What did the BBC presenter allegedly do and why hasn’t he been named? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by reclipse@lemdro.id to c/world@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] r_wraith@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

Where does the expectation come from that the public has a right to know the identity of a person accused of something or even the identity of an alleged victim of a crime?
Accusations like that have been proven to be wrong in the past and the life of accused people has been ruined by their identity becoming public knowledge. The same has happened to victims who not only have had to live with the results of the crime, but also with the public stigma.

[-] Ace_of_spades@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The expectation comes because the BBC has a long history of covering up for and protecting rapists, abusers and paedophiles.

[-] Pea666@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Which is shameful and disgusting but should not have any influence about how this case is handled.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[-] Ace_of_spades@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Perhaps not, but it does.

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Nah. Unfortunately people can be found innocent in court of a crime they actually did commit.

I'd say if there was overwhelming evidence that he did it, then he should be named and shamed.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Really? Shoot. I am sure Jim'll Fix It.

[-] sjatar@sjatar.net 8 points 1 year ago

It's crazy to me how not naming people in legal matters is not the norm in huge countries like the US.

In Sweden (where I'm from) we do not get to know the name/face of anybody involved in legal cases. Unless they want to. This is no matter if they get punished or not.

[-] UniquesNotUseful@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I can talk from a UK perspective.

Whilst investigating someone, the police should not normally release the name of the person because it could endanger their life or lead to disorder.

The media are free to name suspects BUT get it right or have the ever loving shit sued out of them. This is even as far as naming a small group of people.

Once charged, then police release the names, it becomes public knowledge. Where it's serious cases like rape or child abuse then it's often proactively released. This is because it helps gather evidence or get others to come forward.

[-] reclipse@lemdro.id 6 points 1 year ago

The young person at the centre of a scandal over a BBC presenter reportedly paying for explicit pictures has issued a statement in which they claimed the key allegations are “rubbish”.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023

16 points (80.8% liked)

World News

38578 readers

4308 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.