“Last night the presenter, a familiar face who is known to millions, was off air while the BBC investigate the mother’s bombshell claims … The family complained to the BBC about his behaviour on May 19 and begged them to make the man ‘stop sending the cash’ … [the family] approached The Sun, making it clear they wanted no payment”. But no positive ID as yet.
Why that might be is an interesting one. Are the Murdoch mafiosi trying to get whoever it is to give them an exclusive on what drove him to do it? Are we expected to believe that they published as soon as they had the story, and that it wasn’t left in the safe until they needed cover for something else?
To no surprise at all, the rest of the press pack does not even go near such details. For them, this is manna from heaven, an opportunity to kick an already weakened BBC good and hard. And an opportunity to kick a few familiar faces who have nothing to do with the story. It’s almost as if the Sun published the way it did in order to allow its pals in our free and fearless press to do a little reputational damage - that it was a deliberate act.
So, following the Sun’s “first instalment” yesterday, along has come the Mail on Sunday today to thunder “BBC Rocked By Sex Bombshell … As ‘household name’ presenter is accused of paying a teenage crack addict £35,000 for explicit pictures … BBC CRISIS OVER TOP STAR IN SEX PHOTOS PROBE”. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point.
Then in the second paragraph of the supporting article we learn that “The scandal engulfing the broadcaster deepened as several famous faces were falsely accused on social media of being the presenter”. The supposedly upmarket Times then named a number of those BBC famous faces being falsely accused, under the headline “Stars line up to say: it’s not me”.
That man was Jeremy Vine, who has understandably taken a dim view of one member of the social media brains trust telling the world that It Woz Him “on good authority”. As Vine is presenting his radio show tomorrow as he usually does, it certainly isn’t him, so someone’s authority is not quite as good as they thought it was. One idiot is going to get sued. Serves him right.
This is just what the Murdoch mafiosi wants: unfounded speculation spreading, more and more BBC “names” being smeared, more BBC “names” being forced to defend themselves by instructing lawyers, and all the while the Corporation gets its name dragged through the mud, no matter how thorough the investigation it undertook following the first complaint.
We know this as former minister Priti Patel, who has almost certainly not been privy to any details of what has actually been going on, has decided anyhow that the Beeb’s investigation has been “derisory”, calling for a “full and transparent investigation” and asserting that the BBC has become a “faceless and unaccountable organisation”.
How does she know what’s gone on? But that’s not where she, and other critics, are at. They’re just getting the story out there, with the Beeb having to play catch up later on. The Corporation will have to battle against Ronald Reagan’s dictum: “when you’re explaining, you’re losing”. Meanwhile, one small matter has thus far evaded the press pack.
In the wake of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and the rest, the BBC might just have sharpened up its act when faced with complaints about one or other of its well-known presenters misbehaving. In which case, the Murdoch press’ timing should be what is under the spotlight. But it won’t be.
A chance to kick the Beeb cannot be wasted. Facts and reality can wait.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
5 comments:
Nothing new about this "tactic". The Daily Mirror pulled the same kind of stunt decades ago when it smeared Liberace in the full knowledge it would be sued and lose. The calculation was it would be worth it for the free publicity and increased sales.
Just one more reason to despise British media and the grubby clerks who work in it. Where the Murdoch Scum is concerned it's almost as though Hillsborough and its other disgusting smears never happened. That far right rag only employs MacFilth clones.
There are a few things in this story that doesn't tally. 1. It's been outed by the Sun, so... 2. Reading between the lines from the official BBC statements, it implies the complainant, when contacted, did not follow up. Okay. 3. Again, from official statements, a "BBC Staff" has been suspended. Most presenters are not "staff", they're called "creative talents" and are technically contractors.
Considering that in the past "BBC star" has been used by the media to describe anyone who has even once appeared on a BBC channel, TV or radio, even if the appearance in question was on Crimewatch, it could literally be anybody.
As for Patel, I suspect she got a call, was asked if she agreed with a quote some hack had concocted, and was paid for saying yes.
@BenLapointe
Another consideration:nowhere have I read that the alleged victim and/or the victim's mother have contacted the police. only The S*n.
If I were the victim of a potential crime, I know where my first port of call would be; and nasty Uncle Rupert's titles wouldn't be on the list.
I haven't even considered it. Indeed, inappropriate (or yucky) and criminal are many orders of magnitude different. And, as you point, the mother complained to the BBC but not to the Police. So she knows no crime was committed by the presenter. And as the story develops, seems the police came to the same conclusion.
Post a Comment