| The end of ‘The Sun’? 18:11 - Jul 10 with 12402 views | SitfcB |
Blimey.
|  |
| |  |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:19 - Jul 10 with 1885 views | xrayspecs |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:10 - Jul 10 by MattinLondon |
It doesn’t really matter whether he is an independent commentator or whether he has an agenda or not. He’s simply reporting that this could ‘potentially’ be a huge scandal involving The Sun. Thats all. |
Reporting or speculating?
Playing devils advocate. I assume he has no more information that we have. |  | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:26 - Jul 10 with 1812 views | HARRY10 |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 19:38 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
Oh they are scum, no doubt.
Bot Mr Owen is hardly an independent commentator. |
Who said he was ?
I don't remember any complaints about the Mail, Express, Piers Morgan et al not being independent when they were passing comment over the weekend. | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:29 - Jul 10 with 1832 views | MattinLondon |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:19 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
Reporting or speculating?
Playing devils advocate. I assume he has no more information that we have. |
I’d imagine that as someone working in the media he might well have heard a bit more details etc than what we have. |  | | |
| Not as bad as thinking the sun is a newspaper! Ha (n/t) on 20:29 - Jul 10 with 1834 views | factual_blue |
| You just called Owen Jones a journalist. Ha! (n/t) on 19:53 - Jul 10 by Bloots |
|
|  |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:30 - Jul 10 with 1815 views | xrayspecs |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:29 - Jul 10 by MattinLondon |
I’d imagine that as someone working in the media he might well have heard a bit more details etc than what we have. |
You are speculating. | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:31 - Jul 10 with 1805 views | MattinLondon |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:30 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
You are speculating. |
Yes I am. | | | |
| Yeah, it's on a par. (n/t) on 20:31 - Jul 10 with 1802 views | Bloots |
| Not as bad as thinking the sun is a newspaper! Ha (n/t) on 20:29 - Jul 10 by factual_blue |
|
|  |
| "The sooner he comes back the better, this place has been a disaster without him" - TWTD User (July 2025) |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:37 - Jul 10 with 1744 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 19:51 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
I have no agenda, merely commenting that the individual agitating against a right wing news organisation is a known left wing activist. Quelle surprise.
I would have made the same comment had it been a right wing journalist having a go at the Guardian.
Your post makes makes an assumption about my political leanings without knowing me. Very foolish of you, join the blocked list. |
You seem strangely desperate to defend The Sun. Weird hill to die on. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:37 - Jul 10 with 1758 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 18:23 - Jul 10 by lowhouseblue |
if, as has been claimed, the young person contacted the sun on Friday to deny the story and the sun has not then included that fact in any of its coverage, that seems very strange. |
It would have got in the way of their business model, so no surprise |  |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:39 - Jul 10 with 1749 views | MattinLondon |
It’s all rather odd. I’m assuming that The Sun’s lawyers cleared the editors etc to run the story. | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:43 - Jul 10 with 1719 views | xrayspecs |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:14 - Jul 10 by Tangledupin_Blue |
Yeah, 'cos The Sun is a wholesome family friendly organ, a champion of the ordinary man and absolutely not a bunch of lying sleazy hypocrites. |
My post was about the predictability of vested interests inflaming situations, it was not a defence of the Sun, as I pointed out in another post. | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:50 - Jul 10 with 1656 views | HARRY10 |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:10 - Jul 10 by MattinLondon |
It doesn’t really matter whether he is an independent commentator or whether he has an agenda or not. He’s simply reporting that this could ‘potentially’ be a huge scandal involving The Sun. Thats all. |
His stuff appears in the Guardian opinion section - which might come as a shock to righties to learn that some newspapers seperate reporting from opinion. They are usually accustomed to kGB news, Mail, Express etc where opinion is dressed up as reporting.
And despite the righties and their pitchforks and flaming torches, I would suggest this is what it hinges on
" The lawyer says the young person sent the Sun a denial on Friday, but it proceeded to publish "their inappropriate article"
In response, the Sun says it has seen evidence to back the mother's claims"
Any evidence would need to prove beyond doubt that photos were taken before the girl was 18. Unless there is some date attached, I cannot see how this can be proved. If there is no proof, however morally repugnant, it is not illegal.
If the mother does have proof, then why wait three years ?
Was this BBC presenter the only person being sent photos, as that may explain the large sums of money involved.
So, can this presenter be named when (if the above is correct) no criminal offence has taken place ?
Which leaves the Sun in a very awkward place legally, as it cannot claim 'public interest' when it was told, before publishing, the story was innaccurate. | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:56 - Jul 10 with 1661 views | Swansea_Blue |
Just descending into a baseless ‘he said, she said’ load of nonsense because they reported a vague allegation. They’ll be loving the attention though. | |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:21 - Jul 10 with 1570 views | factual_blue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:39 - Jul 10 by MattinLondon |
It’s all rather odd. I’m assuming that The Sun’s lawyers cleared the editors etc to run the story. |
As no names are named, they're on pretty safe ground.
Perhaps the BBC should adopt the Duke of Wellington's more bellicose response in not dissimilar circumstances- 'publish and be damned'.
(Historical footnote. There is no real evidence the Duke either uttered or wrote these words. Stockdale - the publisher suggesting the Duke and others pay up to keep tales of their philandering unpublished - was financially ruined by a number of libel suits taken out against him). | |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:26 - Jul 10 with 1533 views | pointofblue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:21 - Jul 10 by factual_blue |
As no names are named, they're on pretty safe ground.
Perhaps the BBC should adopt the Duke of Wellington's more bellicose response in not dissimilar circumstances- 'publish and be damned'.
(Historical footnote. There is no real evidence the Duke either uttered or wrote these words. Stockdale - the publisher suggesting the Duke and others pay up to keep tales of their philandering unpublished - was financially ruined by a number of libel suits taken out against him). |
I’d imagine the BBC have asked for The Sun’s evidence? | |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:31 - Jul 10 with 1519 views | StokieBlue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:39 - Jul 10 by MattinLondon |
It’s all rather odd. I’m assuming that The Sun’s lawyers cleared the editors etc to run the story. |
The Sun story is based on information from the mother and stepfather but why did they go to the Sun instead of the police when they felt the BBC failed to act?
If there is evidence then a criminal investigation would have guaranteed the result they wanted which is the dismissal and possible conviction of the presenter.
SB [Post edited 10 Jul 2023 22:11]
|  | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:33 - Jul 10 with 1499 views | xrayspecs |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:26 - Jul 10 by pointofblue |
I’d imagine the BBC have asked for The Sun’s evidence? |
EDIT: misread post [Post edited 11 Jul 2023 7:35]
| | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:35 - Jul 10 with 1496 views | StokieBlue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:33 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
EDIT: misread post [Post edited 11 Jul 2023 7:35]
|
Then what was the point of the parents going to the Sun?
They have complained the BBC didn't do anything but you're saying they have given their evidence to a source who now won't give it to the BBC.
Makes it even weirder they didn't go to the police.
SB | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:42 - Jul 10 with 1467 views | giant_stow |
Just as a side note, it's interesting how Owen Jones arks from the first few posts of sh1t rage sun to we've got to wait and see at the end.
This isn't a comment on the wider thing, just noticeable. |  |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:48 - Jul 10 with 1446 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:42 - Jul 10 by giant_stow |
Just as a side note, it's interesting how Owen Jones arks from the first few posts of sh1t rage sun to we've got to wait and see at the end.
This isn't a comment on the wider thing, just noticeable. |
Not on Twitter so can’t see what he’s written, but both can be true. The Sun appear to have acted questionably, whilst we will need to wait and see if there’s an investigation into any potential wrongdoing. Is he couching it in those terms? | |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 22:08 - Jul 10 with 1362 views | HARRY10 |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:21 - Jul 10 by factual_blue |
As no names are named, they're on pretty safe ground.
Perhaps the BBC should adopt the Duke of Wellington's more bellicose response in not dissimilar circumstances- 'publish and be damned'.
(Historical footnote. There is no real evidence the Duke either uttered or wrote these words. Stockdale - the publisher suggesting the Duke and others pay up to keep tales of their philandering unpublished - was financially ruined by a number of libel suits taken out against him). |
eh ?
They named the BBC and specifically a male presenter. A case some while back had a specialist police group successfully sue someone/entity on the basis their false accusation defamed them all.
In this case, making this accusation when they had been asked not to publish, as the person named had stated it was not true would be deemed defamatory. The Sun should have pulled the story and sought more clarification.
Odd how so many righties have been shrieking for the BBC to name this person, yet are not shrieking for the Sun to produce the supposed evidence they have.
The requirement is now on the Sun to produce evidence that this presenter paid for explicit photographs when this woman was underage.
They seem to be back peddling and trying to portray this as the worst kind of paedophilia by having the step father refer to this woman as my child. She is not. The clue is in the word, stepfather. And for the Sun to refer to a 20 year old woman as a youngster smacks of desperately playing to the gallery'.
The person accused does not have to provide evidence to defend themselves - the onus is on the accuser to prove their accusation. So far they seem very reluctant to.
Could it be that "The Met does not consider the threshold for a criminal investigation has yet been reached, but in a statement made it clear the force would carry out further work, but falling short of a formal criminal investigation that would give officers powers of arrest and search."
Whereas
Nicky Campbell, Jeremy Vine and others are in contact with the police over libellous posts sent as a consequence of the Suns story.
Not looking good for the Wapping Whopper tellers | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 22:12 - Jul 10 with 1353 views | longtimefan |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 20:50 - Jul 10 by HARRY10 |
His stuff appears in the Guardian opinion section - which might come as a shock to righties to learn that some newspapers seperate reporting from opinion. They are usually accustomed to kGB news, Mail, Express etc where opinion is dressed up as reporting.
And despite the righties and their pitchforks and flaming torches, I would suggest this is what it hinges on
" The lawyer says the young person sent the Sun a denial on Friday, but it proceeded to publish "their inappropriate article"
In response, the Sun says it has seen evidence to back the mother's claims"
Any evidence would need to prove beyond doubt that photos were taken before the girl was 18. Unless there is some date attached, I cannot see how this can be proved. If there is no proof, however morally repugnant, it is not illegal.
If the mother does have proof, then why wait three years ?
Was this BBC presenter the only person being sent photos, as that may explain the large sums of money involved.
So, can this presenter be named when (if the above is correct) no criminal offence has taken place ?
Which leaves the Sun in a very awkward place legally, as it cannot claim 'public interest' when it was told, before publishing, the story was innaccurate. |
“ Any evidence would need to prove beyond doubt that photos were taken before the girl was 18. “
Has the gender of the person selling the pictures been confirmed or is that just speculation ? | | | |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 22:14 - Jul 10 with 1344 views | SitfcB |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 18:57 - Jul 10 by xrayspecs |
So a left leaning activist is talking up the demise of the Sun, not like he has an agenda really? |
(Note: Only linked the tweet for the story contained in it, should’ve linked the BBC tweet direct) | |
| |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 22:50 - Jul 10 with 1254 views | giant_stow |
| The end of ‘The Sun’? on 21:48 - Jul 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Not on Twitter so can’t see what he’s written, but both can be true. The Sun appear to have acted questionably, whilst we will need to wait and see if there’s an investigation into any potential wrongdoing. Is he couching it in those terms? |
Yeah for sure both can be true. Just a change of tone over a 10-12 tweet thread I thought | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
