[Tom4784]

People don't get suspended or axed for nothing, if it was just an accusation without merit then the BBC wouldn't act, there's got to be evidence that the claim is true for employers to take action.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People don't get suspended or axed for nothing, if it was just an accusation without merit then the BBC wouldn't act, there's got to be evidence that the claim is true for employers to take action.

he wasnt axed he voluntarily left

[Livia]

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now. I my opinion it's swung too far with people still being named and suspended... and consequently people imagine wrongly that there's no smoke without fire. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Matthew Kelly, Jimmy Tarbuck... all charges against these men were dropped but people still think they're guilty. Meanwhile all the accusers are in blissful anonymity.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Did the pathetic BBC not learn from the Cliff fiasco?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now. I my opinion it's swung too far with people still being named and suspended... and consequently people imagine wrongly that there's no smoke without fire. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Matthew Kelly, Jimmy Tarbuck... all charges against these men were dropped but people still think they're guilty. Meanwhile all the accusers are in blissful anonymity.

Just because they didn't have evidence doesn't mean they are all innocent either though. (Unless they had actual evidence that proves the accuser was lying like in the Michael Le Vell case)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Just because they didn't have evidence doesn't mean they are all innocent either though. (Unless they had actual evidence that proves the accuser was lying like in the Michael Le Vell case)

Actually it does mean they're innocent. They are innocent because they were not proven guilty. I know that in the Jim Davidson case, he proved that the car in which he was supposed to have raped someone was 200 miles away on that night. I don't know much about the other cases but presumably they weren't let off without any evidence being presented in their defence.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually it does mean they're innocent. They are innocent because they were not proven guilty. I know that in the Jim Davidson case, he proved that the car in which he was supposed to have raped someone was 200 miles away on that night. I don't know much about the other cases but presumably they weren't let off without any evidence being presented in their defence.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/

So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.

Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.

Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

Because there’s no evidence?

Anyone can say anything.

The problem with TV stations and Parliament etc is that any Tom,Dick or Harry can phone in and say some **** and they’ll suspend the person accused straight away pending an investigation.

And then even if it gets to court and there’s no substantial evidence you still get the “no smoke without fire” crew condemning them for life.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Because there’s no evidence?

Anyone can say anything.

The problem with TV stations and Parliament etc is that any Tom,Dick or Harry can phone in and say some **** and they’ll suspend the person accused straight away pending an investigation.

And then even if it gets to court and there’s no substantial evidence you still get the “no smoke without fire” crew condemning them for life.

Evidence of something like that after a certain amount of time has passed would be very hard to come up with

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now.

I'm gonna keep this vague but a job I occasionally take (usually over summer/Christmas hols/big events) relates to the BBC and child protection, and they exceed the requirements every time.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No I don't think he should be guilty, I'm saying just because he's not found guilty doesn't necessarily make him innocent. Why should I automatically believe him over someone who said they were abused by him?

One is innocent until proven guilty though. Scotland has a not proven verdict, but it still has to go through due process to get to that point.

I have no problem with someone who is under investigation being suspended until the investigation is complete. But it is just that, an investigation. No guilt can be implied from it.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Evidence of something like that after a certain amount of time has passed would be very hard to come up with

True but if they can’t be prosecuted then it’s just a guessing game.Condemning someone for life with no proof they’ve even ever done anything wrong ruins peoples careers and lives.Just like that Welsh Labour MP who killed himself.Mud sticks.
There’s not even anonymity until they’re found guilty.Only for the person making the claim.