Who do you think is the BBC presenter who has been suspended?

[broomers]

I don't have twitter and haven't seen any theories as to who it is, I'm presuming a man due to the figure outline being used in the press:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356.amp

Lol

Lol? Fucking lol when the person whose name is being bandied about all over SM could well be entirely innocent? I hope to goodness you never do jury duty as you don't seem capable of analysing the evidence without making stuff up.

@Superfood you are gonna get yourself in serious trouble if you are not careful.

You are wasting your time. But there is a 4a. There is currently so evidence that there is a "nonce".

But evidence, facts or any relationship to the truth are not requirements on MN threads. Especially not ones that are generating lots of clicks.

True @Quveas - I'm appalled this thread has been allowed to stand and I do feel it isn't right to just keep repeating shite so often that idiots believe it.

Me too. But I'm really going with the Markle theory. I don't think it's been adequately explored.

The lawyer of the young person says the mother's claims are rubbish and that nothing inappropriate happened. Says they sent a denial to the Sun on Friday telling them there was no truth in it but the Sun went ahead and published anyway.

Well the report on News at Six has certainly put a different spin on things. The alleged victim has said via a lawyer that the whole story is rubbish.

Crikey…

A lawyer representing the young person involved has written to the BBC saying nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened between them & the presenter and that the mother’s allegations are ‘rubbish’. If that’s true, the implications for both the mother and anyone who has made defamatory comments about the presenter could be very serious.

Now hoping The Sun's days are numbered ...

The damage has been done though. People will still believe what was in the Scum. Hope the presenter is able to sue as many people as possible who have named him.

Yes, good point. Victoria Newton, the editor of the Sun, may have some explaining to do to her employer if they end up in the high court being sued for millions for libelling a highly respected household name…

It seems equally likely to me that the 20 year old crack addict is panicking/has been bought off.

If the Sun has evidence they will have to produce it.

The young lad involved has said nothing happened, and talking about suing the Sun, and other media, over lack of privacy.

God knows.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

But the Scum didn't name names, so mot sure they can be sued. Lots of folk on Twitter and Tattle however...

Oh yes, the young person could sue.

As I just said on another now-deleted thread, this is exactly why idiots on the internet should wait before throwing names about and mudslinging.

I hope all the scurrilous gossips on here and elsewhere will pipe down and let those who actually need to know investigate.

And on here.

It would be lovely if some hefty fixed penalty notices could be issued to everyone who speculated and hinted. Might get the message into some skulls...

Yes me too.

Not me, especially not if the press hadn't named me. I wouldn't want to confirm it was me and be subject to all the "no smoke without fire" gossip.

Just shows that despite yet again all the armchair detectives thinking they have a right to know absolutely everything. The BBC were right not to name the person

The Sun are a disgrace

Oh. And people on MN. Plus MNHQ allowed it. Oh dear.

There are two things going on here.

1. Allegation that a BBC presenter has behaved in a very sleazy way (at a minimum), which is surely bringing the BBC into disrepute.
2. A possibility that the BBC presenter broke the law because the young person was a minor when it all kicked off.

The young person, who is an adult now, has said the whole thing is rubbish, but The Sun says the young person's parents handed them evidence of what has been going on. If the young person refuses to co-operate with the police, I assume there isn't much chance of a prosecution. However, that doesn't mean the first point isn't proved. Gross professional misconduct doesn't just mean doing something illegal.

The Sun's response is very carefully worded. It talks about "two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC" and says their complaint was not acted on by the BBC. It stops short of saying the parents' complaints were true or that they have any evidence that the complaints were true, simply that they have evidence that supports their concerns. Given the way their statement is worded, that could simply be evidence that supports their concerns that the BBC didn't investigate.

We don't have any way of knowing what is true. Even if it is true that nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place, there will always be people who believe it must have been true and that the denials are false.

I so want plenty of posters on here to get sued. Even now the terms pay off and grooming are being used. Mumsnet is fast becoming a site that could be in serious trouble.