This Just In!

[Bromptonaut]

It isn’t like Kelvin Mackenzie to be on completely the wrong side of a story.
His reference to the “Good Old Days” is particularly crass.

“Former editor of the Sun Kelvin MacKenzie has been speaking to our radio colleagues over at Radio 4 this afternoon. He says the identity of the BBC presenter would've been revealed by the newspaper in years gone by.

"In the good old days there would have been absolutely no doubt that the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the story would have been published," MacKenzie tells the World at One programme.”

At first I read the Good Old Days reference as being to the BBC programme of that name from the City Varieties in Leeds.....

 

[Mr Celine]

It does indeed. But there is no definition of what "not proven" means or why it is any different to "not guilty". Further "not proven" makes the defendant sound a little bit like they did do it but got away with it, and Jurors often think that's pretty much what it means. There are proposals to remove it.

Scots law originally had two verdicts, 'proven' and 'not proven'.

'Has the crown proven its case' is still the question a Scottish jury has to decide.

It would be more logical to remove the 'not guilty' verdict.

 

[Rusty Nails]

At first I read the Good Old Days reference as being to the BBC programme of that name from the City Varieties in Leeds.....

For your delight and delectation.......

 

[icowden]

Tell it to the judge.

I sit corrected. However, I will stand by the point that a not guilty verdict does not mean that you were found innocent.

Some of those are a bit outdated though. I mean "you have the right to legal aid" if you can't afford a lawyer. Well good luck in getting that!

 

[Pale Rider]

Shocked....The Sun and the truth 🙄

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678452840480612370?t=P4jhMiU84Sdd9ETQ0UvWwA&s=19

So presumably the BBC suspended one of its star names for nothing?

The lawyer, in turn, must be telling the truth.

Both flawed propositions.

It's obvious to an idiot something is afoot, which was in danger of being subject of yet another cover up - until The Sun came along.

His reference to the “Good Old Days” is particularly crass.

Mackenzie speaks like a tabloid hack, which members of the public may find crass and many other similar words.

But that shouldn't obscure his meaning, which is entirely correct.

I suppose most people would be pleased the press has been reined in during the last 20 years, although restrictions are always a mixed benefit and may have unintended negative consequences.

 

[icowden]

So presumably the BBC suspended one of its star names for nothing?

We don't know that it was one of their "star" names.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Difficult to sort wheat from chaff but some reports have mentioned a star sized salary.....

 

[Pale Rider]

We don't know that it was one of their "star" names.

All the reports suggest it is.

In any event 'a presenter' has been suspended, so as I said, something's afoot somewhere.

I concede the name being most bandied about on the internet would barely qualify for the term star, although he is on national BBC.

 

[Bromptonaut]

So presumably the BBC suspended one of its star names for nothing?

The lawyer, in turn, must be telling the truth.

Both flawed propositions.

It's obvious to an idiot something is afoot, which was in danger of being subject of yet another cover up - until The Sun came along.



Mackenzie speaks like a tabloid hack, which members of the public may find crass and many other similar words.

But that shouldn't obscure his meaning, which is entirely correct.

I suppose most people would be pleased the press has been reined in during the last 20 years, although restrictions are always a mixed benefit and may have unintended negative consequences.

If you were under investigation for an offence under your employer's staff code - bringing the organisation into disrepute? - would you expect to be suspended. I would.

Suspension is intended to remove the person from the workplace so as to prevent interference with material or witnesses. Or at least to reduce that risk to a minimum.

I agree something has happened; let's say mucky pics have been paid for.

If that's it, no laws broken, all involved competent and of age, is there a public interest in naming the guy?

 

[monkers]

People may be falling into the trap that suspension implies guilt or is punitive. It is not, there has to be the presumption of innocence, and the person must not be disadvantaged. It is a procedural method to prevent any interference in the investigation and hopefully keep all safe.

My own guess is that after receiving legal advice the son is now realising that guilt could be found on both sides. His own guilt being creating and distributing child pornography (doesn't matter if the images are himself) and of crack cocaine purchase and usage.

I'm sure there are better legal brains on the thread than mine though.

 

[Pale Rider]

If that's it, no laws broken, all involved competent and of age, is there a public interest in naming the guy

Maybe not, but the fact remains the family were getting nowhere until the sun came out.

At least this matter is now being properly scrutinised, which clearly wasn't going to happen until the press lent a hand.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Maybe not, but the fact remains the family were getting nowhere until the sun came out.

At least this matter is now being properly scrutinised, which clearly wasn't going to happen until the press lent a hand.

I know it's not absolutely the same but if the parents wanted advice about their 20+yo son then my GDPR training would question their right to disclose stuff and my authority to record it.

Could probably point them to places he could get help but, safeguarding apart, that might be it.

EDITED 09:57 for clarity.

 

[monkers]

wasn't going to happen until the press lent a hand.

Let's just let that sit here shall we?

 

[Bromptonaut]

People may be falling into the trap that suspension implies guilt or is punitive. It is not, there has to be the presumption of innocence, and the person must not be disadvantaged. It is a procedural method to prevent any interference in the investigation and hopefully keep all safe.

That.

Exactly.

 

[Pale Rider]

That.

Exactly.

Not really.

'People' are just massively interested in the tale, and are not too bothered about the ins and outs of a suspension policy.

The Sun's exclusive has literally gone around the globe, with dozens, if not more, foreign news outlets following it.

Not to mention dominating the news domestic news agenda.

There may be one or two higher minded individuals on here, although even they are sufficiently interested to post on the topic.

All anyone else cares about is: "Who has been a naughty boy then?"