“Byline Times has extensive evidence to show that, between June 2008 and 2018, Wootton - who is gay - posed as a fictitious showbusiness agent called ‘Martin Branning’ to offer sums of up to £30,000 ‘tax free’ to his targets, many of whom were heterosexual men … Among them are a very senior executive at … News UK alongside at least six other staff at The Sun … friends, Facebook associates and users of the dating apps Grindr and Gaydar”.
And yet more. “Two of the targets made criminal complaints to Scotland Yard without knowing the real identity of their tormentor with detectives aware of the activities of Branning - whose name is a portmanteau of EastEnders characters Martin Fowler and Max Branning - since 2019”. Do go on.
“Our journalists handed a dossier to the Metropolitan Police for investigation on 20 June 2023, however last week criminal claims started to emerge on social media … As a result, this newspaper is today publishing some details … We have identified five co-conspirators, [and] around a dozen victims. However sources suggest the true figure extends to many, many more men”.
Byline Times had “already informed executives at GB News of the scope and veracity of allegations against Wootton, but the channel has continued to heavily promote Wootton’s programme … Tonight, a representative for Dan Wootton declined to provide Byline Times with an on-the-record response. It is understood that he strongly denies all allegations of criminality”.
Liz Gerard was thinking along the same lines: “Fully expecting the Sun to splash on this for six days running, for the rest of Fleet St to pile in with ‘GB News in crisis’ headlines, for News at Ten to devote half its main bulletin to the story and for Sunak to share his thoughts”. Instead, we get crickets.
Wootton was still on air, still promoting his parallel universe where he suggests that the Sussexes are breaking up and that Haz is about to be bankrupted. Mic Wright observed “Dan Wootton still on air. Dan Wootton still on air and joined by Lady Colin Campbell who made excuses for Jeffrey Epstein among other things”. She does the Sussex smear too.
But this time, the story is not going away. Wootton and his press pals can circle the wagons as tightly as they like, with a frightened broadcast media saying it’s not a story. They cannot hold it back. As Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, put it, “Prediction: If guilty 'Martin Branning' will claim mental health, subtly threaten to do something extreme to his life to avoid consequences & apologists will defend him. They'll say 'be kind' something he NEVER is. Don't forget Caroline Flack/Meghan Markle”.
And we can leave the last word to The Great Man himself. “I told ITV about Phillip Schofield's affair with his young colleague in 2019 and urged them to investigate but they dismissed it as 'malicious gossip’. What followed looks like nothing short of a cover-up”. You want fries with that, Dan?
The press can’t keep the lid on this. But thanks for the show of hypocrisy.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
5 comments:
Oh irony.
Broadcast and press media exposed en masse, nudgenudge winkwink say no more.
Young with yet another massive own goal, the baldy massive tory meff.
Laugh, I never want to stop....
Funniest thing I’ve read n ages. TBoy Tom next Followed by the godawful rabbit fucker and general animal abuser Patrick Krustys and hopefully his little ilse Koch - the very talentless and overly biggoted Emily wagonwheel-wardrobe carveup
The Guardian is on it.
Sun and Mail publishers examine claims against journalist Dan Wootton
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/18/sun-and-mail-publishers-examine-claims-against-journalist-dan-wootton
Tim,
There's a reason for the delay you're noting from other media. The BBC, for example, has editorial rules requiring them to independently confirm the Byline reporting. That takes time. Similarly, with named individuals, BBC lawyers will require double sourcing to mitigate liability risks. That's how it works.
The Guardian has now run a story. They say they'd been working on it for three years (just like Byline). But notice how their lawyers permitted the story to be run. On the factual claim that the Sun and Mail are now investigating alleged misconduct by the named former employee. That factual claim gives legal protection. I expect that the Guardian went to those papers with claims and this prompted that reply. Then on that factual basis, the Guardian has a legally sound way into reporting the basic story. This is how media law and editorial policy works. It's not a conspiracy of silence. It's just what it is.
@21:23.
Oddly, the media law and editorial policy scarcely works in favour of victims or even when perpetrators of corporate smear evil are identified and exposed for the lowlife scum they are.
Doubtless the Hillsborough families would have their own observations on "just what it is" and the utter malevolence behind "it" and "its" rotten-to-the-core sophistry.
Post a Comment