Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think it's unfair to run this story without a name attached. It leaves lots of people under suspicion unfairly. I don't really understand how it is in the public interest to publish this story in its current form. 

  • Members
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, deathrey said:

I think it's unfair to run this story without a name attached. It leaves lots of people under suspicion unfairly. I don't really understand how it is in the public interest to publish this story in its current form. 

I agree but assume they can't until full investigations have taken place, but I'd rather people didn't try and 'guess' who it is on here. I think that's a bit rank and unfair. 

I'd leave that to the dross of Twitter.

Edited by SuperBacon
Posted (edited)

Surely the investigation should be happening regardless of publication? A push to investigate is the only way I can see a justifiable reason to publish in its current form. 

Edited by deathrey
Posted
36 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

I agree but assume they can't until full investigations have taken place, but I'd rather people didn't try and 'guess' who it is on here. I think that's a bit rank and unfair. 

I'd leave that to the dross of Twitter.

 

Which reminds me off this pillock. I'm not even much of a fan of Jeremy Vine but I hope his lawyers wreck this gammon.

 

 

 

  • Paid Members
Posted

I think the issue is, it is under investigation (both internally and by the police), but the accused has taken out an injunction to prevent the revealing of their identity.

The BBC are damned if they do, damned if they don’t with this story. People are already on with their “defund the BBC” and “they’re all at it” with how the story is currently being run; they’d say the same thing if the person’s identity was mentioned in these stories; and if they just didn’t write about it at all then they’d just be accused of trying to sweep it under the carpet and protect their own. 

  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Uncle Zeb said:

Hiding in plain sight.

Please not Hacker. Such a stalwart of broadcasting. It'd be too much. Has anybody approached Lauren for a statement?

Edited by jazzygeofferz
  • Members
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said:

spacer.png
*please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot please be Dermot*

Why does he put one hand in the pocket of his jumper? That's really annoyed me.

Edited by SuperBacon
  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Big'Olympic_Hero'Pete said:

All the names I'd suspected are denying it. Had heard suggestions it's Stephan Nolan 

I haven't a clue who it would be, and would hate to suggest a name in a public forum. The suggestion that it's Stephen Nolan though? I find that hilarious. 

Edited by WeeAl

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...