So, The Sun is retreating with its tail between its legs.

Anniebach

The young man’s parents on tv will certainly tell the world his name , that’s protecting him ?

They certainly do not appear to be considering their adult offspring’s feelings or have his best interests at heart with their decision to go public?

Callistemon, I was shocked by that term ‘their drug addict child’. Wrong on so many levels. The daily mail takes the moral high ground again

Iam64

Callistemon, I was shocked by that term ‘their drug addict child’. Wrong on so many levels. The daily mail takes the moral high ground again

It is just plain nasty, Iam64, an offensive term.

I did wonder, when I posted, if someone might think I meant that literally and chastise me.
As you realised, it was supposed to be sarcasm.

Well, it makes it sound as though he is a child - which he is not.

He is an adult, with addiction issues.

But, as this young man has been us foster care for a while, before he was an adult, it suggests there were family problems anyway.

I suppose Murdoch has done the usual - waved wads of cash at people to get "their story", regardless of the harm it could cause.

With him, it's anything to try and take the BBC down.

Not good.🙁

I think the speculation on this thread is far more dubious than the posts about what was in the news on the other one, to be honest. We really don't know the story behind the first accuser, and we don't know whether he has been paid to say there is no substance to the story.

What we do know is, as quoted, He is an adult, with addiction issues. and as such he is vulnerable, and it is arguable whether he could give informed consent to very much. Addicts (in general, not necessarily the young man in question) are highly unlikely to cut off a source of income that feeds their habit, and anyone used to getting tens of thousands of pounds is going to be desperate to replace that somehow.

The information we have now is a mess, and we don't know the motives of any of the players. It does sound as though there is a story behind it all though, and IMO it is far too early comment on how the truth is exposed. We are looking at a lot of vested interests - the press, the BBC, Murdoch and the police all have a lot to gain or lose, and that's without the 'fantastical' idea that this is the proverbial dead cat.

I find it hard to accept that The Sun, that one time promoter of teenaged topless page three girls and vilifier of innocent Hillsborourgh victims, is a credible source for a 'morality' story.

Actually Doodledog we don’t even know the young person does have addiction issues, we just know that the mother says that’s the case.

Casdon

Actually Doodledog we don’t even know the young person does have addiction issues, we just know that the mother says that’s the case.

We only know what Murdoch has told us.

Do you all believe that there is a war in Ukraine? Or that strikes have been threatened at Gatwick? Have you seen these things for yourselves? Or do you pick and choose what you believe in the media according to your prejudice?

Doodledog

Do you all believe that there is a war in Ukraine? Or that strikes have been threatened at Gatwick? Have you seen these things for yourselves? Or do you pick and choose what you believe in the media according to your prejudice?

I don’t believe in making assumptions, it’s as simple as that. Presenting your argument and including elements which are assumptions rather than fact weakens the argument.

hmm] so much for the mother and stepfather going to the Sun out of frustration and concern for her son. The irony being that we're supposed to believe they did this because her son was being exploited, and here they are doing exactly the same thing!!!

You couldn't make it up could you.

It seems like they are.

I think, whatever your circumstances, and no matter how much cash is thrust at you, if you sell out a family member, regardless of what they want, is never going to end well.

6 years ago a nephew posted on notebook full details of my darling daughter’s illness which was bipolar, I was devastated, my tummy churning now thinking of it, I don’t ‘do Facebook’ was told by a friend who read it, it’s so wrong

DiamondLily

I think, whatever your circumstances, and no matter how much cash is thrust at you, if you sell out a family member, regardless of what they want, is never going to end well.

A few years back, a family member was offered a fair amount from The Sun to sell them a photo of a former schoolfriend who had been convicted of murder. Needless to say, they refused.

I haven’t read the Sun since they told all those lies about the Hillsborogh disaster over 30 years ago . It’s a nasty vile paper and needs closing down .

Casdon

Doodledog

Do you all believe that there is a war in Ukraine? Or that strikes have been threatened at Gatwick? Have you seen these things for yourselves? Or do you pick and choose what you believe in the media according to your prejudice?

I don’t believe in making assumptions, it’s as simple as that. Presenting your argument and including elements which are assumptions rather than fact weakens the argument.

I understand that, and if someone posts that 8 out of 10 cats enjoy doing crosswords, or that the government is responsible for the rainy July I would want to see some sort of evidence, but when we talk about stories in the News, we have to reply on what we have read (or heard or seen), and that is taken for granted. Unless we have been personally involved in something we can't provide evidence of a news story (and even then, as likely as not it will be an interpretation).

As I say, nobody pounces on people talking about Ukraine and insists that we have simply been told that Zelensky is president, or that the Russians have invaded, so anyone talking about that needs to give proof, yet for some reason in this case from the start of the story people have been expected to prove things that simply cannot be proven.

For one thing, the identities of at least some of the protagonists (ie the parents, the young men and the BBC employees who have reported inappropriate behaviour) are anonymous, so their comments can not be made public. For another, there is an ongoing investigation by the BBC, which will be held up whilst HE is in hospital - so again, none of the statements can be published. We know that there are lawyers acting for both sides, so there will be a lot of things being scripted, too.

Everything that any of us has posted, whether that is to say that Mr X (as he was known before his wife's statement) suffered from depression, that the young man concerned may have been bought off, or that the whole thing is an invention is discussing an opinion about what has been reported in the press (or on social media in the case of the depression, as he had not at that time been named officially).

Some of us believe that there has been no smoke without fire, and others that The Sun has made it all up and that HE is innocent, but both of those things are opinions. Nobody has (AFAIK) the definitive answers to any of this, as the story has a long way to run. Yet it is those in the 'no smoke without fire' camp, (who may also see the MH defence as rather too convenient) who are being told that we are speculating and 'ruining lives', and have been accused of being perverted amongst other horribly insulting names. Across the various threads on this topic it is clear that HQ has decided that several comments were so offensive that they have deleted them.

I don't understand why this issue in particular has become so adversarial - all the posts about this are speculation - whether about HE's innocence or his guilt, and nobody gave anything away before he was named (although the 'depression' comment came close to doing so).

The war in Ukraine and Zelensky as president can be independently verified - nothing the Sun has published about this man can be.

AmberSpyglass

The war in Ukraine and Zelensky as president can be independently verified - nothing the Sun has published about this man can be.

No, much of it can't, for the reasons I have mentioned. So the 'it is all made up' point of view has no more going for it than the 'no smoke without fire' one.

The fact that someone came to The Sun after complaining to the BBC (and the police?) has been verified though, as has the fact that HE was suspended, and that colleagues have complained about his behaviour.

You have put it very well Doodledog.

Doodledog

Casdon

Doodledog

Do you all believe that there is a war in Ukraine? Or that strikes have been threatened at Gatwick? Have you seen these things for yourselves? Or do you pick and choose what you believe in the media according to your prejudice?

I don’t believe in making assumptions, it’s as simple as that. Presenting your argument and including elements which are assumptions rather than fact weakens the argument.

I understand that, and if someone posts that 8 out of 10 cats enjoy doing crosswords, or that the government is responsible for the rainy July I would want to see some sort of evidence, but when we talk about stories in the News, we have to reply on what we have read (or heard or seen), and that is taken for granted. Unless we have been personally involved in something we can't provide evidence of a news story (and even then, as likely as not it will be an interpretation).

As I say, nobody pounces on people talking about Ukraine and insists that we have simply been told that Zelensky is president, or that the Russians have invaded, so anyone talking about that needs to give proof, yet for some reason in this case from the start of the story people have been expected to prove things that simply cannot be proven.

For one thing, the identities of at least some of the protagonists (ie the parents, the young men and the BBC employees who have reported inappropriate behaviour) are anonymous, so their comments can not be made public. For another, there is an ongoing investigation by the BBC, which will be held up whilst HE is in hospital - so again, none of the statements can be published. We know that there are lawyers acting for both sides, so there will be a lot of things being scripted, too.

Everything that any of us has posted, whether that is to say that Mr X (as he was known before his wife's statement) suffered from depression, that the young man concerned may have been bought off, or that the whole thing is an invention is discussing an opinion about what has been reported in the press (or on social media in the case of the depression, as he had not at that time been named officially).

Some of us believe that there has been no smoke without fire, and others that The Sun has made it all up and that HE is innocent, but both of those things are opinions. Nobody has (AFAIK) the definitive answers to any of this, as the story has a long way to run. Yet it is those in the 'no smoke without fire' camp, (who may also see the MH defence as rather too convenient) who are being told that we are speculating and 'ruining lives', and have been accused of being perverted amongst other horribly insulting names. Across the various threads on this topic it is clear that HQ has decided that several comments were so offensive that they have deleted them.

I don't understand why this issue in particular has become so adversarial - all the posts about this are speculation - whether about HE's innocence or his guilt, and nobody gave anything away before he was named (although the 'depression' comment came close to doing so).

I think I do understand why it has become adversarial on this thread. It’s very rare on one thread to have the regular posters from each of the Trans, Estrangement and Politics threads, there aren’t many people who cross between them - and the engagement styles on the different types of threads are very different. It’s a clash of head and heart people.

How can the Talk Tv thing be stopped?
It's vile and disgusting and harmful, but can it be illegal in any way?

Wyllow3

How can the Talk Tv thing be stopped?
It's vile and disgusting and harmful, but can it be illegal in any way?

Well, considering the speculation about the family it might be their best chance to give their side of the story. I don't see how it can be illegal unless we censor the media.

That's interesting, Casdon. I'm not sure I understand yet, but it's definitely worth thinking about. I post on Trans threads and more general N&P ones, but not on Estrangement, as luckily I have no experience of that. I'm not sure why any of those 'groups' would attract particular posting styles, but I'll give it some thought.

I’m pondering Carson’s view about head/heart posters. I rarely venture into `estrangement because I know if I do, my views may cause offence. I post on news and politics, as well as trans. I don’t see myself as sitting in only head or only heart. I don’t see that polarised position sitting easily on this issue either

Iam64

I’m pondering Carson’s view about head/heart posters. I rarely venture into `estrangement because I know if I do, my views may cause offence. I post on news and politics, as well as trans. I don’t see myself as sitting in only head or only heart. I don’t see that polarised position sitting easily on this issue either

No, I am struggling a bit for the same reasons, but it is an interesting view all the same.