Cold Blood? He’s a great actor, loved him in Benidorm too.Matthew Kelly is a damned fine theatre actor. He has been in things on TV too, and I remember watching him as a serial killer in a drama, which was creepy as hell!
Cold Blood? He’s a great actor, loved him in Benidorm too.Matthew Kelly is a damned fine theatre actor. He has been in things on TV too, and I remember watching him as a serial killer in a drama, which was creepy as hell!
How do you know it’s an extreme sacking when you are not privy to the information the BBC had recently? Tim Davie is saying the new information made it clear what decision they had to make.So the latest is he was sacked now because the BBC have only just found out that the alleged incident was with a minor under 16 which I find hard to believe when the Winter Key investigation was exactly that investigating child abuse allegations.
I'm still of the opinion that he's been sacked because of BBCs now zero tolerance policy which I understand but he was not arrested or charged. Would this happen to someone in a normal job? All employees must now be whiter than white.
They were rubbish with the way they handle the Huw stuff and have gone extreme with this sacking. I'll happily hold my hands up if proper evidence comes to light but at this moment in time there is nothing to go on.
That's a fair question that hadn't crossed my mind but a bbc did have this that says allegations plural.Did the “relationship” span three years or is the statement that the interaction took place at some point between 1997 and 2000?
Genuine question - I couldn’t make it out from the reports.
Similarly with the investigation starting in 2016 and being closed in 2019 - would it have been active that whole time or was it a case of, ‘we’re now closing it because nothing came of it in the last three years’ kind of thing?
He was investigated for serious sexual assault, which can be committed against people of any age! It just happens that his alleged victim was also under 16.So if the bbc are now saying they've only just found out the alleged victim was under 16, what did they think sm was being investigated for? It doesn't make sense. Although that's usually the case with the bbc.
How has Elaine Paige survived so long? She sounds as pissed as a fart on her musical show, me and hubby joke you can almost hear the glasses chinking as she presents. i switch off when she comes onI 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.
If he was investigated as part of Winter Key, my understanding is that this was an investigation into childhood sexual abuse...... so it would seem the BBC would have known the alleged victim was under 18....He was investigated for serious sexual assault, which can be committed against people of any age! It just happens that his alleged victim was also under 16.
Yes, I think it was the under 16 part they are claiming not to have known about.If he was investigated as part of Winter Key, my understanding is that this was an investigation into childhood sexual abuse...... so it would seem the BBC would have known the alleged victim was under 18....
From previous posts and dates, I was just highlighting that the BBC always seemingly knew it was someone under 18, which was below the age of consent at the time. So their current argument about only recently finding out the alleged victim was under 16, doesn't hold much weight imo.Yes, I think it was the under 16 part they are claiming not to have known about.
Would the BBC know that he was investigated part of Winter Key specifically?If he was investigated as part of Winter Key, my understanding is that this was an investigation into childhood sexual abuse...... so it would seem the BBC would have known the alleged victim was under 18....
I'm probably putting this badly, but it comes across as the bbc were ok with the serious sexual assault bit, just not the underage bit.He was investigated for serious sexual assault, which can be committed against people of any age! It just happens that his alleged victim was also under 16.
I’m behind and caching up so sorry if this has been said, but I haven’t seen anywhere else that the original report to police was made by a third party. I had assumed it was by the alleged victim.
He's been seen out and about, so he cannot be that bothered to not be keeping a low profile. The BBC have to say what new evidence came to light. They are encouraging a pile on by being vague.
I think this goes into that slippery slope discussion though which is something most people didn’t seem comfortable about when the story first came outI'm probably putting this badly, but it comes across as the bbc were ok with the serious sexual assault bit, just not the underage bit.
That's really the only way it makes sense.Third party could also explain the original case 2016-2019 not having enough evidence, Also BBC saying new information has come to light & they are in contact with the alleged victim. Maybe he's now feeling able to talk about what happened
Yes, if the young person didn’t / wouldn’t / couldn’t engage with the original police investigation - for whatever reason - that could seriously diminish the weight of the case.Third party could also explain the original case 2016-2019 not having enough evidence, Also BBC saying new information has come to light & they are in contact with the alleged victim. Maybe he's now feeling able to talk about what happened