TV presenter allegations

[JeandeServiette]

Could we PLEASE have a thread that stays up?

Meaning don't name anyone, or any programme or ask for initials or hint.

I just would like to discuss how this is likely to unfold.

Whatever has gone on , it's incredibly sad that people go onto these sites and how much money is changing hands. Whoever is behind these online sites are just as much to blame and also making money.

The accused probably didn't know ( or care ) the money was being spent on drugs, but it's still sad they were able to use this online site and hence ruin a young life in the process. It is happening every day , but this has come to people's attention as it's someone famous and it's been reported.
We won't hear about the other people who use them who are nobodies and also exploit others.

Maybe from the countless posts all over the internet

If there are pictures of the person from when they are under 18, possessing those pictures is a crime, as is encouraging them to be made. The person in the pictures lying about their age would perhaps be a defence, but it doesn't mean possessing them isn't criminal.

Depending on the wider circumstances, it may also be considered child sexual exploitation- especially if there was a power imbalance due to celebrity status.

Tric awards were in June

I think it seems like we do know who it is now. The proms have done it for me. I really hope it's not them but whoever it is, it's really horrible.

Plenty of young people use the sex industry to make extra money. I know of 2 medical students that were escorts while I studied with them who are now high. earning surgeons. I applaud them. Only fans has simply made it easier and safer.
This has probably got more to do with the mother who can't cope with what her child did.
The pearl clutching on here is ridiculous. Many young people do it. No.wonder the young person is keeping quiet.

Actually if the girl has taken images of him, without his consent, it’s she who is undertaking a criminal act. Sad but true. Nothing to say he’s kept the images from 3 years ago when she was 17, and not destroyed once he knows her age.

Don't be daft.

I also know if somebody who was an escort not at uni, just to pay for her child to have some sort of quality of life. She’s attempted suicide four or five times I believe. Lets not glamorise it.

The TRIC awards were at the end of June ..

I agree with some other posters that although it’s a very ‘yuck’ situation it’s a very murky one for the BBC

If the child involved has lied re their age in getting on an OF type site then the presenter involved has ‘yuck’ believed nothing illegal has occurred and the BBC can only be scratching their head which action to take

There is also the introduction of the mother making the report and the son/daughter being a drug addict - now if this was a mother of a legitimately aged 20 year old using the money to get through university complaining to the BBC / police / TheSun she’d have been told yes it’s a one day top salacious story but definitely not illegal and their son/daughter was an adult and up to them what they do ..

We don't know it's a girl. You're speculating, wildly, that she has taken images of him without his consent. We don't actually know they've ever interacted in person.

It has been reported that the celebrity involved has at some point had possession of images of the child when they were 17. That is a criminal offence. IF they destroyed them when they knew the age of the child, that's potentially another defence, but it doesn't mean they haven't committed a criminal act.

You seem awfully invested in painting someone who was a child when this all started in the worst light possible. You're the one who's brought up only fans, too, which I haven't seen mentioned in the press anywhere.

Why are you so invested in defending this celebrity?

BTW, for those speculating about why the police aren't investigating- a) they may be, and can't comment at this time, and b) in my experience of teaching this age group, the police are very reluctant to get involved, even when there is clear suspicion something criminal has taken place. It's very messy, and has a low prosecution rate, so they don't want to "waste resources" on it.

Still doesn't mean it's not a crime.

@3BSHKATS im not doing that. But I'm telling you it's a fact of life.
Only fans makes the sex industry safer. The sex industry is never going away.

Caroline Dinenage? Yes she sounds furious, so I think she’s been briefed and isn’t at all happy. She can use parliamentary privilege on Tuesday and name him if she wants.

Like with Giggs? I hope so.

can the police even investigate on behalf of the mother when the child is 20?

The other reason the police may not be involved is because it gives the child the same criminal record as the adult. Making and distribution.

When you have a clearly vulnerable individual as is the case here treading carefully is probably the wisest course of action.

@JeandeServiette why are you so hell bent on wanting this person exposed? He has not done anything illegal. Genuine question.

it is illegal to persaude someone to send these types of photos under the age of 18 @Curiouscarla

Without meaning to sound dense, why do the media do this and not name them?

is it an ongoing investigation or something and is that why it’s all secretive?

And why do people throw names about without 100% knowing who this person is? Is that not defamation?

If we are hypothesising about an OnlyFans scenario in which the Broadcaster didn't know the youth and wasn't aware of their true age....Isn't the money too much? Is £5k the going rate for a video sec act?

Pretty sure it's a he

That's a valid point as well if the child produced the images themselves and sent them on. Although, I believe if the child was groomed or coerced, it may not be an offence on their part?

The law around all of this is incredibly messy, and mostly dates from before mobile phones (let alone smart phones) were a thing. It probably all needs looking at again to bring it up to date for the "sexting" age.

Anyway, it's really not a simple thing, and I think a lot of the assumptions about what the person did or didn't do when they were 17 are in pretty poor taste.

They'll only be exposed if they've acted really badly. Criminally or unethically. Otherwise it will fizzle out.

I'm actually more interested in how the media companies and the industry handle these cases.

It's still an offence however they were generated. Making, possession and distribution.

I have been told on v good authority that it was a boy, not a girl.

I'm a bit confused. Has the person involved complained? S/he is 20 now so able to speak for him or herself.

Maybe this person didn't want it splashed all over the papers and wanted to keep it private and move on.

The parents have overstepped massively if this is the case.