OT the Sun newspaper

Ginge said:
The Sun hung a man guilty of nothing, out to dry.

He will be damaged for life, as will his family.
Click to expand...
So it’s normal to pay a young lad thousands of pounds for nude pictures is it? Good luck with that one then.

Still 3 people’s stories to come out yet (maybe even more) who have come forward in the last 24 hours with claims against Edwards which has nothing at all to do with the Sun newspaper.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m not sure the fact the BBC may have left an Open Goal exonerates the Sun. In fact I’m sure you’ve made the same point on one of the threads on this topic.
Click to expand...
I’ve said as much in another thread to be fair.

The story about the BBC’s failure to properly investigate the parent’s concerns is, however, a matter of public interest.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’ve said as much in another thread to be fair.

The story about the BBC’s failure to properly investigate the parent’s concerns is, however, a matter of public interest.
Click to expand...
Yes you have.

And yes the BBC’s conduct is a matter of public interest (as is the Sun’s coverage come to that).

I agree they haven’t covered themselves in glory but I’m still not sure it’s quite the fuck up the Sun would like us to believe. The problem is we don’t know the details other than:

A family member went BBC offices to make a complaint and (I think) were given a contact number to call presumably by a receptionist.

They rang the next day and there was a 29 minute conversation (not a 60 minute “meeting with the BBC as claimed in the sun). We don’t know what was claimed during that conversation except that the DG has acknowledged the complaint was “serious” but that it was different to what was later reported in the Sun. It seems it didn’t include the allegations of criminality that the Sun later implied (but which the police have now confirmed were incorrect). We don’t know what level of seniority the person at the BBC held but I suspect it was probably a relatively junior person rather than someone in senior management. I don’t know whether the complaint was put in writing or whether the family member was asked to do that.

An email was sent to the family quite a while later. We don’t know what was said in that email. (if it was me I’d have been setting out the complaint as I understood it and asking them to confirm my understanding was correct). It wasn’t answered although to be fair we don’t even know whether it was received.

Quite a while later they followed up with a phone call but didn’t get through or receive any return calls until contacted by the Sun the day before publication.

I think where the BBC is at fault is for not emailing and chasing up more frequently by email and registered post (assuming they’d been given an address). If, say, three or four emails/letters went unanswered then I think it would’ve been fair to conclude they were dealing with a time waster or nuisance caller. I certainly don’t think it would’ve been right to start suspending staff and triggering a full blown investigation based on a 29 minute telephone call when there was no further engagement from the complainant.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Yes you have.

And yes the BBC’s conduct is a matter of public interest (as is the Sun’s coverage come to that).

I agree they haven’t covered themselves in glory but I’m still not sure it’s quite the fuck up the Sun would like us to believe. The problem is we don’t know the details other than:

A family member went BBC offices to make a complaint and (I think) were given a contact number to call presumably by a receptionist.

They rang the next day and there was a 29 minute conversation (not a 60 minute “meeting with the BBC as claimed in the sun). We don’t know what was claimed during that conversation except that the DG has acknowledged the complaint was “serious” but that it was different to what was later reported in the Sun. It seems it didn’t include the allegations of criminality that the Sun later implied (but which the police have now confirmed were incorrect). We don’t know what level of seniority the person at the BBC held but I suspect it was probably a relatively junior person rather than someone in senior management. I don’t know whether the complaint was put in writing or whether the family member was asked to do that.

An email was sent to the family quite a while later. We don’t know what was said in that email. (if it was me I’d have been setting out the complaint as I understood it and asking them to confirm my understanding was correct). It wasn’t answered although to be fair we don’t even know whether it was received.

Quite a while later they followed up with a phone call but didn’t get through or receive any return calls until contacted by the Sun the day before publication.

I think where the BBC is at fault is for not emailing and chasing up more frequently by email and registered post (assuming they’d been given an address). If, say, three or four emails/letters went unanswered then I think it would’ve been fair to conclude they were dealing with a time waster or nuisance caller. I certainly don’t think it would’ve been right to start suspending staff and triggering a full blown investigation based on a 29 minute telephone call when there was no further engagement from the complainant.
Click to expand...
As I made the point earlier… As soon as they realised a bit of heat was on, the BBC managed to spring into action within a matter of days, so clearly they could have done so (had the will and systems been in place) upon receipt of the ‘serious’ (their own terminology) complaint.

There’s no excusing the several week delay and an email and one failed call as an excuse for a follow up is a complete embarrassment to be honest.

Not only have they let the parents and the public down, but they’ve also let down and exposed their senior employee as a result… It’s an absolute clusterfuck and it could have been easily avoided with the most basic level of competence.

The Sun haven’t covered themselves in glory (similarly a number of other media outlets). Though they claim that they never made allegations of illegality.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As I made the point earlier… As soon as they realised a bit of heat was on, the BBC managed to spring into action within a matter of days, so clearly they could have done so (had the will and systems been in place) upon receipt of the ‘serious’ (their own terminology) complaint.

There’s no excusing the several week delay and an email and one failed call as an excuse for a follow up is a complete embarrassment to be honest.

Not only have they let the parents and the public down, but they’ve also let down and exposed their senior employee as a result… It’s an absolute clusterfuck and it could have been easily avoided with the most basic level of competence.

The Sun haven’t covered themselves in glory (similarly a number of other media outlets). Though they claim that they never made allegations of illegality.
Click to expand...
They specifically said he was 17, and therefore illegal to sell images.

Meanwhile the Deputy Chair of the Tories says the BBC is a haven for perverts. Talk about prejudging an issue without possession of the full facts.

Once Huw is in a better place, he should sue both the Sun and Lee Anderson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top