h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't want to start a conversation that just encourages people to play 'Push the Moderators' but is nobody else just a little intrigues - not necessarily over the story itself - but over this terribly fine line that the BBC are treading over talking about a news story without actually giving the details. "Other media organisations have said something. Look on any newsstand or on almost any other website and you'll see it, but we sha'n't tell you what it is".

When is news not news? Is this BBC version of it news, un-news, or gossip?

Repeating a libel isn't a defence. To repeat a libel renders one as guilty as the original libeller

All of those 'august' bodies that have named names because Channel 5 made a genuine (?) mistake are liable for prosecution under the libel laws as they stand.

I, for one, can understand why the BBC might not want to get involved in that particular scenario.

Besides, compared to the fate of Iraq, the situation in Palestine, the 800 hostages in Moscow, the Washington sniper, the resignation of Estelle Morris, is this *really* news?

I reckon all these papers/websites reckon they're safe because the man in question has been keeping a very low, quiet profile over the whole matter, despite it apparently being an 'open secret' in certain circles.

I believe the thinking is he's just hoping that if he keeps quiet, it'll all go away.

I was going to say something about the questionable activities of the presenters of a certain BBC kids programme, but is that a little close to the bone?

Blues Shark - I think you should get paid a retaned by hootoo for your contribution to legal discussions!

I don't want the beeb to repeat the libel. And I'm rather glad that they're not indulging in the unsubtleties of other media organisations in dropping 'hints' - one broadsheet newspaper earlier in the week published a story saying they weren't naming the chap, but nontheless managed to shoe-horn his name into the article and even added a colour picture of him, on some pretext!

Why then, as you say, has it been taking up so much airtime? Maybe it was a news slump, and these new (and as you say, genuine) stories will push it out... at least until the chap decides what he's doing...

It's not been moderated yet,. KA - I resisted the temptation to say something about the tricks paid by Fortune

It does, to the more cynical, raise yet again the question of who decides what is front page news, what is important etc etc. So several someones, somewhere decided this would be the best thing for the populace to digest on their tea break this morning (or whatever).
You could understand it if news were slow. But it isn;t, there's all sorts of stuff going on at the moment, in all sorts or arenas. And it was decided to hide that in favour of this. Hmmmmmm.....

For those in the UK, ITV are also playing the caution card. It is, after all, conjecture at the moment.

I note that while the BBC refuses to name the individual, it has apparently wiped his history from the net. For example, check the list of former presenters on the show where he originally made his name to discover that he has been disappeared in a manner which can only be described as disturbingly Stalinist. A double standard, or an oversight? Perhaps the good people at Channel 5 could tell us the difference.

Hello?! Could someone give me a hint of what you are talking about?

"'august' bodies"?!
" an 'open secret' in certain circles."
"decided this would be the best thing for the populace to digest on their tea break"

What?!
Not everyone is UK based here on h2g2...

Here's an idea: assuming the BBC knows who it is, post a whole series of messages to different conversations saying: "the person is ..." with a whole variety of names. The one with the right name will be moderated.

That was a joke, don't actually do it.

Tube, I assume this thread is referring to Ulrika Johnson's accusaion that a TV presenter date raped her.

Tube - if you want to know the name of the person you could check out the website of one of the newspapers naming her. I don't know if you know the names of many British newspapers, so apropos of nothing, have a look at this entirely unrelated story about an entirely unrelated actress on the BBC news site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/2340953.stm

Hi people,

Please be aware that because this is something that the BBC are not reporting at the current time, we have to maintain the same 'radio silence'.

Please don't speculate about anyone whose name might have appeared on other media for the time being.

Could someone please explain what on earth this is all about without breaking any rules or getting h2g2 into trouble? If you have to allude to certain tv show or popular entertainment references, there are some of us around the world who would get them

Gosho, I guess it's about the things that's on the frontpages of both Mirror and TheSun. Add co.uk as you see fit.

Thanks for the reminder Mina - but we're doing our best to be good!

A link to the official BBC page would probably make sense here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2356231.stm

Ah.

I may be wrong about this but I dont think you can be "prosecuted" for libel, unless its "criminal libel".

Libel is a Tort - a civil wrong not a criminal one - so it is up to the injured party to sue rather than prosecute.

Contempt of court - a closely allied matter - is a criminal offence and offenders are liable to prosecution.

Sorry to quibble!

I may be wrong about this but I dont think you can be "prosecuted" for libel, unless its "criminal libel".

Libel is a Tort - a civil wrong not a criminal one - so it is up to the injured party to sue rather than prosecute.

Contempt of court - a closely allied matter - is a criminal offence and offenders are liable to prosecution.

Sorry to quibble!