I've been following this story for a while, and noted the result yesterday.  It’s ironic this godless POS would work for a Christian station, I feel terrible for his fellow employees, especially at a station that also relies on public donations and pledges to keep it moving forward.   

Having kids it's difficult to hold back my true feelings on this guy.  Having said that, it's a problem certainly not limited to Christian stations though, as anyone involved in Canadian radio for a lifetime can attest to.  

I get it that it's a new world order today, but I know, especially late 60's through late 80's it used to be a seedy business involving underage boys and girls, cash cover-ups, and coercion.  

I'm sure a Toronto Star reporter talked of her childhood experience meeting a DJ outside Chum only to discover there was an expected blowjob for hockey tickets transaction.  After a quick seach, I can't find the article, so that's as much as I'm referencing.  I do remember at the time though, speculation was rampant as to which DJ was involved, fuelled by the fact she said the person was still on-air in Toronto, and believe me, knowing the way some of those guys acted, it wasn't difficult to guess.

Lots of stations, including CHUM, CFRB, Q, have had DJ's implicated in the past. there's been a long list of charges out there.  Not honestly so sure about convictions, which is why I'm not putting names.  Not surprisingly, I do recall it wasn't the seedy hosts who were the dangerous ones.  much like today, It tended to be charter members of the holier than thou gang.  

“O, what may man within him hide, though angel on the outward side!”
~ William Shakespeare.

One of the groups of charges that jump to mind from 21 years ago, involved not only sex with 12 year old girls, but also an unregistered handgun...  So I'll stop now .

Last edited by ig (June 16, 2015 9:09 am)

He may not have a prayer in court, but he seems to have one on the air. 

Christian radio station praying for on-air personality/pedophile

imho, you forgive the person but remember the "act".  if mr. jackson did indeed make the noted statement (even in jest), and if the employee was charged and convicted,  then something is really wrong with mr. jackson's decision making.  the key word is "convicted"  people charged with such a crime  tend to be viewed as being "guilty" no matter what the truth reveals.
 

Again though, Scott made the statement just after the guy pled guilty.  Even with every intent to fire him within seconds of that plea, the honest answer to the question was no, he hasn't been fired.  He's no longer listed anywhere on the website etc. so I'm guessing that action was taken.

Scenario #2, Scott is asked the question, and says yes, he's dust.  The ever diligent media call this guys family or get in touch with him, and he says "no.. I haven't been fired"  media call back to the staiton.. "So is he fired or not?"  "Well not fired yet, we have to speak with him, but he will be"..  so why did you say he was?  etc. etc. etc.  Sometimes truth is the best option.

the original hank wrote:

imho, you forgive the person but remember the "act".  if mr. jackson did indeed make the noted statement (even in jest), and if the employee was charged and convicted,  then something is really wrong with mr. jackson's decision making.  the key word is "convicted"  people charged with such a crime  tend to be viewed as being "guilty" no matter what the truth reveals.
 

Was he charged with something before this?  If not, a criminal background check would have made no difference.  As for current employees, that'll be an interesting question for an employment lawyer on Sunday at around 4:10pm  .

RadioActive wrote:

And it appears there won't be a repeat. Per the linked article: The station will now require all current and future employees to provide a criminal background check.