Ian H
Legendary Member
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? You might have missed out on a beautiful evening.
This Just In!
- Thread starter icowden
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? You might have missed out on a beautiful evening.
mudsticks
Squire
Well done for totally missing the point @spen666
Top marks.👍🏼
I specifically said irrespective of whether or not it's 'technically legal'
This isn't a 'point of law' forum.
It's news and current affairs
There's such a thing as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, regardless of the technicalities of the law.
How can I know whether or not I 'like' the presenter, given I don't know who it is.?
Top marks.👍🏼
I specifically said irrespective of whether or not it's 'technically legal'
This isn't a 'point of law' forum.
It's news and current affairs
There's such a thing as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, regardless of the technicalities of the law.
How can I know whether or not I 'like' the presenter, given I don't know who it is.?
Last edited:
mudsticks
Squire
I know that, but is everything about 'legality' on here all of a sudden ??
OP
OP
icowden
Squire
No of course not, and it would still be career ending.
We do seem to have rather drifted off topic though, as I'm pretty sure this story counts as "news" !
mudsticks
Squire
It is 'news' yes, which isn't always about the 'technical legality' or otherwise of things, it's far far bigger than that.
But it's interesting how so many will jump.on the "But was it technically, legally excusable?" drift when a topic like this comes up. 🤔
spen666
Well-Known Member
Oh sorry i forgot that as well as ignoring niceties like allowing people to be not guilty, you now want to control what people post on here
As for missing the point, it is you who seems to miss the point that people are either guilty or not guilty. If they have not committed a crime, then its not a technicality that gets them off. IOts the fact that they are not guilty. There is more to most crimes than the actus reus
you really seem to have missed the point of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that not only are people innocent until proven guilty, but that it also applies to everyone, irrespective of their occupation.
Everyone is judged by the same laws irrespective of whether they work on TV or not
There's another thread on here where that is being hotly disputed!
mudsticks
Squire
Well actually you're the one trying to control whether or not this conversation can be about things beyond 'legal technicalities'
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
I'm in broadly the same camp as @spen666 on this, though as ever I'd express myself in a more nuanced fashion.
AIUI if I want to pay a very large sum of money for pictures on Only Fans or wherever of somebody in the buff and undertaking various sexual acts then provided they're consenting and over 18 it's possible no laws are broken. It might be a sh*t thing morally but as our courts remind us from time to time they're courts of law, not morals.
It seems quite possible that, if BBC man had an honestly held belief the the young man was, at all times, over 18 then no offence committed.
He should no more be named (and probably shamed if, until now we all accepted him as one of @theclaud's Ramrod Stiff Bird Biffers) then I should for some none offence at work.
AIUI if I want to pay a very large sum of money for pictures on Only Fans or wherever of somebody in the buff and undertaking various sexual acts then provided they're consenting and over 18 it's possible no laws are broken. It might be a sh*t thing morally but as our courts remind us from time to time they're courts of law, not morals.
It seems quite possible that, if BBC man had an honestly held belief the the young man was, at all times, over 18 then no offence committed.
He should no more be named (and probably shamed if, until now we all accepted him as one of @theclaud's Ramrod Stiff Bird Biffers) then I should for some none offence at work.
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
And Mudsticks has made it clear to you she is not debating this on the basis of legality but the social or moral acceptability of such behaviour.
spen666
Well-Known Member
To take a slightly different line on this. Based on the following information
X works for BBC (whether employed or freelance is irrelevant for my question)
X paid a 17 year old (Y) to send him sexual pictures/ videos over a period of time
It is illegal to request such material from someone under 18
I am a little unclear why the BBC are being castigated here. It is not clear from what I have read / heard that the man's employment by the BBC has any part in this matter arising.
I am also unclear why the family complained to the BBC and not to the police
If say a builder was alleged to have raped a person on a night out. Would you complain to Wimpey Homes as his employer or to the police?
Where there
On the information I have, namely X has not been arrested, let alone convicted of any offence, why should the BBC be being castigated.
Unless the person has used his employment at the BBC to get access to Y, then surely it is a matter for the police to investigate if there is a complaint not the BBC
It may well be there is more to this in relation to the BBC, but simply the fact he worked for the BBC is not enough to blame the BBC.
As well as Y having rights, so does X. He has the right not to have his career destroyed without being convicted of any crime, or even a breach of his contract of employment (or freelancing contract
X works for BBC (whether employed or freelance is irrelevant for my question)
X paid a 17 year old (Y) to send him sexual pictures/ videos over a period of time
It is illegal to request such material from someone under 18
I am a little unclear why the BBC are being castigated here. It is not clear from what I have read / heard that the man's employment by the BBC has any part in this matter arising.
I am also unclear why the family complained to the BBC and not to the police
If say a builder was alleged to have raped a person on a night out. Would you complain to Wimpey Homes as his employer or to the police?
Where there
On the information I have, namely X has not been arrested, let alone convicted of any offence, why should the BBC be being castigated.
Unless the person has used his employment at the BBC to get access to Y, then surely it is a matter for the police to investigate if there is a complaint not the BBC
It may well be there is more to this in relation to the BBC, but simply the fact he worked for the BBC is not enough to blame the BBC.
As well as Y having rights, so does X. He has the right not to have his career destroyed without being convicted of any crime, or even a breach of his contract of employment (or freelancing contract
spen666
Well-Known Member
Mudsticks brought up the issue of the law not me talking about people being acquitted on technicalities.
.
i am merely responding to her claim that even if not guilty people are guilt. There is no such thing as a technicality in criminal law. You have either been found guilty or you are innocent. If the prosecution cannot prove every element of the offence, then someone is not guilty. That is not a technicality, it is the basis of the criminal legal system and is recognised by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
I understand the reasons for his identity being currently kept hidden, so I agree that, for now, he needn’t be identified.
Assuming that the matter is investigated by the police, the suspect’s identity can be revealed once he is either arrested or charged.
I’m concerned by the BBC carrying on an investigation, since May, into what appears to be a crime instead of passing the entire thing over to the police immediately.
mudsticks
Squire
Ah great thanks @glasgowcyclist
Now it's been said in a properly 'manly' voice the message has got through..😉
And the point now been quietly dropped
Pornographication of bodies.
Abdication of duty around teaching 'true' (not assumed) consent.
Coercion, power, control, and healthy versus unhealthy sexual and other relationships.
And the 'normalising' of all kinds of porn and objectification, are not just some dry legal subject, as some would seem to prefer.
If you're bringing up, or having regular contact with youngsters in this age of porn being 'freely' available everywhere, then it's a much bigger, and more complicated conversation to be had..
