Latest Moan From You and Me 2023

Just because people have qualifications doesn't mean they are not thick, it just means, these days, that they can read or remember something.
I seem to remember at one point at the Tech college they could take notes into exams.

Practical testing wasn't much better, basically if you turned up at the right time and got your name right you well well on the way to a pass mark.

 

My assessor was also a lecturer, so was very experienced and knowledgeable.

 

Too true pete...all our brood went to Uni ,hubs has his PHD but they all agree and ( not wishing to blow my own trumpet......much ) others have commented too that I have extremely good general knowledge. Often people put so much time and effort into a single subject that their knowledge of the outside world around them is very lacking.

 

I don't want to hear any more about this latest beeb scandal. The BBC's approach to the allegations has been the wrong way around. If they thought that there was some skull duggery going on then they should have informed the Police first If the Police find that there has been no wrong doing - then that should be the end of it. I have no interest whatsoever in what so called celebrities get up to in their spare time - as long as it is legal.

 

From the very limited stuff I've been unable to avoid hearing, I am going to do something completely naive and jump to a conclusion. Well, because I prefer to avoid jumping to conclusions, instead I'm going to call it a hypothesis, ie an idea that has not even progressed to being a theory yet.

Here is my hypothesis.

Someone decided to try to get compo out of the BBC, or money for a story from that highly reputable oracle of indisputable truth, The Sun.

So The Sun ran the story because it's juicy and will sell. It's a win win for them because they can't even get sued for defamation or libel because they haven't named anybody, but even if they do end up getting sued, their payout will likely be less than the revenue generated from the story and it's ongoing follow up articles.

Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, no evidence of wrongdoing has been offered, and in fact the 'young person' who is the alleged victim has appointed a solicitor to say the whole thing is nonsense. Why would they do that? A dispute with the alleged parents and fear of having their own name dragged through the mud so the alleged parents can scam some money perhaps?

And if it is all made up, what does that mean for anyone that is a genuine victim of similar alleged offences? Each fake allegation makes each genuine one seem slightly less credible, so there is a risk that genuine victims may not be taken as seriously if this turns out to be a scam.

Meanwhile, someone has been suspended from their job, despite there being no evidence of wrongdoing. Not only will this have a financial impact for them, but it will harm their relationship with colleagues at the BBC, and people who know them personally will pretty quickly notice they have stopped going to work. BBC presenter suspended over allegations of wrong doing. BBC presenter stops going to work. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together if they know that person.

 

Its the old story, mud sticks, this person is going to be well know within the BBC and its only a matter of time before a name appears.

I think in this case the complainant should be named first and it has to come out in the open, one way or another, I cant see how it can be resolved without both parties going head to head in court.
Which means the legal system need to get off its arse and start sorting things out in a sensible time scale, they will probably drag this out over the next 5 yrs if they get a chance.

 

We have a few lie's told about us in the past, the hard bit is proving that it didn't happen, once that seed is sown into people mind's it's off a running, the damage from lie's is hard to live through and cost lots of money to sort, but some of the things they come up with can be unbelivable but people belive it even if they see you every day

 

Listening to the news on BBC radio one, they're making a point about not naming the accused, but rather cunningly, they've just had just about every male presenter they can find on to talk in the article. In effect giving clues by omission.

 

From the beeb:

A police force has confirmed it was contacted by the family in April and that "no criminality was identified".

So, why is there a media frenzy around this?

 

I bet when the name does come out it will be someone I've never heard of

Because the police weren't interested they took it to the newspapers, it's just stirring the proverbial in the hope of some compensation

I see others are jumping on the bandwagon now, whoever it is, right or wrong their career is finished so they might as well come clean and give their side of the story.

 

My final words on this:

- the beeb have just let the cat out of the bag - by stating the area that this presenter works in - in the bbc;

- there are only a few highly paid presenters in this area - many of whom have already denied that they are the presenter;

- join the dotted lines and you come up with a name.

Allegedly.....

 

Its the 'Streisand' effect. If you try to keep anything secret, the public will dig around and find out for themselves. Easy way out, volunteer your name and then people lose interest very shortly after.