[Omah]

Originally Posted by microscope

That makes as much sense as Einstein's theory of relativity would to a member of 'Little Mix' lmao And also doesn't change the fact that the person named wasn't a paedophile.



He resigned for nothing then???

And please read what I put. I said, 'someone or more'. There is plenty at fault at the BBC.



Well if you are an ageing head of a corporation with a huge paypacket and the worst you are going to get is the option to resign and a year ahead's sallary when perhaps he was thinking of retirement anyway? Then it gives out the wrong signal to others in an important job that making a mistake such as this (whether be himself or others under him within that organisation) that naming someone who isn't a paedophile as being so is not going to hurt you that much finantially. I'm not just zoning in on paedophelia either, it could be anything really.



I said 'someone or more'. The quote is above and below



I never said it was just 'Entwistle', which is why I said 'someone or more', which you fail to acknowledge?

I couldn't care less how far the scope goes in regards to blame. All I hate is people being falsely accused of something and those who make those mistakes get off so lightly, but the damage it can do to those who do get falsely accused is massive. Especially with this crime.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286848



And...So... What difference does all this make exactly??

All I am saying is that when someone makes a mistake of this magnitude, then those who are responsable for this should get more of a punishment than a simple resignation or a small fine. And Entwistle did resign, which makes him guilty anyway to the majority gullable public. But I doubt they would really care to be honest, as it's not them it's happening to. They haven't been falsely accused.

It seems you "freedom-fighters" are all for "not guilty" or "innocent until proved guilty" for alleged (or dead) sex-offenders but "guilty because there" for a corporate executive .....

AFAIK, Entwistle is "guilty" of no crime - he may be inept, but I don't believe that merits the intervention of the CPS .....

If you want to attack corporate executives, go for the real criminals - the bankers .....