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 don’t think that what they meant. I took it as a man is more likely to pay for sexually explicit photos, regardless of whether the victim is a boy or a girl.

I think the PP meant men are more like to pay for sexually explicit photos of teens than women are. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

But people were responding directly to somebody saying that they understood the victim to be male by saying that it was massively more likely to be a male. Assuming that this behaviour is driven by sexual motives on the part of the presenter, that would strongly suggest that the presenter must be gay (or bi), if he's sexually attracted to a male victim.

It's been made perfectly clear from the very start that the presenter is (unsurprisingly) a male.

Maybe people were reading 'victim' as in a 'victim' of all the speculation - or not noticing the word at all?

Sigh, another thread about this and more people adding in names without a single thought for the lives of those named. Anyone innocent doesn’t stand a chance these days.

If it is not him, I hope he takes Katie Hopkins for every penny she has.

Please no, not Paddington. Another male hero from my youth tarnished forever.

This thread is defamatory and should be removed.

I never search in the right place for these things.

I totally understand the family going to the press. Its 7 weeks since they went to the BBC - with proof, and yet the presenter has still been on TV.

Did the rumoured man know PS when they worked at the BBC?

Katie Hopkins would say it was her granny if it got her attention.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Know it’s a serious matter but that made me laugh.

I can read, thanks. The Mirror is ‘quoting’ from the mum, who apparently talked to The Sun.

but how does katie hopkins even know for sure?

Well, Myleene Class is standing in for Jeremy Vine as he takes a much needed break this month.

He was back on his Channel 5 programme this week.

I'm still struggling to believe it could be him. I suppose people could be getting confused because we know it's a BBC presenter, the victim's mum said she hates seeing him on TV, but JV is not a TV presenter with the BBC these days.

The parents went to the BBC first. Then told The Sun for no payment. Presumably because they thought the BBC weren't doing enough. The BBC then tried to blame their inactivity on others not getting back to them.
Yy the parents should have gone to the police but they gave the story to The Sun for free to put pressure on the BBC.

Denise82 · Today 12:53
Well, Myleene Class is standing in for Jeremy Vine as he takes a much needed break this month.

When was that announced? Very strange as it’s still up on BBC Sounds that he’s presenting the show on Monday. However I doubt it’s him or the article would surely say he presents on Channel Five?

Is there any presenter replacing another big presenter in the news at the moment? 🧐

She's a "journalist" they'll all have the story.

@Justplainsadmad
Why can't they reveal his name?

Lots of reasons. Here are the main ones:

1. Risk of ID-ing the victim/complainant. The complainant is potentially a victim of a sexual offence. Obviously we don't know the full details but sounds like could be making indecendent images of a child (person under 18) at a minimum. Most sexual offence victims have as a matter of law an absolute right to anonymity for life (unless they choose to waive it). There are also similar anonymity provisions for minors. At this stage (pre any criminal charge and without any court protection), identifying the present may inadvertently lead to people identifying the complainant publicly. This is a reason to at this stage not name the presenter.

2.Defamation: its a reputationally damaging statement the truth of which probably isn't known because it hasn't been investigated. Say for the sake of argument, it was a fabricated allegation, if the BBC name the presenter at this point prior to any investigation where there is no need, they could be in the frame for £££ defamation damages.

3.Privacy law how says there is a right of privacy prior to charge even for people who have been arrested. You may think this is a bizarre state of the law but it comes from a decision of the Supreme Court ZXC v Bloomberg
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122.html

If you are interested there is a short press summary about the case here (it's linked on the page above):
https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2020-0122.html

So in this case where there is not even an arrest as far as we know, it would almost certainly lead to either an injunction application or privacy damages if there was a decision to name at this point.

Things may change obviously - for example if there is a criminal charge or an investigation finds the allegations are true - but right now anyone sensible advising the BBC would tell them not to name this person.

but is it even a police matter?

whoever it is has been removed off air while investigations ongoing .

Maybe there should be a thread title
" The TV household names who aren't doing something they shouldn't " .

That may be a fairly short thread.

As for identifying someone from any old silhouette , as if they'd use the actual person.

No idea if that is happening here but just to say there is prior media form for this and it has happened. Around the height of superinjunctions there were a couple of famous people who had them, obviously the media knew who they were and the names were known to a lot of lawyers.

A couple of articles were run about these people and if you knew who they were you could see that the silhouette was either them or supposed to be them.

Interesting article from Popbitch on a related theme:
https://popbitch.com/up-the-injunction/

The parents are idiots giving it to the sun for nothing.

I assumed that the decision by Channel 5 to give Storm her own billing on her section of the show was driven by how brilliant she consistently is at presenting it better than Jeremy, but with these rumours, I suppose they might have a reason for wanting to 'diversify' the branding of the show, just in case.

I did wonder if they were just wanting to be prepared for a time in the future when Jeremy might want to move on, and she would of course be the natural person to take over a bigger portion of the show (if she wanted to); but who knows?