Gay Radio 4 presenter 'drugged and raped man after New Year's Eve party'
Last updated at 19:21pm on 4th February 2008

A BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today.

Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told.

Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512292&in_page_id=1773

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Gay Radio 4 presenter 'drugged and raped man after New Year's Eve party'
> Last updated at 19:21pm on 4th February 2008
> 
> A BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today.
> 
> Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told.
> 
> Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512292&in_page_id=1773

I wrote to Feedback weeks ago asking what had become of Wrench and I got
no response.

It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
hasn't yet been convicted of that crime, but it seems that the BBC
wanted to keep quiet about it until it was in open court and they could
no longer do so.  Since the BBC has an excessive number of sodomites on
its staff I suppose it wants to keep up the pretence that sexual
deviation is acceptable.

-- 
Going forward at this moment in time a raft of measures 
have been put in place on the ground to target and 
claw back the growth of cliche usage 24/7.
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Frederick Williams wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>> Gay Radio 4 presenter 'drugged and raped man after New Year's Eve party'
>> Last updated at 19:21pm on 4th February 2008
>>
>> A BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today.
>>
>> Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told.
>>
>> Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512292&in_page_id=1773
> 
> I wrote to Feedback weeks ago asking what had become of Wrench and I got
> no response.
> 
> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime, but it seems that the BBC
> wanted to keep quiet about it until it was in open court and they could
> no longer do so.  Since the BBC has an excessive number of sodomites on
> its staff I suppose it wants to keep up the pretence that sexual
> deviation is acceptable.
> 

I covered this on my blog, 
(http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/08/nigel-wrench-rape-and-deafening-silence.html) 
and I've come to a similar conclusion.

However, unlike you, I DID get a response from the BBC, stating that 
they considered the case not newsworthy enough...

..then, Wrench crept back on air. So I assumed the charges had been dropped.

So it seems they let him back on air with the charges hanging over him. 
If they had been dropped, they would never have mentioned them (as they 
have with other cases).

Well, of course, homosexuality is that darkest and most depraved of 
places, so another tale of privilege, violence and drugs comes as no 
great surprise, to me at least, but I know the BBC (and nu-Labour, for 
that matter) are desperate for us to believe it's all sweetness and 
light in the world of men fucking men.

As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.

Frederick Williams wrote:
> 
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > Gay Radio 4 presenter 'drugged and raped man after New Year's Eve party'
> > Last updated at 19:21pm on 4th February 2008
> >
> > A BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today.
> >
> > Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told.
> >
> > Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard.
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512292&in_page_id=1773
> 
> I wrote to Feedback weeks ago asking what had become of Wrench and I got
> no response.
> 
> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime, but it seems that the BBC
> wanted to keep quiet about it until it was in open court and they could
> no longer do so.  Since the BBC has an excessive number of sodomites on
> its staff I suppose it wants to keep up the pretence that sexual
> deviation is acceptable.

Btw, have you seen this: http://www.newstatesman.com/200003270022?

-- 
Going forward at this moment in time a raft of measures 
have been put in place on the ground to target and 
claw back the growth of cliche usage 24/7.
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Hugh Oxford goes:

>Frederick Williams wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> Gay Radio 4 presenter 'drugged and raped man after New Year's Eve party'
>>> Last updated at 19:21pm on 4th February 2008
>>>
>>> A BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today.
>>>
>>> Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told.
>>>
>>> Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512292&in_page_id=1773
>> 
>> I wrote to Feedback weeks ago asking what had become of Wrench and I got
>> no response.
>> 
>> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
>> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime, but it seems that the BBC
>> wanted to keep quiet about it until it was in open court and they could
>> no longer do so.  Since the BBC has an excessive number of sodomites on
>> its staff I suppose it wants to keep up the pretence that sexual
>> deviation is acceptable.
>> 
>
>I covered this on my blog, 
>(http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/08/nigel-wrench-rape-and-deafening-silence.html) 
>and I've come to a similar conclusion.
>
>However, unlike you, I DID get a response from the BBC, stating that 
>they considered the case not newsworthy enough...
>
>..then, Wrench crept back on air. So I assumed the charges had been dropped.
>
>So it seems they let him back on air with the charges hanging over him. 
>If they had been dropped, they would never have mentioned them (as they 
>have with other cases).
>
>Well, of course, homosexuality is that darkest and most depraved of 
>places, so another tale of privilege, violence and drugs comes as no 
>great surprise, to me at least, but I know the BBC (and nu-Labour, for 
>that matter) are desperate for us to believe it's all sweetness and 
>light in the world of men fucking men.
>
>As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.

Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

>> As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.
> 
> Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
> the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 
> 
> 
Where else on Usenet do you think we should discuss Radio 4?

Hugh Oxford goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>
>>> As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.
>> 
>> Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
>> the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 
>> 
>> 
>Where else on Usenet do you think we should discuss Radio 4?

I see no discussion of Radio 4. I see plenty of discussion of
perverted sex, though, under the guise of discussion of Radio 4. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

> Hugh Oxford goes:
>>Alan Hope wrote:

>>>>As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.

>>>Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
>>>the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 

>>Where else on Usenet do you think we should discuss Radio 4?

> I see no discussion of Radio 4. I see plenty of discussion of
> perverted sex, though, under the guise of discussion of Radio 4.

Hmmm...

In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?

A parallel:

<http://tinyurl.com/2rpm9m>

[completely work-safe]

JNugent goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Hugh Oxford goes:
>>>Alan Hope wrote:

>>>>>As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.

>>>>Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
>>>>the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 

>>>Where else on Usenet do you think we should discuss Radio 4?

>> I see no discussion of Radio 4. I see plenty of discussion of
>> perverted sex, though, under the guise of discussion of Radio 4.

>Hmmm...

>In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
>discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?

In what way? 

>A parallel:

><http://tinyurl.com/2rpm9m>

>[completely work-safe]

I'm not clicking on it. I don't trust the current tenor of
conversation in here. In all likelihood it'll be something
unspeakable. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

>> In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
>> discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?
> 
> In what way? 

The BBC should have fired Nigel Wrench years ago. The fact that they 
didn't says a great deal about the culture at the BBC. After all, if the 
  most degraded and depraved people are at the top of the BBC as an 
organisation, that would seem to signal a profound malaise.

Alan Hope wrote:

> JNugent goes:
>>Alan Hope wrote:
>>>Hugh Oxford goes:
>>>>Alan Hope wrote:

>>>>>>As you say, they need to cover it now it's in the courts.

>>>>>Excuse me, could you girls refrain from frotting yourselves all over
>>>>>the newsgroup? It's quite unseemly. 

>>>>Where else on Usenet do you think we should discuss Radio 4?

>>>I see no discussion of Radio 4. I see plenty of discussion of
>>>perverted sex, though, under the guise of discussion of Radio 4.

>>Hmmm...
>>In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
>>discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?

> In what way? 

Check the link and you'll see.

>>A parallel:

<http://tinyurl.com/2rpm9m>

>>[completely work-safe]

> I'm not clicking on it. I don't trust the current tenor of
> conversation in here. In all likelihood it'll be something
> unspeakable. 

Oh, come off it. Do *I* have even the slightest track record of such 
things?

The link is to a straightforward literary site - with a famous example 
of the significance of what is not said, as opposed to what is said.

I'd post the preview version of the tinyurl, but www.tinyurl.com 
appears to be down as I type.

Hugh Oxford goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:

>>> In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
>>> discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?

>> In what way? 

>The BBC should have fired Nigel Wrench years ago. 

On what basis? 

>The fact that they 
>didn't says a great deal about the culture at the BBC. After all, if the 
>  most degraded and depraved people are at the top of the BBC as an 
>organisation, that would seem to signal a profound malaise.

False premise. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:
> Hugh Oxford goes:
> 
>> Alan Hope wrote:
> 
>>>> In the circumstances (and whilst it isn't something I would wish to 
>>>> discuss), the topic is surely *completely* relevant to Radio 4?
> 
>>> In what way? 
> 
>> The BBC should have fired Nigel Wrench years ago. 
> 
> On what basis? 

Because of the hobby he extolled in the national press.

> 
>> The fact that they 
>> didn't says a great deal about the culture at the BBC. After all, if the 
>>  most degraded and depraved people are at the top of the BBC as an 
>> organisation, that would seem to signal a profound malaise.
> 
> False premise. 
> 
>

On 05/02/2008 11:35, Frederick Williams wrote:

> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime

Indeed he has now been cleared of the charge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm

Andy Burns goes:

>On 05/02/2008 11:35, Frederick Williams wrote:

>> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
>> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime

>Indeed he has now been cleared of the charge
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm

The Talibanites will now slink back into their holes and seethe for a
bit. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:
> Andy Burns goes:
> 
>> On 05/02/2008 11:35, Frederick Williams wrote:
> 
>>> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
>>> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime
> 
>> Indeed he has now been cleared of the charge
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm
> 
> The Talibanites will now slink back into their holes and seethe for a
> bit. 
> 
> 

No not really. This is something of a pyrrhic victory, I believe. See, 
homosexuality's fine and dandy until you're confronted with the dark, 
grotesque reality of it, which is - well - men fucking men. Usually 
quite violently, often with lots of drugs, often in groups, frequently 
in public, and with devastating consequences. That's the truth about it. 
It's an ugly phenomenon, with no qualities analogous to marriage and 
other civilised behaviour. Most human societies know this to be true, 
the fact that ours doesn't says a great deal about the mess we're in.

turnitup wrote:
>  See,
> homosexuality's fine and dandy until you're confronted with the dark,
> grotesque reality of it, which is - well - men fucking men. Usually
> quite violently, often with lots of drugs, often in groups, frequently
> in public, and with devastating consequences. That's the truth about
> it. It's an ugly phenomenon, with no qualities analogous to marriage
> and other civilised behaviour. Most human societies know this to be
> true, the fact that ours doesn't says a great deal about the mess
> we're in.

See, heterosexuality's fine and dandy until you're confronted with the
dark grotesque reality of it which is - well - men fucking women.  Can't
say "usually violently" 'cos I choose to believe that the majority of
these fuckings are non-violent but if I chose to tar all such encounters
with the attributes of the worst (as you seem to think is quite proper
in respect of the homosexual) I could make the kind of specious case you
peddle.  Heterosexual fucking is quite unassociated with the taking of
drugs (you seem to imply) and takes place always in private with never
more than two participants.  It is of course free of any untoward
consequences 'cos we don't count prostitution, sex trafficking, STDs,
unwanted pregnancies, abortions.

If on the other hand you were prepared to accept that these _are_ the
(devastating?) consequences of heterosexual fucking, you would have to
say that's the truth about it -- an ugly phenomenon.  It is of course
the basis of marriage -- and of infidelity, divorce, abandoned children
and such other aspects of "civilised behaviour".  Most human societies
know this to be true, ours included, but accept that fucking is often
enough the manifestation of caring, commitment, mutual trust and love --
so its benefits outweigh the perversions which attend on any human
activity.

>On 05/02/2008 11:35, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>
>Indeed he has now been cleared of the charge
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm

Quote:
A BBC spokesperson said: "The BBC is aware of the verdict."
and another quote:
During his trial, Mr Wrench said he believed the man was enjoying 
himself and had agreed to perform an act on him
end quotes

So that is all right then. He will be back at work soon no doubt so as 
to please the middle classes.
-- 
PK
Remove the xtra y from my name in the email address if replying

turnitup goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Andy Burns goes:
>>> On 05/02/2008 11:35, Frederick Williams wrote:
 
>>>> It isn't quite safe to say that the BBC covered up a rape because he
>>>> hasn't yet been convicted of that crime
 
>>> Indeed he has now been cleared of the charge
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm
 
>> The Talibanites will now slink back into their holes and seethe for a
>> bit. 

>No not really. This is something of a pyrrhic victory, I believe. See, 
>homosexuality's fine and dandy until you're confronted with the dark, 
>grotesque reality of it, which is - well - men fucking men. Usually 
>quite violently, often with lots of drugs, often in groups, frequently 
>in public, and with devastating consequences. That's the truth about it. 

That's merely one facet, albeit the one you like to dream about the
most. It's by no means all there is to it. 

>It's an ugly phenomenon, with no qualities analogous to marriage and 
>other civilised behaviour. 

That's not true, is it? You have gay couples living in at least as
much harmony as straights do. Going along and minding their own
business, and a long way farther from thoughts of violent sex and
drugs than you seem to be. 

>Most human societies know this to be true, 
>the fact that ours doesn't says a great deal about the mess we're in.

It isn't true. You know that perfectly well. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

X-No-Archive: yes

In message <uj4rj.3574$wH5.1514@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Dan Grove 
 writes

>If on the other hand you were prepared to accept that these _are_ the
>(devastating?) consequences of heterosexual fucking, you would have to
>say that's the truth about it -- an ugly phenomenon.  It is of course
>the basis of marriage -- and of infidelity, divorce, abandoned children
>and such other aspects of "civilised behaviour".

The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a 
welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant. 
Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a 
house.

-- 
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
A wise and all-knowing Providence gave us an abundance of losers to endure
all the suffering and to do most of the work.
http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655

JF wrote:
> 
> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> In message <uj4rj.3574$wH5.1514@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Dan Grove
>  writes
> 
> >If on the other hand you were prepared to accept that these _are_ the
> >(devastating?) consequences of heterosexual fucking, you would have to
> >say that's the truth about it -- an ugly phenomenon.  It is of course
> >the basis of marriage -- and of infidelity, divorce, abandoned children
> >and such other aspects of "civilised behaviour".
> 
> The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a
> welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant.
> Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a
> house.

The effect may be as you say, but why is it fine by you?  You're not a
house builder are you?

-- 
Going forward at this moment in time a raft of measures 
have been put in place on the ground to target and 
claw back the growth of cliche usage 24/7.
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

JF wrote:
>
> The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a
> welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly
> buoyant. Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used
> to share a house.

One trusts that JF's wifey is still happy to share a house (or several)
with him.  Given her undoubted self-sacrifice, could she be thinking
about furthering the general good -- playing her part to keep the market
just that little bit more buoyant.  Heather Mills could give advice in
these matters.

In message <47AF73E2.EF784AA2@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>, Frederick 
Williams <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> writes
>JF wrote:

>> The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a
>> welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant.
>> Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a
>> house.
>
>The effect may be as you say, but why is it fine by you?  You're not a
>house builder are you?

Good God, no. I firmly believe that DIY should stand for Don't Involve 
Yourself. Anyone buying rundown properties and trying to work on them 
themselves is asking for trouble. I know enough about all the building 
trades to know my limitations, and to distinguish good work from bad 
work. England is importing many thousands of skilled building tradesmen 
from eastern Europe prepared to work quickly and efficiently for GBP5 to 
GBP7 per hour; it's silly not to make use of them.

-- 
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
A wise and all-knowing Providence gave us an abundance of losers to endure
all the suffering and to do most of the work.
http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655

JF wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> In message <uj4rj.3574$wH5.1514@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Dan Grove 
>  writes
> 
>> If on the other hand you were prepared to accept that these _are_ the
>> (devastating?) consequences of heterosexual fucking, you would have to
>> say that's the truth about it -- an ugly phenomenon.  It is of course
>> the basis of marriage -- and of infidelity, divorce, abandoned children
>> and such other aspects of "civilised behaviour".
> 
> The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a 
> welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant. 
> Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a 
> house.
> 

Depressingly, that's almost entirely what's behind the current "housing 
boom".

On 11 Feb, 00:49, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> JF wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes

> > The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a
> > welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant.
> > Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a
> > house.
>
> Depressingly, that's almost entirely what's behind the current "housing
> boom".


Not the crowdedness of country? Why is there a slump in the US, don't
they get divorced?

On 10 Feb, 19:08, JF  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <uj4rj.3574$wH5.1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Dan Grove
>  writes
>
> >If on the other hand you were prepared to accept that these _are_ the
> >(devastating?) consequences of heterosexual fucking, you would have to
> >say that's the truth about it -- an ugly phenomenon.  It is of course
> >the basis of marriage -- and of infidelity, divorce, abandoned children
> >and such other aspects of "civilised behaviour".
>
> The current popularity of broken homes is fine by me. It creates a
> welcome demand for housing that helps keep the market amazingly buoyant.
> Hubby wants a house; wifey wants a house whereas they used to share a
> house.

Couples struggling to pay one mortgage jointly are not going to end
up paying two individually. Wifey keeps the house, hubby ends up
on mate's sofa, in grotty bedsit, or shacked with g/f if he was the
one who strayed.