- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.
The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.
deleted by creator
The expectation comes because the BBC has a long history of covering up for and protecting rapists, abusers and paedophiles.
Which is shameful and disgusting but should not have any influence about how this case is handled.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Perhaps not, but it does.
Nah. Unfortunately people can be found innocent in court of a crime they actually did commit.
I’d say if there was overwhelming evidence that he did it, then he should be named and shamed.
Really? Shoot. I am sure Jim’ll Fix It.
It’s crazy to me how not naming people in legal matters is not the norm in huge countries like the US.
In Sweden (where I’m from) we do not get to know the name/face of anybody involved in legal cases. Unless they want to. This is no matter if they get punished or not.
deleted by creator
I can talk from a UK perspective.
Whilst investigating someone, the police should not normally release the name of the person because it could endanger their life or lead to disorder.
The media are free to name suspects BUT get it right or have the ever loving shit sued out of them. This is even as far as naming a small group of people.
Once charged, then police release the names, it becomes public knowledge. Where it’s serious cases like rape or child abuse then it’s often proactively released. This is because it helps gather evidence or get others to come forward.