Songs Of Praise host Aled Jones off air after 'inappropriate contact' claim
 

"The singer denies sending inappropriate messages to a female colleague more than a decade ago."


https://news.sky.com/story/songs-of-...claim-11133893


The BBC - not taking any chances............

https://e3.365dm.com/17/11/1096x616/...20171119105438

Good grief,Aled Jones now.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty :umm2:

Well even if he has done nothing,he is ****ed now,why cant they be proven guilty first? it's unfair,imo.

So, no Snowman this year then.

Time sexual harassment was defined.
How many people have never had a bit of sexual banter or made humorous innuendos in their lives.:shrug:

90 per cent of TiBB need to be removed :hehe:

its a pathetic joke and dont be fooled

all that has happened is some ccnt at the BBC is scared they will get the blame

this makes a mockery of sexual abuse and puts its cause back years

:idc:

I expect the text said "my snowballs are getting cold, fancy a little nibble at my carrot and a glass of mulled wine?"

as you do

the press have decided that he is guilty and as they never ever make mistakes, it must be true

Oh that seems to be out the window Cherie.
Mind you it has been for ages as to people at the lower end of society.

Now however an allegation,just a few words,not even a reported incident to the Police,can now just about bring down anyone in politics or show business etc.

A worrying development indeed in my view as to trial now by allegation and media.

i hope he comes out and tells the BBC to go F themselves

Aled jones suspended by bbc.
 

Dirty slimeball....perhaps.

Link :
WALKING OFF THE AIR Songs Of Praise host Aled Jones axed by the Beeb over claims of sexual harassment as he says sorry for ‘juvenile’ behaviour
The Walking In The Air singer 'strongly denies any inappropriate contact' and a source can reveal the claims involve 'inappropriate messages and contact'

SONGS of Praise star Aled Jones has been taken off the air by the BBC after being accused of sexual harassment.

The former angelic choirboy, 46, faces an allegation of inappropriate behaviour from a female colleague.

The married father of two, 46, who shot to fame as a choirboy in the 1980s, is believed to be one of 25 “live cases” being investigated by the Beeb.

The allegation is believed to centre around messages and contact.

The star — who has not appeared on the BBC since last month — said sorry for his “juvenile” behaviour but denied any inappropriate contact.

A well-placed source told The Sun on Sunday: “There is an allegation that inappropriate messages and contact with a female member of staff took place.

“He’s been told by the BBC about the complaint and after it came to light he has been taken off air.”

It is believed to be one of 25 live cases of alleged sexual harassment recently highlighted by BBC deputy director-general Anne Bulford.

A spokesperson for Jones said: “Although not related to any broadcast work, Aled voluntarily agreed not to go on the BBC whilst the matter is investigated.

“Whilst he accepts that his behaviour over a decade ago was occasionally juvenile, as was that of others, he never intended to harass or distress and he strongly denies any inappropriate contact.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/494525...x-pest-claims/

what has he actually done though? From what I understand of it, it amounted to a juvenile sms that he once sent years ago. The phrase "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" is coming more and more into focus

Contact as in physical or communication? If it's the latter, I'd say suspending him is going a bit far.

thread already Niamh

needs merging please.
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=331036

Hey guess what...

He's walking off the aaaair :hehe:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/d0c04fad3...o9b8o5_250.gif

This is true.It’s getting ridiculous now.Anybody can phone the BBC or whatever channel and complain about a presenter they don’t like touching their leg in a bar 30 years ago the accused gets suspended and their name dragged through the gutter.
Some of the Westminster things seem totally ridiculous.One was somebody sent a message inviting a woman to the cinema iirc.
It’s totally devaluing real victims of assault.

It's the horrible society we live in :bored:.
As soon as I read this article about Ales Jones I thought FFS !!! :shocked: here we go again, literally every male on tv is being accused ! And they have no chance as any allegations about them are believed and blown out of proportion , that's injustice for you :nono: .

I bet if Aled received inappropriate messages from a female friend ,people would laugh :notimpressed: . That's equality for you ! .

I tried and tried, but nothing...how did i miss this.:shrug:

It was the Sun headline. It would never have made it onto your Facebook Memories thread.

Admin can please Merge this thread,

We do not need 2 threads?

I noticed on his ITV weekend
he was was Very Touchy with Females

Please stop :bored: . Now a man can't even sit next to a woman without being called a pervert ,I'm done :sleep: .

Stop analysing innocent friendly greetings and mutual affection. As it's not fair, what if he got inappropriate groping from a female?? ,bet people would tell Aled to grin and enjoy it , society is pathetic also if he received harassment texts from a woman people would laugh and tell him the woman must really like him, utter BS double standards :nono: .

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

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.

Did the pathetic BBC not learn from the Cliff fiasco?

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.

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.

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? :shrug:

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 :shrug:

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.

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.

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.