This is a very good point. In which case they would have dismissed it as homophobia.I think one thing worth remembering is until 2000, the age of consent for 'homosexual acts' was still higher at 18, even though it was 16 otherwise. So someone would still be 'underage' in the eyes of the law at 16-17, even though they can consent to sex with the opposite gender. It's also likely the charge wasn't one we'd use today (since it happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in effect) so they might have just been told he was being investigated for a 'buggery' charge or 'lewd and lascivious behaviour' which wouldn't immediately ring alarms in the way a 'sexual activity with a person under 16' charge would today.
Personally I'm not sure how much the police would actually disclose to an accused's employer though beyond any charges and incident dates.
I've had a justice-related job where we sometimes had to contact police forces regarding cases, and most forces flat-out refuse to answer any questions while enquiries are still ongoing (even when you're just asking to clarify a typo in the date the police already gave, because I don't think it is going to 'jeopardise the case' if you just confirm nobody time travelled to future so I can log the correct date please).
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
But isn't that kinda what we're here for, to discuss what has been reported? Sorry I'm quite new to discussion forums and trying to abide by the etiquette but it's quite confusing!?am thinking the exact same thing
Yes it was a time when adult men actively pursued sexual relationships with children. That makes them unfit to have a job where they have repeated and frequent contact with children of a similar age.
Good point... but would the organisation see the evidence made available to the CPS? Presumably the police would find some allegations had no credence whatsoever and wouldn't go as far as handing evidence to the CPS? That would help distinguish between an unfounded allegation and one with some weight.
You have to just be careful that you aren’t presenting speculation as fact. If you’re just speculating then say that and if you’re presenting facts, back them up with receipts ie screenshots/ links to news pages.
Does anyone know why the DM would turn off commenting on some of the SM articles, or any articles for that matter?
Agreed, I think people lose sight of this sometimes. Speculation is (mostly) fine, as long as you're clear that it is speculation
For legal reasons, I’d guess. They don’t want to be sued for hosting defamatory comments, or for hosting comments that could prejudice a police investigation if an investigation ensues.
And the comment I was replying to wasn't about this specific allegation, it was about a generic situation.
all in all, for everyone involved, it's a right mess isn't it! there's bound to be this speculation going on with the info being released, some of it a little confusing & even contradictory. i doubt the full facts will be made public any time soon, if at all, but i bet there's a hell of a lot of activity going on at the bbc to absolutely check what was known, & more importantly, when.
Apologies if this has been mentioned before as I haven’t read the whole thread but I think possibly the parents complained in the late 90’s to the police and the victim may have denied it at the time. Now he is much older and possibly prompted by the HE documentary he realised that actually what happened to him was NOT ok and he decided to go to the police.
This is exactly it. It's fine to post here saying things along the line of "I wonder whether... " "Maybe he did..." and so on. It's what makes Tattle interesting.
It's a huge problem when people start posting incorrect information with authority, and then are unable to give any source to back it up, other than a vague "I read it earlier" or "my neighbour who was once an extra on 'The Bill' told me".
Has the Mirror(spit) been muzzled about what they are allowed to print in case it prejudices proceedings, or do we think a big expose'
is coming at the weekend, maybe? I absolutely believe the BBC had no choice regarding the sacking, otherwise why aren't we hearing about lawsuits re: unfair dismissal? Something stinks!
is coming at the weekend, maybe? I absolutely believe the BBC had no choice regarding the sacking, otherwise why aren't we hearing about lawsuits re: unfair dismissal? Something stinks!
Yes same. I’m pleased though for the alleged victim, that he hasn’t been faced with a public denial or SM attempting to diminish what may have happened, in front of the world.
No
because as has been said, the “balance of probabilities” test would be applied to an employment/contractual charge such as “bringing the organisation into disrepute” not “is this a nunce we have working here?” An employer would never need to decide if there has been abuse of a child, that’s the police’s job.
Discuss, yes. Create a fantasy theory and run with it over many posts, no, not in my opinion.
You are correct.
So which Haven Caravan Park is he singing with Gaby Starbuck this Summer?
I listened to SM a lot over the years and he said so many times he’s doing his absolute dream job and he’s so lucky etc. I wonder whether he knew that he was sitting on information that would mean it could all come crashing down, or if he genuinely thought the whole thing was closed never to be looked at again / he didn’t do anything wrong.
I can’t imagine being that public facing and taking such high profile jobs that bring the public into your life (talking about his husband, wedding, house move, niece, mum etc) knowing you’re sat on this huge lie that could take everything you’ve worked so hard for decades right out from under you and also destroy your reputation and impact those around you forever.
I can’t imagine being that public facing and taking such high profile jobs that bring the public into your life (talking about his husband, wedding, house move, niece, mum etc) knowing you’re sat on this huge lie that could take everything you’ve worked so hard for decades right out from under you and also destroy your reputation and impact those around you forever.
I wonder if his excessive drinking was in any way down to having all this hanging over his head and knowing it might all come out. He appeared (to me, at least) to be slurring a bit on his final show, and according to the papers his show was the morning after he'd had "tense" discussions with BBC bosses.
Interesting, I can’t say I noticed the slurring although I do remember the infamous post Brits (?) show where he was drunk and that was when he was dealing with the death of a partner so yes you could well have a point!
- Status