I’m pissed off poor Sweep has been dragged in. Imagine what Sweep has seen over the years.
I’m pissed off poor Sweep has been dragged in. Imagine what Sweep has seen over the years.
Its basically Confirmation Bias. People only remember the ones who look like the stereotype.The idea that you can tell who is a paedophile just by looking at them is crazy.
Sorry I got it wrong... 8 years later I think.At the time or in 2016? Sorry I’m trying to go back through the thread so I genuinely don’t know
It's been a tougher week for victims of sexual offences, who are sick of being asked "What did you do to make this happen? Why didn't you immediately go to the police? Why should that lovely man from the radio lose his job just because he was tricked into kissing a boy using a fake ID?"It's been a tough week for his colleagues.
Photographs/videosI don’t know if he’s guilty or not but the CPS deciding there is no enough evidence to feasibly secure a conviction is not ‘essentially cleared’. The alleged victim didn’t go to the police until 15 years after the time. I would imagine securing a conviction when digital media wasn’t a thing would be incredibly difficult. How do you provide evidence?
I didn’t notice that at first! Oh my daysIt's the shirt that really creeps me out.
Yeah I guess. I was around at the time but I don’t ever remember seeing a camera at TurnmillsPhotographs/videos
Yes but that’s what we don’t know. The three year part could mean Scott had a relationship with this boy when he was 15 that ended when he was 18-19? And did Scott know his age? If the three year part means the boy was 13 at his youngest, well, bring on the death penalty.No opinion on the sacking issue as we don't have much info.
I would like to point out that yes pretty much all of us have a story of snogging and or more with someone older, when out. That is hugely different to something that spans three years. So those who are forgiving that can get in the bin.
I presume turnmills is or was a club? The allegations span three years so I'd say plenty opportunity for a camera!Photographs/videos
Yeah I guess. I was around at the time but I don’t ever remember seeing a camera at Turnmills
Video was not a thing!
I presume turnmills is or was a club? The allegations span three years so I'd say plenty opportunity for a camera!Yeah I guess. I was around at the time but I don’t ever remember seeing a camera at Turnmills
Video was not a thing!
We don’t even know it was a relationship. All we know is that there was alleged sexual assault spanning 3 years.Yes but that’s what we don’t know. The three year part could mean Scott had a relationship with this boy when he was 15 that ended when he was 18-19? And did Scott know his age? If the three year part means the boy was 13 at his youngest, well, bring on the death penalty.
View attachment 3943702Yeah I guess. I was around at the time but I don’t ever remember seeing a camera at Turnmills
I was hoping it was an April fool but I'm not so sure.I honestly can't tell if this is a piss-take or someone with a form of cognitive impairment.
This means jack shit. Look at all the industry people that came out in defence of “poor Huw Edwards” before they knew more. Jon Sopel and Jeremy Vine to name two of them.Nihal was on someone’s show yesterday and he said it’s a very small industry and if people are wrong ‘uns people know and there are whispers in the corridor and it’s an open secret and this has been the situation with all the recent high profile cases. But he said he’s worked with Scott for many years and he’s never heard a bad word said about him.
Exactly this. Imagine if people could only be dismissed from a job if they’ve been found guilty of a crime? His behaviour breached professional standards, so they have let him go.This means jack shit. Look at all the industry people that came out in defence of “poor Huw Edwards” before they knew more. Jon Sopel and Jeremy Vine to name two of them.
This thread reminds me of the early days of the Huw Edwards scandal. Although less busy and fewer bum pics. But very much ‘this seems too harsh, he’s not been charged with anything, maybe it’s false allegations’.
If SM has been unfairly dismissed, then he has legal options he can take. But I expect BBC won’t have taken this decision lightly and whatever evidence they have is substantial enough to justify such a swift decision. It might not meet criminal standards but it doesn’t need to. And I’m glad employers don’t need criminal standards of proof before sacking people for poor conduct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?