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

I mean i would because its the sun 😉

If the individual concerned has been suspended on full pay, they don't have any claim against the BBC.

The parents may genuinely believe their allegations even if they are wrong.

The parents may be making it up in the hope of a payoff from the BBC or the presenter.

It seems unlikely that the parents have the evidence to prove anything against the presenter. If they did, the Sun would have named them. So I don't see any reason to believe anyone has been paid off, although I can't rule it out.

I do hope at least, maybe in vain, that some of the folk piling in on the witchunt on this and similar theads might pause for a serious thought. Or even two.
And care to think about little issues like innocent until proven guilty/due process.
and maybe perhaps not just chuck charges at folks on here and in other places who dare to say "hang on a minute".
Of course there is the other approach - burn them/no smoke without fire/line up the Mnet/twatter machine linked to a machine gun.
and maybe some folk might find better ways to spend their idle days.
i learned about the latest development by the way waiting for an AI seminar to start - and it was referred to by the chair of the seminar.

Who's paying the lawyers do you suppose?

It does make sense that he could pay him via Only Fans....! And then assume he was 18+!

The stepdad has made a statement tonight saying they have provided both The Sun and the BBC with lots of evidence including screenshots of conversations between the man and the youth and copies of his bank statements showing payments received. They apparently handed these to the BBC a while back and only went to The Sun when the BBC failed to act.

I've always been open about this one, how I see it currently (happy to change opinion if more stuff comes out):

The person in question makes their money off of OnlyFans (or similar), the parents don't like this lifestyle choice, seen that person has celebrity backer, goes to the papers about it in the hope that their child stops this career.

Vicky Smith is reporting that the young person and their mother are estranged.

Which makes it an even bigger mess.

The Sun seem to have waded into a family drama.

Totally agree

The source I've seen says the presenter is using Harbottle & Lewis, not the young person.

Do you have a link saying they are representing the young person? I can't see any news outlet identifying the lawyers representing the young person beyond saying they are a multinational practice. If that is correct, it rules out Harbottle & Lewis - they are not multinational.

The lawyers may be acting pro bono. A lot would be willing to do so for something like this.

I'm inclined to agree about the career choice.

I'd say the mother and stepfather are on dodgy ground if they're revealing their child's online conversations and bank account details. If they're estranged I doubt the young person has given permission.

I also doubt one client is responsible for a drug addiction, if that part of the story is even true. They might take drugs, they might not be the person the parents want them to be, but can you blame Personality for that???

Thanks for info about suspended on full pay.

Ros Atkins said they were a medium sized firm in London, the lawyers acting for the young person.

He says they put the allegations to the BBC for an hour, which seems strange since one of their previous statements was that no-one from the BBC contacted them for a proper interview after their initial complaint.

If the presenter in question hasn't broken the law, would he still keep his high profile job. Its all a bit sleazy and not very fitting for that role.
Would they be able to remove him?

Interesting. Dominic Casciani, on the BBC News website, says they are "not a modest, high street firm, they are a multinational practice".

Retirement seems the most logical outcome whatever way this goes.

Vicky Smith also said that the new information that wasn't mentioned in May t the BBC but that the step dad told the Sun last week is that the young person was 17 when this started.

I feel this is a bit dubious. Surely it's the most important aspect, and the reason why they would have made a complaint in the first place.

I'm sure the News at Ten report stated that the young person was represented by Harbottle & Lewis. No mention made of who was representing the BBC presenter.

Strangely, two tweets by BBC journos about the lawyers' letter have been liked on twitter by one of the individuals who has been mentioned on socials in conjunction with the allegations. They haven't liked or retweeted anything else linked to the story. Hhmm.

Ah, it was Dominic Casciani, not Ros Atkins, he said they were a decent sized firm in Central London on the news.

From the BBC website: The article also reports that the step-father went to the police about the matter but was told "they couldn't do anything as they said it wasn't illegal."

Were the police wrong or was the young person older than 17?

So what?

Unless sexual images were involved when the young person was 17, there’s nothing illegal involved.

If a parent found out their adult child was receiving large sums of money, the young person might tell them it was for pictures, but this might not be true. There could be other reasons he/she was receiving the money. The (estranged) parent would be acting in good faith, but not know the whole story.

The Sun is keen to use them to get at the BBC, and BBC celebs are collateral damage, in the feeding frenzy that followed, along with the poor family concerned. Perhaps the newspaper published earlier than they intended to deflect from the Osbourne email doing the rounds.

For me, the fault lies with The Sun for publishing with unsubstantiated info - after all, if they were sure, they would have named the celeb. They should have taken more time to check the facts. This all just highlights the worst aspects of social media.

Re the law firm - if it's a medium sized firm, they might be keen to take it on for the publicity etc. It's not necessarily indicative of the celeb's involvement.