By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So…who is this unnamed BBC “household name” accused of paying for “naughty pics”?
In a reverse of the usual, I’m going to list my top 3 who I hope and believe it’s not (which means, of course, no football presenters - it couldn’t of course ever be one of those overpaid tossers who are all as good as gold…!).
Yeah i would have added employer, but all still private and not for scum like the sun to frontpage like they did.
Well it turns out the BBC were/are already carrying out an investigation. Don’t think you should blame the Sun ( no matter what your normal view of that tabloid) they came to story because the mother was getting no satisfactory response from police or BBC, apparently. There’s likely more to follow, though it’s just noise considering all the other social issues.
Jonathan Pie has got this wrong in my humble opinion, a crime/crimes have potentially been committed and internal BBC HR issues have occurred and it is not just a case of a man watching porn as he indicates. The first allegation is of either grooming/ indecent images of a child based on when the contact started and when the images were shared by either party. People will point to the police not investigating further but I’m not sure that says much given grooming of 17 is such a hard issue to deal with in courts given you have to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt and given the arbitrary difference between how gullible/suggestible a 17 years and 364 day old person is and one that is 18 years exactly. Far more likely to be proven in an internal BBC review where the burden is much lower to find him guilty and will likely give a more realistic answer as to what actually happened. Also the BBC I imagine gets a large number of complaints about their stars but throw a lot of them out early due to no evidence, given this is being fast tracked and not been thrown straight out there must be something more to it than the fictitious complaints they get on other stars.
Secondly this allegation (which the bbc has verified phone numbers) where Huw sent threatening texts to someone that was going to out him, that’s clearly harassment.
Thirdly there’s an allegation of him messaging a 17 year old with love hearts and kisses (while not criminal unless the messages went further) it definitely is questionable behaviour for a bbc presenter.
The lockdown breach allegation, I’m sure we are all bored of these coming up, but again is not something an employer that is nationally funded can just accept without reprimand.
Then the internal messages to far younger colleagues for no good reason are something I have actually seen a colleague get fired for.
I imagine you will come back saying that these are only making the headlines because he is a celebrity. Well I’m afraid that’s part of the celebrity lifeCHOICE, he signed a contract with a national broadcaster knowing he would be under a greater spotlight. My cousin is an actress, it makes newspapers when she tries out a new haircut, when I get married it does not. Pretty annoying for her but we both picked our career paths.
There is a reason we are all writing on a football page and that is global interest, the modern celebrity has to accept their lack of anonymity as a risk when picking that career. They are being justly rewarded, look at the relative salary of a footballer now compared to 100 years ago. So yes, when they mess up we all get to judge it, especially when it is by a celebratory whose salary is tax payer funded.
Jonathan Pie has got this wrong in my humble opinion, a crime/crimes have potentially been committed and internal BBC HR issues have occurred and it is not just a case of a man watching porn as he indicates. The first allegation is of either grooming/ indecent images of a child based on when the contact started and when the images were shared by either party. People will point to the police not investigating further but I’m not sure that says much given grooming of 17 is such a hard issue to deal with in courts given you have to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt and given the arbitrary difference between how gullible/suggestible a 17 years and 364 day old person is and one that is 18 years exactly. Far more likely to be proven in an internal BBC review where the burden is much lower to find him guilty and will likely give a more realistic answer as to what actually happened. Also the BBC I imagine gets a large number of complaints about their stars but throw a lot of them out early due to no evidence, given this is being fast tracked and not been thrown straight out there must be something more to it than the fictitious complaints they get on other stars.
Secondly this allegation (which the bbc has verified phone numbers) where Huw sent threatening texts to someone that was going to out him, that’s clearly harassment.
Thirdly there’s an allegation of him messaging a 17 year old with love hearts and kisses (while not criminal unless the messages went further) it definitely is questionable behaviour for a bbc presenter.
The lockdown breach allegation, I’m sure we are all bored of these coming up, but again is not something an employer that is nationally funded can just accept without reprimand.
Then the internal messages to far younger colleagues for no good reason are something I have actually seen a colleague get fired for.
I imagine you will come back saying that these are only making the headlines because he is a celebrity. Well I’m afraid that’s part of the celebrity lifeCHOICE, he signed a contract with a national broadcaster knowing he would be under a greater spotlight. My cousin is an actress, it makes newspapers when she tries out a new haircut, when I get married it does not. Pretty annoying for her but we both picked our career paths.
There is a reason we are all writing on a football page and that is global interest, the modern celebrity has to accept their lack of anonymity as a risk when picking that career. They are being justly rewarded, look at the relative salary of a footballer now compared to 100 years ago. So yes, when they mess up we all get to judge it, especially when it is by a celebratory whose salary is tax payer funded.
[Post edited 14 Jul 2023 17:49]
I just feel a bit sorry for poor old Frank Bough, the one time comforting, reassuring face of BBC sport.
Sure he indulged in a little wife swapping, bondage and sex parties, but he didn’t break the law either. His career (like he himself) was however well and truly fvcked.
No crime committed (unlike Savile and co) but the BBC were seemingly not comfortable with the thought that his avuncular face had been places most viewers could hardly contemplate as they waited for the teleprinter at 4.50 on a Saturday afternoon. No counselling or sympathy for him - just the order of the boot (which come to think of it, he may have enjoyed a little)…
I just feel a bit sorry for poor old Frank Bough, the one time comforting, reassuring face of BBC sport.
Sure he indulged in a little wife swapping, bondage and sex parties, but he didn’t break the law either. His career (like he himself) was however well and truly fvcked.
No crime committed (unlike Savile and co) but the BBC were seemingly not comfortable with the thought that his avuncular face had been places most viewers could hardly contemplate as they waited for the teleprinter at 4.50 on a Saturday afternoon. No counselling or sympathy for him - just the order of the boot (which come to think of it, he may have enjoyed a little)…
It is interesting how these "revelations" always seem to happen towards the end of a TV personality's career, it's like they take the best years and then the expose happens, true or otherwise. Maybe it saves on a big fat pension? Either way it shows the BBC is rotten to the core.
Thanks for the memory of the teleprinter!
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
