How does the BBC get out of the presenter mess?

[mids2019]

Seriously how does the BBC now go forward and what can be the conclusion to this story? The story could run for some time with on going speculation about the presenter and eventually in my opinion a name will drop.

Can there therefore be any sort of fair investigation because I think there may be too much aspirational damage now for a career to be as ed. It seems the knives the BBC sit on this the more scrutiny there is and they desperately need a conclusion?

Go back to the Royal Family threads.

Why is everyone assuming the mum and step-dad are telling the truth and the child isn't? Who on earth goes to a tabloid to resolve a family problem but doesn't go to the police? People tell huge lies sometimes for reasons most people can't fathom. The Sun newspaper also has form for this.

Agree with this.

I don't think everyone is. From what I've seen most people think the parents are wrong to have done this and both parties involved are consensual 🤷

@baroqueandblue well why are you here then? You don't know one person in real life who mentioned this (probably due to your reaction), so what makes you seek out this thread and feel the need to whinge.

Go off and do your very important things whilst we chat on a chat site. Go preach somewhere else.

Well, aren’t you and all your friends lucky to exist on such a high intellectual plain compared to us plebs.

Did you take a break from debating the meaning of life and the philosophical constructs of society throughout history to pop onto Mumsnet and tell us all how trivial our lives and opinions are?

It doesn't look like a cover up at all. If this isn't true by naming him the BBC may be sued. The presenter has potentially done absolutely nothing wrong but his reputation has been trashed.

Ha at all these responses to pp

It's funny how the hypocrites just cannot help themselves. No one made baroque comment yet they really had to. 😂

I don’t look at the tabloids but I thought reporting stories under a category of perceived “sleaze” was a stable of theirs - has this stopped in recent years? Stories about MPs having affairs which didn’t relate to illegal activity has in the past caused a massive rumpus.

If it’s all made up then that is a different matter but if it’s true then it doesn’t seem very different from other tabloid tales. If it is the case that the story is true but nothing going on is illegal it seems to me to be the kind of tale that the News of the World would have run with. Are there less stories like this now that the NotW has gone?

If the person directly telling the story was the young person here, would that be different or would it still be a personal matter? Is the difference here that even if true, it is being told by people when it’s not their story to tell?

some posters are very naive, the idea that the parents are not benefitting financially at all is risible. Papers have all sorts of mechanisms for paying people whilst not paying them ; ‘expenses’, blind trusts , payments through third parties , delayed payments or even the use of shell companies or off shore settlements . For papers like The Sun these mechanisms are all available ‘off the shelf’.

Also if the presenter is an employee then like it or not the BBC have a duty of care to their employee especially if the employee has any conditions which may be classified as them qualifying for extra considerations . They have to walk a fine line. Whatever happens the career of this presenter is over, at least at the BBC , whoever they are.

Agree! It's a bit coincidental that the parents contacted the BBC for the first time on May 19 - the day Phillip Schofield left This Morning. Three years they did nothing and then suddenly they want to act out of concern? Plus, I find it very suss The Scum aren't sharing pictorial evidence of the payments and that they're being very vague about the £35k. If it was paid incrementally into the youth's account by the presenter, that should be easy to show, right? They can redact the name if worried legally – just show the dosh going in. Or is it because that money actually went to the parents and not the youth, whose own lawyer says is estranged from their family and has been for some time? I'm not saying the presenter hasn't engaged in watching the youth perform sexually online, but this is really starting to feel very shady.

Sorry but I am confused, yes all the press are concentrating on the bbc, but it maybe my job but to me there are a few I consistences with the family, originally mum went to the papers as the police would do nothing, and the bbc did nothing and she didn’t want money for it, then a stepdad comes on to the scene (did he take money and not mum), then mums story would be correct she didn’t take money but step dad did, for the story.

Step dad today has now said they did talk to BBC.

Then young person involved said it’s not true and according to them they have been estranged from mum for some time.

Do we actually know they take crack cocaine or is this a shock factor for clicks. Do we also know the £35,000 figure is correct.

if the person is on the site mentioned, can they be funding the lawyer from other men/women on this site and if this is the case, why is mum not complaining about them!!

if the person is estranged how has mum got pics, videos and bank statement, as my son lives with his girlfriend and is in early 20’s, I don’t have access to his phone bank statement ect.

Gut feeling is it’s a money grab.

Exactly this. Teenagers today can often look much older than their actual age so if a profile states 18 or even 19 and they look that age why would you question it? OF should have done due diligence on this performer which leads to the bigger question of how many other underaged performers are there on that platform?

Also if this performer has a large subscription audience then every single one of those viewers is technically complicit, hell there could be a few DH of MNers who have been a subscriber too.

The grey areas of this whole thing are sleazy and the ramifications for the alleged presenters family are devastating.

My question though- what is being hidden by this huge distraction? It’s like the Titanic sub all over again. Is it BJs phone not being handed over or something else? Because whatever it is it’s certainly not getting the attention it deserves because of this circus…. 🤔🔎

Indeed 😂why do these people they are so superior and feel the need to let us know how they feel. Off you trot baroque and debate something more important.

This thread is already quite long so someone may already have mentioned it, but the News Agents podcast (recorded before the new statement from the individual’s lawyers) was quite informative on the complexities of the situation and what the various players might/could do next

Employees have rights, that includes employees of the bbc. You cant suspend someone from heresay, even the stepfather said the police told them no crime has been committed. Sleezey isn't grounds for dismissal from work in most jobs. Unfortunately there's elements of extortion here. We don't have the facts except that the bbc were willing to go public and a superinjunction was out in place

What can the BBC do?

1. Demonstrate that it fully implemented all the recommendations from the Dame Janet Smith inquiry (post-Savile), and explain why not if it didn't;
2. Establish the truth;
3. Co-operate with the police as necessary;
4. Match that against the contract of 'the talent' - e.g. is there a clause about not bringing the BBC into disrepute?
5. Establish who knew what and when.

How they do all this ^^ quickly and discreetly while simultaneously being under scrutiny from the parliamentary Select Committee for Culture, Media & Sport, that has the power of parliamentary privilege to name whoever it likes, is a bit of a mystery tbh.

If this was an OF thing then he should sue the parents.

The circulated photo is so fake and 100% photoshopped, I'm really surprised there are people on here naiive enough to think it's real - even an AI art app could photoshop that in two seconds

Oh FGS not ANOTHER thread about this. 🙄

Yes I suspect this is all over the papers and on sm now to cover up something far worse.

Not that alleged grooming isn’t hideous (if that is the case here, we do not know, a lawyer interviewed in LBC the other evening said the case was “more complicated than one might imagine”) but I think there have been huge swathes of injustices carried out by Johnson and co who try and steer the press in a certain direction away from their own activities…

That took longer to post than hiding the thread

Its seems that it was over a longish period of time. So I can see a case where parents have info/access to bank accounts from when the kid was a teenager. If they've since spiralled into addiction, and are estranged I can see how the parents want the person they are blaming to be named and have their career ruined. They feel their child's life has been ruined - I think I'd take action of some sort too if I was seeing the person I blamed on TV making a small fortune while my kid was a wreck. I'm not saying the approach is right, but I'd have a visceral hate for someone I felt groomed my kid. Also - it looks to me like a last ditch effort to get it taken seriously after the BBC didn't really investigate, and the police dismissed. I bet they assumed that the BBC would act fast, in light of Scofield. If the parents are making it up, it's a hell of a risk.

I have no idea what was going on here or who the TV presenter was, but the fact that the teenager involved thinks nothing inappropriate happened does not mean that it didn't. (It doesn't mean it did, either, it's just not a call they're in a position to make.)

Yeah why didn't the parents go on Jeremy Kyle to sort out this issue with their offspring? It's got that vibe

Maybe it's a pity for some dysfunctional families that Jezzas interventions are no longer available to them