Should The Bbc Face Prosecution?

[youngmafbog]

// it was revealed that the suspected fantasist, known only as Nick, who triggered Scotland Yard’s disgraced Operation Midland inquiry, had been shown photographs of suspects by investigative journalists. //

Surely that is attempting to pervert the course of justice?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922016/Put-BBC-dock-VIP-sex-abuse-scandal-says-falsely-accused-former-MP-Harvey-Proctor.html

[mikey4444]

Another Rowlocks YMB ! ( you are doing well this morning )

Whether "Nick" should be prosecuted or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC.

Have you taken on AOG's role as the dog whistle handler for the DM ?

[naomi24]

Mikey, this isn't about whether 'Nick' should be prosecuted. Read the bit about journalists from the BBC.

[andy-hughes]

If there is evidence that BBC reporters have shown pictures to 'Nick', then I would suggest that there is grounds for prosecution for Perverting The Course Of Justice - but those accusations would be levelled against the individual reporters, rather than the BBC which employs them.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //those accusations would be levelled against the individual reporters, rather than the BBC which employs them. //

From the link:

//MP said reporters from BBC and Exaro website should face prosecution//

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - to quote your phrase 'I know that ...' - my clarification was for YMB, whose OP queries whether the organisation as a whole should face prosecution.

[naomi24]

Ok.

[youngmafbog]

I guess it boils down to whether or not the BBC knew about it or encouraged it.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - indeed.

If the journalists were acting on instruction from the BBC, then the BBC should face investigation and potential prosecution.

If they were acting on their own initiative, then it is for them to face justice if a prosecution comes forward.

[Togo]

//Scotland Yard has previously said that the BBC had ‘shown pictures of individuals to Nick’, which could have compromised Operation Midland.//

From the link.

Pretty conclusive.

[Gromit]

Surely you mean the Police?

Operation Midland was run by the Police, the BBC were not in charge. The Police cannot ignore a complaint, and are obliged to investigate. They found no evidence to support 'Nick's' claims, and no charges were brought.

[Togo]

The police are not accused (yet) of showing pictures of suspects, or perhaps people it would be fortuitous to accuse, to "Nick". The BBC are.

[Gromit]

The Mail report is a blatant attempt to reflect the blame.
The Henriques Report is highly critical of the Met Police. The way the Mail has reported it, it was all the BBCs fault. The Daily Telegraph report of Henriques does not mention the BBC once, and instead concentrates on what the report accually says.

Henriques report: Met Police in the dock as review finds string of 'significant failings' in sex abuse inqury
// Senior Scotland Yard detectives have been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commissionafter a damning report into the Met's handling of Operation Midland found a string of "significant failings".

Publishing his review into the way the force investigated allegations of VIP sex abuse, Sir Richard Henriques, identified more than 40 areas of concern. //

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/henriques-report-met-apologises-to-harvey-proctor-after-admittin/

[youngmafbog]

So you are saying the Met showed the pictures then Groomit and the BBC and/or it's journalists are completely innocent and being falsely accused?

[andy-hughes]

ymb - //So you are saying the Met showed the pictures then Gromit and the BBC and/or it's journalists are completely innocent and being falsely accused? //

That is not what Gromit is saying, because he cannot know who showed pictures of who to whom - none of us can.

There will be an investigation, and then charges will be brought if appropriate.

The only certainty now is that, given the complete nonsense the police have made of this whole sordid business so far, they will be extremely careful to follow procedures properly and make sure that justice is served.

If they had done that in the first place, Sir Cliff Richard, Mr Proctor, and others whould not be suing them now.

[New Judge]

"The only certainty now is that, given the complete nonsense the police have made of this whole sordid business so far, they will be extremely careful to follow procedures properly and make sure that justice is served."

Are you certain that's a certainty, Andy?

The police seem to be making a complete dogs' breakfast out of a number of major investigations lately. One of the problems they face in cases of historical sex abuse is that their guidance (and I don't know where it came from) states that they must start with the assumption that the “complainant is telling the truth”. They seem to still be working under this basic tenet despite one or two high profile debacles. This is bound to lead to trouble (as indeed it has) because it seems that a number of the complainants were telling anything but the truth. One of my uncles (now sadly no longer with us) was a Detective Chief Inspector and served in the Met – including a spell with the Flying Squad. He once told me that the CID (that he was part of) worked on the principle of “Trust nobody, believe nothing, check everything”. Under that principle “Nick” would have been distrusted and disbelieved from the outset and the ordeals that Mr Procter, Lord Janner and others suffered may have been avoided.

Quite what the journalists were thinking of (apart from increased circulation for their organs) is a little hard to fathom:

“Mark Watts, former editor in chief of the now-defunct Exaro, admitted showing a series of photographs of suspects and ‘dummies’ to Nick but that it was a ‘completely legitimate’ way of operating.”

He may consider it completely legitimate and he and his scribes may well be acting within the law (though that is arguable). However, their action in planting in the mind of someone like “Nick” images of someone they suspect may be responsible for his suffering would almost certainly fatally undermine any chance of a successful prosecution, even if the correct miscreants had been identified by such a method.

The police (and by that I mean the senior officers who set the strategy and tactics, not the officers who see it through) need to wise up a little and develop a strategy which avoids believing everything that somebody tells them without question. Otherwise further debacles of his nature are bound to follow.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - //Are you certain that's a certainty, Andy? //

The only certainty that I am certain of as being a certain certainty, is that I am not certain of this certainty at all, and I am certain of that!

[Gromit]

Perhaps I am missing something, but why is showing a picture likely to lead the witness? Nick is supposed to have named several prominent people, including Leon Brittan.
Asking him if he can identify a photo of Leon Brittan when it is mixed with some dummy photos, merely establishes that they are talking about the same person, and not someone he thinks is Leon Brittan, but is an imposter.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - if you show pictures of famous people mixed in with other people to a normal person, they may well recognise the famous person.

If, as has happened here, you show those pictures to an attention-seeking fantasist and liar with a penchant for stirring up trouble, you have the potential for unjust accusations.

Add to the mix a police force who believed this man without due evidence gathering and checking, and we are where we are.

[jno]

why would showing someone a photo be actionable? (Except in North Korea maybe.) If the person turns out to be a fantasist and claims the subject of the photo is an abuser, he's the one committing an offence. As Gromit says, this is just the Mail up to its usual business of trying to blame the BBC for everything from Guy Fawkes to sunspots.