that's going to be Starmer's equivalent of Fox Hunting, so I thought I'd test run a rather more radical idea with the forum.

How about we bin off all the fee paying schools but rather than just go full Lenin, turn them all into grammar schools, with as brutal or not academic entry requirements, as a sort of compromise between social mobility and equal opportunity and the advantages of elitism and competition?

It's not actually super fair and will still favour the better off, but then at least it is in part defined by the child's ability themselves and not exclusively by the means and desires of their parents.

I'd guess the money/ability split is maybe 70/30. Known exams are relatively straightforward to train for and paid tuition survives on its ability to get pupils into a given school. Not sure I see the advantage over the current system.

Pross

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

TBF, BBC News have reported the same.

I'm referring to bunching these headlines together. I don't think it's coincidence.

South Wales Police have also confirmed they are investigating the allegations which sort of reduces the list of those it may relate to.

super_davo

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Had a debate/disagreement with the wife over private schools, given that's going to be Starmer's equivalent of Fox Hunting, so I thought I'd test run a rather more radical idea with the forum.

How about we bin off all the fee paying schools but rather than just go full Lenin, turn them all into grammar schools, with as brutal or not academic entry requirements, as a sort of compromise between social mobility and equal opportunity and the advantages of elitism and competition?

It's not actually super fair and will still favour the better off, but then at least it is in part defined by the child's ability themselves and not exclusively by the means and desires of their parents.

I'd guess the money/ability split is maybe 70/30. Known exams are relatively straightforward to train for and paid tuition survives on its ability to get pupils into a given school. Not sure I see the advantage over the current system.

Both my daughters go to Grammar schools, we still have them in Essex. Some of their friends houses are amazing, and there is nobody that you'd call poor. That's not surprising given that if you want to get in, specific tuition for the exam is pretty much essential.
I'm totally in favour of them as a concept, but a lot of work is needed if you want to make them more egalitarian

secretsqirrel

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

Telegraph doing "innocent face"...

TBF, BBC News have reported the same.

I'm referring to bunching these headlines together. I don't think it's coincidence.

South Wales Police have also confirmed they are investigating the allegations which sort of reduces the list of those it may relate to.

Gethin of the white daps was on Morning Live this morning. So he’s OK.

briantrumpet

Mad Nads burning bridges... when even Simon Case admits her communications have been flagged.

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1679075838795345920

photonic69

Huw Edwards, eh. Who would have thunk it!?

kingstongraham

But the police say no criminal offence, so what's the big deal?

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

But the police say no criminal offence, so what's the big deal?

I guess it makes his status as a national treasure a little problematic, but that's about it. At least he got the dead Queenie gig out of the way first.

rick_chasey

What an industry.

F@ck up someone’s life for absolutely no reason.