maydrakin Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 9 hours ago, Day said: Admitted inappropriate but nothing illegal….admits he has a problem with basically staying faithful. Obviously his lawyers have told him just to own it. https://news.sky.com/story/sacked-bbc-presenter-jermaine-jenas-admits-to-inappropriate-messages-and-letting-family-down-13201340 He is attempting to paint himself as the victim to a degree. Also, I thought it quite interesting that he is quoted as it being consensual with ONE of the women he was involved with… Bloke sounds like a typical footballer who thinks he can have his cake and eat it… Carnero and Crewton 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loughborough Ram Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 Came out fighting initially, clearly before speaking to his lawyer, saying that he wasn't happy, that "there are 2 sides to every story", and that his lawyers would be dealing with it. I would imagine that the conversation with his lawyer went something like, "did you do what they are accusing you of"? "Well, yes but.....". "There are no buts, you now need to try and get ahead of this". "Issue a grovelling apology, show how contrite you are and hopefully you may have a remnant of a carreer left when it's all done". "But surely we can pay them some money or have them discredited or something.......surely". "No, you can't, now if there's nothing else I need to get on with other stuff, oh, and don't forget to leave your bank details for my fee". Ex forest tw*t Turk Thrust, Ram-Alf and Ram-a-lama fa fa fa 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 19 hours ago, Gaspode said: I saw a suggestion that he's not actually an employee of the Beeb (Edwards was) but rather a contractor, so they can possibly cancel his contract without any danger of comeback - it might explain why they seem to gave acted differently in his case.... I reckon it’s as much to do with the fact that they got so much criticism over the Huw Edward’s case that they didn’t want to face the same again. On one hand, everyone is innocent until “proven guilty” (I.e. an investigation has been completed) unless they confess but, on the other hand do you put aside any compelling evidence pending completion of the investigation even though this may take some time? For the BBC to have acted so quickly I can only assume (a dangerous thing to do without more detail) that one (or both) of the women involved were not actually “consenting” adults and there is evidence that she/they told him to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 5 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I reckon it’s as much to do with the fact that they got so much criticism over the Huw Edward’s case that they didn’t want to face the same again. On one hand, everyone is innocent until “proven guilty” (I.e. an investigation has been completed) unless they confess but, on the other hand do you put aside any compelling evidence pending completion of the investigation even though this may take some time? For the BBC to have acted so quickly I can only assume (a dangerous thing to do without more detail) that one (or both) of the women involved were not actually “consenting” adults and there is evidence that she/they told him to stop. Exactly. Seen a lot of Huw Edwards whataboutery, understandably, yet I applaud the BBC not be applauded in acting quickly on this. I see it as they are aware of their past and looking to act swiftly, no more cover ups. We can criticise them fairly for their past, yet I think it’s also fair to give credit where credit is due. Sends out a message that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable and you will lose your job. The fact everyone initially jumped to nonce is a sad state of affairs, not another one, all due to the recent high profile cases that have allowed to carry out their disgusting and illegal behaviour for months, years in some cases. I won’t be joining the calls for TNT to sack him now as well, if I was a friend of his wife however, I’d be advising her to walk away and rinse him for half his worth. All this going to therapy talk to what, find out why he can’t stay faithful and he has some kind of issue that needs to be treated? Nah, doesn’t wash with me. Looks nothing more than an attempt to soften the blow, potentially save his other jobs and as someone said early, paint himself almost as a victim that needs help. Just another man on insane money that thinks they can do what they like. Make him skint and single. FlyBritishMidland, Animal is a Ram, Carnero and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 58 minutes ago, Day said: Exactly. Seen a lot of Huw Edwards whataboutery, understandably, yet I applaud the BBC not be applauded in acting quickly on this. I see it as they are aware of their past and looking to act swiftly, no more cover ups. We can criticise them fairly for their past, yet I think it’s also fair to give credit where credit is due. Sends out a message that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable and you will lose your job. The fact everyone initially jumped to nonce is a sad state of affairs, not another one, all due to the recent high profile cases that have allowed to carry out their disgusting and illegal behaviour for months, years in some cases. I won’t be joining the calls for TNT to sack him now as well, if I was a friend of his wife however, I’d be advising her to walk away and rinse him for half his worth. All this going to therapy talk to what, find out why he can’t stay faithful and he has some kind of issue that needs to be treated? Nah, doesn’t wash with me. Looks nothing more than an attempt to soften the blow, potentially save his other jobs and as someone said early, paint himself almost as a victim that needs help. Just another man on insane money that thinks they can do what they like. Make him skint and single. Yep similar with Edwards using the mental health card , getting caught being a peado sex pest can have that effect on your mental health , these people do so much harm to decent people with genuine struggles 🤷🏻♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINMANTED Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 1 hour ago, Tamworthram said: I reckon it’s as much to do with the fact that they got so much criticism over the Huw Edward’s case that they didn’t want to face the same again. On one hand, everyone is innocent until “proven guilty” (I.e. an investigation has been completed) unless they confess but, on the other hand do you put aside any compelling evidence pending completion of the investigation even though this may take some time? For the BBC to have acted so quickly I can only assume (a dangerous thing to do without more detail) that one (or both) of the women involved were not actually “consenting” adults and there is evidence that she/they told him to stop. Does it actually say both were women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 36 minutes ago, TINMANTED said: Does it actually say both were women? Well on the BBC site is says “inappropriate messages to a female colleague” which kind of implies, that if there was more than one the only one that was not “consenting” was a woman. Regardless, does it matter if they were male or female? I’m not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 You can't be sexually harrassing people and not have consiquences. His wife binned him? Good for her. You go girl. The violin is pretty damn small. Alph 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksRam Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 3 hours ago, maydrakin said: He is attempting to paint himself as the victim to a degree. Also, I thought it quite interesting that he is quoted as it being consensual with ONE of the women he was involved with… Bloke sounds like a typical footballer who thinks he can have his cake and eat it… Suspect this kind of thing is prevalent where current or past footballers are concerned. How many stories have we read over the years? And those are only the ones made public. I know of two ex footballers (and internationals), one of whom is now a pundit who used their status to gain, err favours at parties. I was told at the time (admittedly over 20 yrs ago)it was commonplace and both were, I believe in relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINMANTED Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 1 hour ago, Tamworthram said: Well on the BBC site is says “inappropriate messages to a female colleague” which kind of implies, that if there was more than one the only one that was not “consenting” was a woman. Regardless, does it matter if they were male or female? I’m not sure what your point is. Matters not a jot,making no point other than the bit I read did not state both were women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreveram Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 On 24/08/2024 at 09:48, Tamworthram said: I reckon it’s as much to do with the fact that they got so much criticism over the Huw Edward’s case that they didn’t want to face the same again. On one hand, everyone is innocent until “proven guilty” (I.e. an investigation has been completed) unless they confess but, on the other hand do you put aside any compelling evidence pending completion of the investigation even though this may take some time? For the BBC to have acted so quickly I can only assume (a dangerous thing to do without more detail) that one (or both) of the women involved were not actually “consenting” adults and there is evidence that she/they told him to stop. Pedant alert, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you did it, you’re guilty. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 1 hour ago, Foreveram said: Pedant alert, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you did it, you’re guilty. Aye contract law is pretty hot on procedures being correctly followed. You don't want to end up paying out even more just for not following the rules. Foreveram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 42 minutes ago, Crewton said: Aye contract law is pretty hot on procedures being correctly followed. You don't want to end up paying out even more just for not following the rules. Well said Mel. Yours gratefully, Richard. RadioactiveWaste, Crewton, richinspain and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier ram Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Jermaine Jenas Comrade 86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted August 26 Share Posted August 26 On 22/08/2024 at 16:13, DarkFruitsRam7 said: Deserved sacking for this I thought that was satire or something else I wasn’t getting? What was the purpose of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Didn't Vernon Kay do something similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Greenwood Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Animal is a Ram and Carnero 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 On 26/08/2024 at 14:41, Alph said: I thought that was satire or something else I wasn’t getting? What was the purpose of this? To illustrate the size of his coke habit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now