BBC. Another one bites the dust.

[Ivor Windybottom]

Chuck a stone in DIYnot GD and there's a good chance you'll hit a homophobic poster.
Personally I'd much prefer to be homosexual than homophobic.
I don't have an irrational fear of anything.

YOU brought up the subject of homesexuality, nobody else.

You're homophobic, or at least hyper-aware of it and other minority traits.

 

[King Billy]

YOU brought up the subject of homesexuality, nobody else.

Your logic is off the scale for incredulity.
If I discover a fire, and I shout FIRE!, to alert everyone else, does that automatically make me a pyromaniac?
Or if see someone shoplifting and I alert the manager, does it mean I'm hyper aware of shoplifters?
Or if I walk into a public area, and I trip up the doormat, or slip on the slippy floor,so I alert the staff to the dangers, so they can minimise it, does that mean I'm super aware of tripping hazards?

You're homophobic, or at least hyper-aware of it and other minority traits.

That's an oxymoron. I'm either homophobic, or I'm hypersensitive to homophobic comments.

Your warped logic makes no sense.

 

[pete01]

YOU brought up the subject of homesexuality, nobody else.

You're homophobic, or at least hyper-aware of it and other minority traits.

Oh god you've sent him into emoji mode...RUN

 

[pete01]

Your logic is off the scale for incredulity.
If I discover a fire, and I shout FIRE!, to alert everyone else, does that automatically make me a pyromaniac

No but if there is no fire it makes you a bell end.....say no more.

 

[Mottie]

Teenage boy at centre of Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under 16, police say

The case was dropped in 2019 after the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, police say.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Your logic is off the scale for incredulity.
If I discover a fire, and I shout FIRE!, to alert everyone else, does that automatically make me a pyromaniac?
Or if see someone shoplifting and I alert the manager, does it mean I'm hyper aware of shoplifters?
Or if I walk into a public area, and I trip up the doormat, or slip on the slippy floor,so I alert the staff to the dangers, so they can minimise it, does that mean I'm super aware of tripping hazards?


That's an oxymoron. I'm either homophobic, or I'm hypersensitive to homophobic comments.

Your warped logic makes no sense.

What fire did you think you'd discovered? One that wasn't burning, so you lit it?

Absolutely nobody mentioned homesexuality until you came charging in with all your prejudice.

 

[King Billy]

Teenage boy at centre of Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under 16, police say

The case was dropped in 2019 after the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, police say.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'm guessing but I would have thought that a person's right to privacy should be paramount when no charges have been brought.
Otherwise the reputational damage to the 'innocent' person is enormous.
It smacks of a witch hunt.

 

[King Billy]

What fire did you think you'd discovered? One that wasn't burning, so you lit it?

Absolutely nobody mentioned homesexuality until you came charging in with all your prejudice.

I have no intention of wrestling with pigs, nor playing chess with pigeons. So I won't be responding to your nonsense.

 

[Highway Man]

I have no intention of wrestling with pigs, nor playing chess with pigeons. So I won't be responding to your nonsense.

and yet you expect everyone else to.
Think on !!! [TM]

 

[King Billy]

I'm guessing but I would have thought that a person's right to privacy should be paramount when no charges have been brought.
Otherwise the reputational damage to the 'innocent' person is enormous.
It smacks of a witch hunt.

I found this relating to the release of alleged persons release of details:

It was made clear in the Leveson Inquiry that suspects should not be named pre-charge, and that has been adopted in various guidance documents issued by the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Complaints. This is largely due to the risk naming someone accused of a crime poses to their reputation and the irreparable damage it can cause. There is often no going back from such publication. It would be wholly disproportionate to name someone accused at this stage, as there may be little more than the original allegation in terms of evidence against them indicating that they are guilty of such a crime. There are only exceptional and clearly identified circumstances where publication of accused’s names and information pertaining to the police investigation should be published, for example where there is an immediate risk to the public or a threat to life.

I have been accused of a crime: will it be made public? - Brett Wilson

If you have been accused of a crime, whether this information will become public is likely to depend on whether you have been charged or not. Pre-charge:

www.brettwilson.co.uk

It seems crystal clear to me, that the Police should not have released any details prior to charging. And as there was no intention to charge, the same should apply.
Now I suppose the Police can claim they didn't release thr suspects name, but the timing of the dismissal and the gossip resulting from it makes it obvious who the plice were referring to.
In addition, surely the police should not have released any details about an allegation to the BBC.

Is there going to be a big slander/libel case coming up?
Or will the Police hope that Scott Mills doesn't want to be associated with the allegations?

 

[blup]

Just a guess or maybe the fact they all have husbands or boyfriends…..

View attachment 411640

That’s some WhatsApp group you’ve got going there Mottie.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

BBC is damned if it does or doesn't act in these scenarios.

If it transpires there's nothing to see here, they'll be lambasted for acting too hastily. However had they not acted and more comes out the woodwork, they'd be lambasted for not acting quickly enough.

 

[Elsa TLC]

BBC is damned if it does or doesn't act in these scenarios.

If it transpires there's nothing to see here, they'll be lambasted for acting too hastily. However had they not acted and more comes out the woodwork, they'd be lambasted for not acting quickly enough.

It certainly wasn't quickly enough

 

[martygturner]

Looks like a press pile on... we cannot print a story about scott mills because it would be libel as no crime was committed so we will complain or in other words ask the BBC what do you think of mills being investigated for child sex abuse and then play the endless tabloid moneymaker over his sacking. Strung up on the hook of insufficient evidence. Proving a negative is impossible.....

Just an everyday press stitch up... how can we turn nothing to see here into cash. See wiki for the info repeated below

In May 2016, South Yorkshire Police sent a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The following month, the CPS announced that after reviewing "evidence relating to claims of non-recent sexual offences dating between 1958 and 1983 made by four men", there was "insufficient evidence" to charge Richard with an offence and that no further action against him would be taken. Richard said he was "obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close". He said his naming by the media, despite not being charged, meant he had been "hung out like live bait".South Yorkshire Police later "apologised wholeheartedly" to Richard after its investigation into the singer was dropped on 16 June 2016.Richard commented, "My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS's policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence. How can there be evidence for something that never took place?" It was reported that during the 22-month police investigation a man was arrested over a plot to blackmail Richard. The unnamed man in his forties contacted Richard's aides and threatened to spread "false stories" unless he received a sum of money.