|
Jul 2023
2:10pm, 11 Jul 2023
15,103 posts
|
jda
Said twice for emphasis
|
|
Jul 2023
2:40pm, 11 Jul 2023
20,590 posts
|
rf_fozzy
I think the employer has a duty to investigate first to ascertain whether they think it's potentially criminal or not before going to the police.
But when they think it is, yes, they go to the police.
However, what confuses me is if it is potentially criminal, why wouldn't the family go to the police directly, rather than a complaint to the BBC. Or the Sun.
If there's no criminality, then the question is whether the behaviour is true and if so, whether that brings the BBC into disrepute.
But anyway, not important to the person on the street at this stage.
|
|
Jul 2023
2:44pm, 11 Jul 2023
21,498 posts
|
larkim
If what they are accused of is criminal, the first thing the BBC should have done is tell them to take it to the police and stand well back from any direct investigation (though...maybe also take the presenter off air)
Absolutely agreed. But the Beeb is currently saying that what they were told of was not at face value illegal.
I've worked across learning disability residential provision and education of teenagers for the last 15 years including some specialist training on investigation of safeguarding and similar matters and I've seen enough cases of allegations being made with that initial triage of "is this criminal" coming into play once the safeguarding alert has been raised. At least in my fields there is regulation around reporting processes and oversight from the local authority etc to help make that decision. Where a corporate body can't refer outwards for a decision they are left to make something of an evaluation of whether criminal behaviour is being described.
It could be that the Beeb got this one wrong - that even if they thought it was not criminal, that in hindsight it should have gone to the police first. But even so, if the police said "nothing for us here" there'd still perhaps be an onus on the Beeb to handle the situation. Just because something is legal, doesn't immediately mean that it might not be something that requires internal sanction or similar for something vague like reputational damage for example.
|
|
Jul 2023
3:38pm, 11 Jul 2023
15,104 posts
|
jda
Oh I agree absolutely that the BBC might choose to take action for something that falls short of criminal behaviour. But if there was a reasonable suspicion that criminality was involved, it would be entirely wrong of them to undertake their own investigation that would possibly undermine and interfere with the police. At least until and unless the complainants had made it clear that they weren't prepared to involve the police.
|
|
Jul 2023
5:47pm, 11 Jul 2023
1,911 posts
|
[Removed by moderator]
|
|
Jul 2023
5:54pm, 11 Jul 2023
4,036 posts
|
Pou Pou LePhoõk
The above comment should be deleted immediately as it identifies the person.
|
|
Jul 2023
6:11pm, 11 Jul 2023
20,593 posts
|
rf_fozzy
I think the right to privacy exists no matter how much you earn.
There's no 'in the public interest ' here, which would be the only defence for releasing details - it's just fucking gossip.
And I agree the comment above should be immediately deleted.
Technically it's legally actionable. Both against the poster and the website.
|
|
Jul 2023
6:18pm, 11 Jul 2023
29,307 posts
|
fetcheveryone
Thank you to the person who reported it to me.
|
|
Jul 2023
6:18pm, 11 Jul 2023
20,594 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Ah, too fast for me Fetch! Was just about to send to you!
Thanks
|
|
Jul 2023
6:23pm, 11 Jul 2023
4,038 posts
|
Pou Pou LePhoõk
It's highly unlikely Fetch would be prosecuted, but the poster certainly could be.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
