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

@MadamWhiteleigh Yes that was utterly heartless of them

I never believed it from the outset. Just seemed like someone with an agenda.

I suspect it’ll emerge soon enough that the individual involved isn’t a drug addict either.

I know several people who work in the media. They are absolutely shocked that The Sun would print this story without it having gone through vigorous legal scrutiny. That should include looking at the victims phone/messages/bank account records etc.

So either The Sun have checked this story out and have got nothing to worry about because they have evidence of illegal activity between the BBC presenter and a 17 year old OR they have not checked for evidence, have exaggerated half truths and published a story to damage the BBC (who Murdoch hates) and will now be sued for many millions by the presenter/s named on Twitter. If the later is true I hope it’s the end of the Sun.

Not to mention what they did to Ben Stokes, which was truly awful.

And Caroline Flack.

I suspect it’s the latter. Let’s be honest these papers don’t exactly care about the law. They’re always being sued, and then they publish a two line apology somewhere on page 66 where nobody will ever read it, and meanwhile the damage has already been done.

I hope this is the end of them.

Surely The Sun would have named the presenter, had they really had enough evidence.

I saw an interview on BBC news earlier with kelvin mackenzie, former Sun editor, who said had this been infer his watch 15 years ago they would have named the presenter on Friday as there was enough 'evidence' to justify doing so. He then want onto moan about privacy issues blocking the press. Have they not learnt anything from the leveson enquiry? I think we shouldn't underestimate the scrupulous nature of these media execs in our country.

I think regardless of what happens now the Sun have a long legal battle ahead of them from some of the poor sods who've been named.

Under not infer

Shit just seen the pic on my Facebook. Could be a deep fake though! 😱

This.

If they could actually stand this story up, I'm sure the Sun would have named the presenter involved. The fact they haven't strongly suggests they don't have the evidence and therefore would have to pay libel damages to the presenter concerned if they named them or gave enough information to allow them to be identified. I strongly suspect that all they think they can actually prove is that the parents complained to the BBC and are unhappy with the apparent lack of action from the BBC.

And yet you couldn't wait to post it here? Disgraceful.

Why the fuck would you post that, @Justplainsadmad

That photo has been floating around for ages. Well so with your exclusive.

Is the victim really using a Harbottle and Lewis lawyer? Didn't they represent Queen Elizabeth? I assume that a regular person never mind a drug addict can't afford their fees?

The parents are insisting that something happened so this is clearly not the end of the story.

Oh FFS MNHQ, just delete it already!

How are the BBC going to justify suspending someone when the only "evidence" is someone's mum getting in touch saying someone was up to no good with my child, and a vague article in the Sun?

I can see the payout being high!

The parents ( mum and the step dad) are sticking by their allegations apparently.
This was on the news earlier on

If The Sun had the evidence, The Sun would have splashed the presenter's face all over the front page.

The only story the sun is standing over is that the parents made a complaint to the BBC and that the presenter remained on air.

The BBC also seem to be hampered by lack of forthcoming information and evidence based on the following statement:

"We treat any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to proactively deal with them.
"As part of that, if we receive information that requires further investigation or examination we will take steps to do this. That includes actively attempting to speak to those who have contacted us in order to seek further detail and understanding of the situation.
"If we get no reply to our attempts or receive no further contact that can limit our ability to progress things but it does not mean our enquiries stop.
"If, at any point, new information comes to light or is provided - including via newspapers - this will be acted upon appropriately, in line with internal processes."

I suspect the young person has simply been paid off. I can’t imagine that your average parent would take on the BBC without very good reason.

"Harbottle & Lewis - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbottle_%26_Lewis

Wow they're top drawer lawyers

Yes they’ve represented William. Cant be cheap

Would they do a freebie on the basis of a big pay out from suing the sun or is it more likely strings being pulled and paid for?

The law firms will have done there ground work before taking on a case like this, will be paid by whoever the young person is taking financial 'support' from.