I’m pissed off poor Sweep has been dragged in. Imagine what Sweep has seen over the years.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The idea that you can tell who is a paedophile just by looking at them is crazy.
Its basically Confirmation Bias. People only remember the ones who look like the stereotype.
Sorry I got it wrong... 8 years later I think.
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?"
We don't know what happened, but what we do know is that he wasn't cleared of anything, he is alleged to have committed serious sexual offences over a period of three years and the alleged victim was under 16 years old.
As a decent human being, with a natural instinct to protect children and vulnerable people, my immediate thoughts are with the victim(s) and I cannot think of any logical reason why I would be looking for ways to discredit him(them).
[/QUOTE]
Photographs/videos
I didn’t notice that at first! Oh my days
Photographs/videos
[/QUOTE]
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!
[/QUOTE]
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!
Yeah I guess. I was around at the time but I don’t ever remember seeing a camera at Turnmills
[/QUOTE]
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.
I presume turnmills is or was a club? The allegations span three years so I'd say plenty opportunity for a camera!
I presume turnmills is or was a club? The allegations span three years so I'd say plenty opportunity for a camera!
[/QUOTE]
I think it would have been discovered whilst trying to make it though Muscle Alley.
Photographs/videos
How and why would an under 16 year old have photographic or video evidence of themselves being abused? I mean, sure it is possible but it seems highly unlikely, no? Especially considering this was the late 90's.
How and why would an under 16 year old have photographic or video evidence of themselves being abused? I mean, sure it is possible but it seems highly unlikely, no? Especially considering this was the late 90's.
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 3943702
[/QUOTE]
Well no wonder I didn’t notice that - I’m 5’4”
But really there would have to be photos of them together and if SM was aware of the kid’s age he would have been careful not to be in photos. Remember that for gay men, the age of consent was still 18. It wasn’t reduced to 16 until 2001
I was hoping it was an April fool but I'm not so sure.
Has the bridge been renamed or just taken his name off?
And oh no someone has messed up a quote, stop quoting where it's messed up
And oh no someone has messed up a quote, stop quoting where it's messed up
This means jack tit. 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.
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.
- Status