Forum Topic

Jury by media!!! ???????

I dislike the news about the young child as much as anybody else.But, hand in heart, jury by media is even worse, particularly when you take into consideration that the Rupert Murdoch empire wishes to destroy the BBC.Am I angry?  That is an understament!!!!!!!!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 705d76 Comments

BBC staff commenting on the story is not the same as the BBC covering the story.BBC news staff coving the story was perfectly propper as part of the BBC news. BBC staff commenting on the story was improper and unprofessional IMO.As mentioned if the allegation and processes were sufficient it would not have been a story.There will be a review of BBC internal processes according to R4. Also according to various reports:"The BBC’s annual staff survey, which was finalized in May, showed that 38% of 16,622 employees questioned did not endorse the statement: “I believe any bullying or harassment concern I raise will be dealt with appropriately.”https://deadline.com/2023/07/bbc-concerns-complaints-procedures-huw-edwards-1235439489/

Ed Robinson ● 698d

Sorry, I don't know why it blew that up so large

Richard Carter ● 698d

From the current Private Eye...

Richard Carter ● 698d

There is a parliamentary committee questioning the BBC right now being televised.Here is something that gives an idea of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and climate change:https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733

Philippa Bond ● 698d

I agree, I think the BBC was going to be criticised either way and I don't feel we know all the details yet. To be honest now it's clear no criminal act was committed it's now for the BBC to make sure its controls are adequate for further incidents; however, whether one likes or dislikes Mr Murdoch surely so much media power in the hands of an unelected person but who can apparently influence world leaders and elections must be bad for democracy? The BBC has its faults but it is regulated in terms of reporting balance. Interestingly, over the years I've seen it criticised both by the left and right for bias - perhaps that suggests they may have got it about right overall but at times do get it wrong. Plus, many people outside of the UK see it as a reliable source of news and information.Ed's probably right that public service bodies should all have independent investigations - that should also apply to the police, members of the Commons and Lords, the Monarchy, etc who are funded by taxpayers? If one's investigating oneself a cover up must be tempting? Some broadcasters' salaries are unnecessarily high in my opinion. That seems to be part of the current public desire for individual personality and presentation over substance, knowledge and attention to technical detail? The BBC is only responding to a market where celebrity salaries are seemingly driven up by commercial broadcasters. Presumably, that's because to maintain ratings and not lose personalities to its competitors the BBC has to match these market rates to please its audience. That's the basic capitalist market economy we live in, isn't it?

Michael Ixer ● 698d

Also, please see The Times headline on today's paper.  You can sees it on The Papers on the BBC.The title:"The BBC faces official review of "unsustainable" licence fee model".....  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ivonne Holliday ● 698d

I agree with Richard.  As the saying goes:  the BBC would have been dammed if they did and dammed if they did not report it.Also, it is very well known that Rupert Murdoch hates the BBC or, better said, the way the BBC is funded.Rupert Murdoch has a very "colourful" history and, as owner of The Sun and The Times he does what he very well pleases.  Did he not have the News of the World closed?You say that "there would be no story of the BBC had investigated this properly back in May."  Do you have any proof that they did not and what was the information they had at the time?  I do not know and it would be helpful if you could enlighten me.  Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 698d

This thread is about one section of the media attacking another so as to distract from all the other subjects that should be being discussed.  Not instead of but as well as.

Philippa Bond ● 699d

Start your own thread about what you want it to be about and not making every post about what you want it to be about. Do you understand Philippa, if you are unable to have a discussion on the subject everybody else is discussing then don't join in. Start your own post.

Barbara Stevens ● 699d

There would be no story if the BBC had investigated this properly back in May.  There is no gutter press or enemies of the BBC.  Again your language divides.  Why on earth are we paying from a publicly funded company presenters such vast salaries.  The balance of power can’t help but be skewed.

Robert Wheeler ● 699d

Yes it's just too much taking attention away from the enormous crises facing us all which we should all be looking to alleviate and find solutions for.

Philippa Bond ● 699d

An easy comment to make - but if they hadn't covered the story, the gutter press would have accused them of ignoring it.  Whatever they did, the BBC couldn't win against its self-serving enemies.

Richard Carter ● 699d

What helped to keep the story in the headlines was BBC staff commenting on the story.In most organisations a message would be sent to ask all staff to refrain from commenting. Was this done? It doesn't appear so.

Ed Robinson ● 699d

I think that's right: it'll have come from the point in a Google search where it says "About xxx results [in the] Past [period]." But it doesn't invalidate the comparison, though.

Richard Carter ● 699d

To get 295000 he must be counting social media posts. Otherwise there must be thousands of media outlets in the country that most of us have never heard of.

Andy Pike ● 699d

To put this whole business into perspective, there's an interesting article by George Monbiot in the Guardian today, in which he comments that there have so far this year been more than 10,000 stories about Philip Schofield in the media this year, compared with 5 (five!) on a scientific paper showing that the chances of simultaneous crop losses in the world's major growing regions caused by climate breakdown appear to have been dangerously underestimated.Even worse, there have been about 295,000 stories about Huw Edwards *in the last week alone*. What an astonishing reflection of the news values of the media!

Richard Carter ● 699d

All are newsworthy stories.If you want to pick and choose what stories appear on the front page then perhaps you should run your own newspaper.The BBC however is publicly funded and it is in the public interest if their procedures and reforms are not robust enough to prevent the recurrence of the institutional abuse of power.I would like to see such allegations investigated independently perhaps by OFCOM and a similar independent external process for political parties that receive public funds.Newspapers should expand IPSO powers to include staff allegations.Pretending there is not an issue is perhaps the worse thing that can happen!

Ed Robinson ● 700d

A good distraction from so much other news including three by-elections and the hottest weather ever and devastating floods.

Philippa Bond ● 700d

With the BBC investigating the BBC before the Sun story broke are we going to get an equal outcry? Were they trying to destroy the BBC or just trying to get to the truth in an industry that does not have the best reputation.An interesting article below:https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/media/961072/nick-cohen-philip-schofield-and-british-medias-own-metoo-reckoning

Ed Robinson ● 702d

"Speaking on their podcast The News Agents, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel questioned why staff, who claimed they had been sent “inappropriate messages by the newsreader, had not informed HR. It came after it was reported that BBC journalists were already working on a potential expose about Mr Edwards, before The Sun published allegations he paid a teenager for explicit images."https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/huw-edwards-bbc-presenter-wife-sex-scandal-b2375177.html

Ed Robinson ● 702d

"Vicky Flind, the wife of newsreader Huw Edwards, has issued a statement on his behalf, naming him as the BBC presenter facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images.Here is her statement in full:"In light of the recent reporting regarding the 'BBC Presenter' I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult days for our family."I am doing this primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children."Huw is suffering from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years."The events of the last few days have greatly worsened matters, he has suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he'll stay for the foreseeable future."Once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published."To be clear Huw was first told that there were allegations being made against him last Thursday."In the circumstances and given Huw's condition I would like to ask that the privacy of my family and everyone else caught up in these upsetting events is respected."I know that Huw is deeply sorry that so many colleagues have been impacted by the recent media speculation. We hope this statement will bring that to an end.""https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66182922

David Ainsworth ● 703d

I only put this post on the forum originally, because it was strange about the TV Licence meant to be going up and the same story line in Emmerdale and Eastenders. It was taking a long time for him to be named and not just me most people were curious to who he was or she was. Especially after Phillip Schoffield.  I also put the same message on facebook to see if anybody knew who it might be.  Somebody replied in private messenger. It might not have been him, but turned out it was. That's all there was to it, so does this mean all men who have this problem of contacting young girls have mental problems, or just bored with their married life. Prince Andrew so has he got mental problems. There will be a lot of men now making the excuse they have mental problems.

Barbara Stevens ● 703d

"Are you suggesting that justifies exploitation of those between 16 & 18??”No, obviously. What a strange suggestion!

Richard Carter ● 703d

"whatever The Sun says, it must be disregarded as gutter press."Yes but what press are you relying upon that is non-gutter?

Ed Robinson ● 703d

I am sorry, but the Daily Mail is not something I follow.  Having said this, the Julian Assange affair is scandalous from a moral, western, British and American point of view.As for the BBC, we must agree to disagree.  They have made many mistakes - some of which are unforgivable.  But, under the present circumstances, I will most categorically say that whatever The Sun says, it must be disregarded as gutter press.

Ivonne Holliday ● 703d

"I am not aware that racism comes into this one iota...""If it was racism the organisation would be deemed to be institutionally racist." was my comment. With the BBC it s concerning predatory sexual behaviour using power and influence.Putin does lock up journalists.  I thought you were referring to journalists in the UK being locked up.  Please let me know which ones have been locked up in the UK."Really?? You must be watching too much BBC news:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12206375/PETER-HITCHENS-time-save-Julian-Assange-dying-dungeon.html"Your link takes me to a Huw Edwards rolling commentary.  I am sorry, but cannot read it in full at the moment.  Please clarify your comments."On the link: "The BBC is facing fresh allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Edwards towards more junior staffTwo current BBC workers and one former member of staff said they had been sent messages that made them feel uncomfortable""that there was no criminality, .."Yes I could add that the same was said for Sir Jim, but my point was about standards of public institutions and young people not criminality.

Ed Robinson ● 703d

I am not aware that racism comes into this one iota.  Do you have any proof that the Edwards case is enshrined in racism?Murdoch interference has always been subject to criticism - foreign or not - the Murdoch family have always "interfered" with the press - including Australia in their earlier days.  Tribal???  Putin does lock up journalists.  I thought you were referring to journalists in the UK being locked up.  Please let me know which ones have been locked up in the UK.Your link takes me to a Huw Edwards rolling commentary.  I am sorry, but cannot read it in full at the moment.  Please clarify your comments.As far as calling for an independent body, I am still not clear which cases you refer to.  Government ministers misbehaving, only BBC staff misbehaving and/or other high brow "personalities" misbehaving?  A sweeping generalization of influential people misbehaving as being the fault of the BBC is taking it to extremes.  I repeat myself, if the police, in the case of Huw Edwards, have confirmed twice (the first time in April 2023) that there was no criminality, would you say, hand in hand, that the Sun behaved impeccably and impartially when it published its stories??  Everything can be improved, and golly, today, the meaning of everything is higher than the Burj Khalifa in Dubai!! Including the press, the government and many more!!!But the BBC is not solely responsible for all ills.  And, it appears, that in this case, the drums of war were beaten before the proof was provided.

Ivonne Holliday ● 703d

Exactly David - but only now are they "foreign forces"!

Ed Robinson ● 703d

Yes Richard,The laws have been changed since then.Are you suggesting that justifies exploitation of those between 16 & 18??You could join the armed forces get killed and not be old enough to vote. In other countries we would call them child soldiers.Improvements have been made which we should acknowledge and be proud of but more work is needed.A reminder of how little the UK valued it's young people.https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/Briefing_from_Forces_Watch_age_of_recruitment.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 703d

"some cases that warrant criticism of the BBC"Really? But the question is are the processes now robust enough for it not to happen again? If it was racism the organisation would be deemed to be institutionally racist."Second:  I am not too sure the past justifies the present"Of course it doesn't - but Murdoch interference has been over decades but only now is he deemed "foreign interference". Sorry but this does seem like tribal nonsense when he is not singing the tune to which one agrees."Third:  I cannot follow this one"Yes it's hard for the establishment to admit that like Putin lock journalists up. See no evil..."Fourth:  Which current/former members have come forward with complaints and what was the nature of these?"It's on the BBC website for several days. Please read:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469"Lsstly, what defence and what tribalism that excuses bad behaviour and low standards?"No one is suggesting that Murdoch is anything other than what he is. Likewise the BBC with it's history of institutional abuse and covering up also deserves no such free pass.Where we have very powerful people mixing with very young people and in some recent cases below adult age - it is my view that such organisations with a repeated history of abuse and cover up (let's call it institutional abuse) should outsource such investigations to independent bodies. Until we are satisfied that our institutions are fit for purpose then yes I will side with caution be it from the Murdoch , the Mail  or even other foreign papers such as the FT, Independent ...

Ed Robinson ● 703d

Was that "The Sun"? They have always been concerned about the pub(l)ic interest, luv 'em.

David Ainsworth ● 703d

My memory isn't what it was, but wasn't that the paper that featured Samantha Fox, topless, on page 3 when she was only 16?

Richard Carter ● 703d

Also, could you kindly remind me which newspaper had a page 3?

Ivonne Holliday ● 703d

I am sorry, Ed, but you have completely lost me.First: The BBC does not have a good reputation for investigating such matters.  I agree that there have been some cases that warrant criticism of the BBC.Second:  I am not too sure the past justifies the present.  Two wrongs do not make one right.Third:  I cannot follow this one.  Which journalist and for which case?Fourth:  Which current/former members have come forward with complaints and what was the nature of these?Lsstly, what defence and what tribalism that excuses bad behaviour and low standards?  Did the police not confirm, not only once but twice, that there was no criminality involved in the Huw Edwards case?  Are you implying that the police are working through murky waters?I would suggest that The Sun published this story to increase its circulation and certainly decided that one person was the complete and utter guilty party, without questioning if the other party was completly truthful or white.  Trial and jury by media.  Unacceptable is just the beginning.  Taking over the BBC was its aim - it always has been. Remember Rebecca Brooks and all the scandal surrounding the News of the World?  Who owned the News of the World?

Ivonne Holliday ● 703d

First of all the BBC does not have a very good reputation for investigating such matters. It would be better for all if such allegations were independently investigated.Second - there was absolutely nothing wrong with the newspaper when Blair was at No 10 and Murdoch was a member of his extended family. Apparently the agenda for the paper was set for the week following discussions at number 10.Third - we have a journalist locked up in prison under the charge of revealing the truth. Like it or not we actually need  journalists no matter what their political opinion. A starving man will take crumbs from any table.Fourth - the BBC has said on their website that three current/former members have come forward with complaints. Like it or not this does appear to be in the public's interest. It is a organisation that receives its income from applying a heavy handed tax on the population. We absolutely should expect high standards in return.What has made this story bigger than it should have been is the defence at any cost and the usual tribalism that will excuse bad behaviour and low standards if they are aligned with certain people's political view.

Ed Robinson ● 703d

And, above all, the police have confirmed that there was no criminal activity.I am not lost for words, these are ones that are not supposed to be written!And it all centers on Mr Murdoch wishing to destroy and/or take over the BBC! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Ivonne Holliday ● 703d

There may be factors that depend on the version of the phone's operating system but I would like to think it's not easy to break the encryption on phones. There was a whole saga about Apple giving access to an iPhone for the FBI:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_disputeApple couldn't or wouldn't, although I believe it was done - probably by someone exploiting an error in Apple's code - by another party at a significant cost but subsequent Apple OS versions can't be breached with the same software. I suspect Android code may be more vulnerable than Apple's but it would still require someone to find a bug and write code to exploit it - it's possible Chinese, Russian, North Korean - or even Iranian - hackers have done that! I doubt HMG has access to that. Most breaches are done by secreting malware onto the phone that replicates messages as they are sent and received and sends them to the malware writer - it's far easier than breaking encryption. It may be the "geeks" at GCHQ can do this but if they can they probably won't as they wouldn't want to admit they can :-)Nothing is 100% secure but I don't think it would be described as easy to break into a phone … otherwise the online safety bill wouldn't be looking for ways to circumvent or have a "back door " into encrypted traffic, although that's more geared at encryption of messages in transit rather than encryption of data stored on a phone.

Michael Ixer ● 703d

Considering the massive problems the country faces, including the cost of living crisis, escalating mortgage costs, rocketing inequality, low pay and poverty, the NHS in meltdown, the war in Ukraine, above all the climate emergency (and that isn't even in Sunak's list of five pledges/promises/hopes/whatever they are currently), how extraordinary it is that the tabloid newspapers are completely ignoring them in order to concentrate on the dubious behaviour of a man who reads the news, in the process making vicious, self-serving attacks on the BBC! Disgusting doesn't even begin to cover it.

Richard Carter ● 703d

Well, "the dog ate my mobile" excuse has been superseded by an even less credible one: Johnson now claims he's forgotten the passcode. I'm no tech expert (Mike Ixer is, though) but I believe it isn't too hard to crack the code?

Richard Carter ● 703d

Hello Michael,"The Sun is now trying to say they didn't mean to imply any criminal offence had been committed inthe BBC case ... mmmm ..."Mmmmmmmmmmmmm indeed!  "It would appear that the phone is with Mr Johnson's lawyers and that because it hasn't been turned on for a long time there are technical issues with getting access to the messages."Technical issues that an IT or phone expert could not solve them or circumvent? Also, three years a very long time???

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

It would appear that the phone is with Mr Johnson's lawyers and that because it hasn't been turned on for a long time there are technical issues with getting access to the messages. It would appear that the Sun's reporting of the BBC HR matter, whilst obviously important to those involved, does seem to have obfuscated the reporting of matters of national, if not global, importance. I doubt that BBC reporters alleged misdemeanours are of much importance to Ukraine but their application to join NATO should interest us all?The Sun is now trying to say they didn't mean to imply any criminal offence had been committed inthe BBC case ... mmmm ...

Michael Ixer ● 704d

It was an attack by The Sun on the BBC.Meanwhile other important news was not being reported eg Boris Johnson not handing in his mobile phone as promised.

Philippa Bond ● 704d

As the chair of the cyber security round table I was at said this evening, it's going to be a difficult Christmas this year in their household ... he is of course innocent until it's proven otherwise in a court of law.

Michael Ixer ● 704d

Richard ever the charmer.

Robert Wheeler ● 704d

Well, Barbara, I cannot say congratulations because in your posting you sounded triumphant based on hear say.  But, yes, you had been given the correct name, purportedly in FB. You were not too sure at the time if it had been your son or another friend.One thing that is confusing - cannot think of another word - is that the police have confirmed, again, that no criminality took place hence they will not continue with the investigation.While Huw Edwards was named by his wife after the police confirmation, there are too many loose ends still to know for certain what really happened.I fear this saga will not end well and not necessarily for Huw Edwards.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

"If you find yourself in a hole it is wise to stop digging……"Good advice: why not try it? This is a discussion forum, you posted something that someone disagreed with and (shock, horror!) said so. Get over yourself.

Richard Carter ● 704d

Thank you Sue. My sort off relation's girl friend knows people at the newspaper. Used too write in the Sun bit's and pieces.

Barbara Stevens ● 704d

Name released.  Huw Edwards.  Barbara was right.

Sue Hammond ● 704d

If you find yourself in a hole it is wise to stop digging……

Robert Wheeler ● 704d

From the lawyer Adam Wagner on Twitter yesterday:-"This may sound trite, but re the BBC issue - one thing I have learned as a lawyer involved in many cases of messy human situations is that you rarely know and can pretty much never predict what is happening until you actually *know*, i.e. you see detailed accounts from the individuals involved and documentary evidence.And in pretty much 100% of situations, the truth is unexpected, often stranger than you anticipated - and invariably exposes the expectations you have (without realising it) wrongly placed onto the situation, sometimes based on your own prejudices.Also, family situations can be so complex and difficult.So, whilst it is important that the BBC are held up to scrutiny, there is clearly at least one potentially very vulnerable individual involved, and a large dollop of social media/press-driven 'we must know NOW and SOMEBODY must be to BLAME', and the truth will probably end up being more complicated and difficult than people want it to be."

David Ainsworth ● 704d

"...starting a post with 'A wiser person would …'.". This seems to me to imply that anyone who disagrees with the opinion which follows is unwise."No, that's not right: what it means is that you are less wise, not unwise, and, as Andy and Ivonne have said (thank you both!), it is not a personal attack.

Richard Carter ● 704d

Hello Sue,I know this goes against your believes, but please do read the timeline of developments in the article below.Apparently, the presenter was not suspended till last week...https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/11/met-police-bbc-pause-investigation-suspended-presenterAlso, if, as you say, "it it ws your name being bandied about and I hadn't done anything wrong, I would defend myself to the hilt and with every legal weapon at my disposal".  I, for one, would not respond to social media allegations.

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

@MichaelThis person was suspended by the BBC in May so it hasn't been difficult for his colleagues or indeed anybody else working at the Beeb centre to find out who it is. Therefore his name is already known and out there.  My take on it is this...if it was my name being bandied about and I hadn't done anything wrong I would defend myself to hilt and with every legal weapon at my disposal. Not difficult to do when you have pots of money plus the backing of the BBC. Or perhaps the corporation wants to distance themselves now because this is a scandal too many? The silence is deafening.

Sue Hammond ● 704d

The prevailing culture on this forum is to denigrate posters who have a different view.  A good example in my opinion is starting a post with “A wiser person would …”.  This seems to me to imply that anyone who disagrees with the opinion which follows is unwise. Everyone has the right to an opinion and should be treated with respect.I maintain my core statement that if this allegation had been investigated robustly  back in May this would not be news in July.

Robert Wheeler ● 704d

Agreed, Sue, it's an ugly, unnecessary expression:-( However, if the person in question believes they aren't guilty of anything then why would they break cover? As soon as they do there'll be hateful and spiteful messages on social media irrespective of what the facts are. Anyway, the police have apparently asked the BBC to suspend its investigation presumably while the police carry out one? Any comments now would seem unwise in case they prejudice the police work?

Michael Ixer ● 704d

I hate that bloody stupid expression!😖All speculation will end if/when this person breaks their silence to either confirm (unlikely) or deny the allegations made against him. Even many of his BBC colleagues are urging him to do so as they are angry and frustrated that they might be implicated in all the speculation that is circulating in the online msm.  Sooner or later it will have to come out anyway if a prosecution follows.

Sue Hammond ● 704d

It rather looks as though someone has thrown a dead cat on the table.Lots more important news we should be concerned with in no particular order:  Ukraine/NATO/Climate Change/Mortgages/ Cost of Living/so much moreAnd I did hear Boris Johnson has not handed over his mobile as promised.

Philippa Bond ● 705d

I had a brief chat with a Professor from the Oxford Internet Institute at yesterday's UK Internet Governance Forum. (He was there attending a panel discussion about hate speech that is aimed at gender and racial minorities and sometimes also creeps into real world violence.) I mentioned that discussions on this forum sometimes degenerated into being derogatory, even spiteful, but this was unusual with my Facebook discussions even if I had radically different view others participating in those discussions. His view was it came down to trust and respect. My FB friends are mainly either friends in real life, ex-colleagues or real friends of friends so even if we disagree there's a trust between us and a respect for each others' opinions, and a belief in the other's sincerity. On this forum many of us have never met and, additionally, wonder if some are real people or perhaps invented troll personalities. There's not really much point in hurling insults, it just increases polarisation; without trust that opinions are genuinely held and based on authenticated information the debates are getting pointless.

Michael Ixer ● 705d

Of course it could be because people are using technology which provides a high degree of traceability the problems that have always existed in society are now being exposed? 

Michael Ixer ● 705d

Years ago before mobile phones, there wouldn't have been all this contacting young girls.  Men would have looked at dirty books or gone to a brothel. Even though the Church didn't have a very good reputation for young girls or boys being abused.  We only heard about this years later, or in children's homes. Perhaps parents should communicate more with their children.

Barbara Stevens ● 705d

I agree Andy, Richard's post was not at all insulting.  On the contrary, it was a very sensible comment.What angers me most about this whole thing, is that none of us have any evidence or proof of what has happened.  All we have at bits of information, provided by a not trustworthy newspaper, that amounts to not much.Hence, it is not a trial by media and everyone else (bar barristers, jury and judge).  It is jury by media in the most despicable way.  It is truly akin to a banana republic!  Disgraceful!

Ivonne Holliday ● 705d

Defund my bloomin' smartphone too!!

David Ainsworth ● 705d

Defund them all?!

David Ainsworth ● 705d

Defund them all?!

David Ainsworth ● 705d

I'm no great fan of Richard's but I cant see any insult in his post. Just a sensible comment that people should stop speculating and wait until all the facts are known and in the public domain.Whilst you keep bringing up saville and harris what about those whose lives were ruined by false accusations and speculation.Cliff Richard, lord Lawson, and a host of others.

Andy Pike ● 705d

100% agree with Robert.  Instead all the perceived subterfuge surrounding this matter smacks of yet another coverup by the BBC.  Will this blinkered corporation ever learn from its past mistakes?🙄

Sue Hammond ● 705d

"You can’t find the facts until you investigate."So you're investigating now? I don't think so, just speculating based on the same ignorance that we all share. Why not wait for the actual investigators to do their work, instead of making uninformed smears?

Richard Carter ● 705d

Yet more personal insults from you Richard.  You can’t find the facts until you investigate.

Robert Wheeler ● 705d

Most places are corrupt, Police, Doctors, Judges, the Government. Why think this is something new, J.Saville was allowed to upset young people for years, so was Rolf, Gary Glitter. Why not bring it out in the open now, you will only start getting more and more young girls who will now have the courage to come forward. Also perhaps the girls parents had only just found out what had happened to their daughter, or what she had been doing to earn money. Or could they themselves been trying to Blackmail him who knows.

Barbara Stevens ● 705d

A wiser person would wait until the facts of what happened are fully known, instead of using this in a knee-jerk response to attack the BBC.

Richard Carter ● 705d

I don’t think anyone else can be blamed for the inept handling of this by the BBC.  If the investigation in May had been robust and rapid there would be nothing for anyone else to report.

Robert Wheeler ● 705d

Correction.  US with Australian background.

Ivonne Holliday ● 705d

US!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 705d

Is “foreign” a reference to the US, Australia, Russia, India??

Ed Robinson ● 705d

This has nothing to do with Jim would fix it.  It was horrific, I agree.But we must not allow the media to be the trial and jury.  This is unforgivable!I am now really wondering if there is a BBC "star" involved, but "foreign" forces guiding it.....  Not the first time in the last few years, if not more!

Ivonne Holliday ● 705d

Yes, I agree - let’s go back to the good old days when Jim would fix it!Wait that didn’t turn out too well. Everyone knew yet they all kept silent - I wonder why?

Ed Robinson ● 705d