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?

Nah.. I don't want to be getting my news updates about abhorrent things in the world from someone who thinks of people young enough to be his grandchild in a sexual way.

Okay, but what if it was all done via an OF account and the presenter wasn't the only person logging on? Why aren't the parents going after all the other adults who watched their child perform? The fact the police won't investigate would make sense if it was an OF account – morally repugnant, yes, but what those adults were doing in watching isn't illegal. If the child lied about their age to set up an account, that's on OF's shit vetting process.

“And I just had to comment on it, therefore ensuring it appears in my watchlist and that I receive all those annoying notifications. Whatever will I dooooo?!”

@JRHartley72 My guess would be they couldn't id the others, and also assuming the others didn't transfer quite such large sums of money. If the reports are true - 35K is a significant sum of money and they'd view that persons payments as the main reason for continuing to share the images.

Don't waste your breath @WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps

There's no reasoning with vacuous!

Still here 😬

It depedends, I guess, on whether this is felt to have been actually illegal. Someone on OnlyFans has clicked to say they're 18, the young person says nothing illegal has happened and the police currently seem to be following the same tack.

In that case, as we don't officially know who the presenter is, the BBC need to look at why it took 2 months for them to look at the claim raised by the parent and then ask why their child wasn't making their own complaint, as they're an adult

Then why are you spending so much of your time here? Go and start another thread debating the infinite nature of the universe or whatever it is you’d prefer to discuss, and we can all ignore it.

For all the nonsense The Sun prints, they do check their sources. They haven't printed a story like this without seeing some evidence.

From what I have seen the young person has said nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened. They have not denied knowing said presenter or having any interaction with him

Exactly.. people in jobs like this are influential and the impressionable masses see what behaviour is acceptable or not, the fuss this has caused along with Schofield is good. People need to see this behaviour is wrong. As time goes on this all filters through to younger generations and progress is made. I can already see it with men. Younger men aren't sleazing on women like old men do.

Or the other theory is that the 35k accounts for ALL the person's earnings from OF and they don't have an individual breakdown.

Please could someone tell me where the idea that the youth has an OF's account came from because I can't see anything in the original or subsequent news items on this so it appears to be just supposition.

Maybe the presenter approached the youth on social media, or was approached and their 'relationship' developed from that?

Also, The Sun is, IMO chip-paper, but despite my low opinion of tabloids I really can't see them leading on this story without decent evidence. Maybe 20-30 years ago but since then the law has really clamped down on printing what you like about who you like without proof.

@JRHartley72 Yeah...that's possible. It's like a vicious game of chess...waiting for the next move.

Only Fans is just speculation.

I don’t understand why the parents didn’t go to the police in the first instance. Surely that would be the logical first port of call? Add to that the complete lack of police interest, the denial of the alleged victim and the apparent inability of the BBC to come up with any definitive proof in its investigation to date and this is looking remarkably like a smear campaign to me.

Not like the very important threads you've been posting on, on subjects such as eating egg and chips, when Sex in the City is on TV, and who is playing at Glastonbury.

You're right - potential child abuse, government, media and state corruption,, and the problems of pornography and drug addiction are really 'vacuous' compared to your interests.

Now hurry on back to chatting about your Chinese takeaway and the price of cucumbers in Tesco.

How utterly embarrassing and hypocritical of you.

@Blossomtoes they did go to the police.

Yeah, at the moment it just seems seedy but not illegal and therefore an issue between the unnamed BBC person and their spouse, rather than anything bigger. I too wonder why The Sun aren't naming names, if they're so sure of their story.

It is a supposition at this stage, but it's a strong one, because there has to be a reason the police aren't investigating. If the presenter was in direct contact, it would be a criminal offence for them to solicit images. But if the presenter was accessing the images through a site where the youth would've had to lie to say they are 18+ to set up an account the criminality isn't clear cut. And The Sun don't appear to have actual proof, because they aren't producing the bank statements and in today's front page story the paper says they have seen emails the stepfather sent to the BBC telling them of the large sums of money involved – but reading an email isn't proof the money was paid to the youth!

I still cannot , with all the will in the world connect any concept of " good, loving parenting" with going to The Sun newspaper in order to control a domestic situation pertaining to one's child that started on the parents' watch and wasn't caused by the BBC employee ( no matter how closeted and sleazy he is) and would still be a thing whether or not said son received large payments that have enabled a crack addiction.
No crackhead has ever let a lack of money stop them from being a crackhead. To not be politically correct; it is impossible to be an incognito crackhead, also crackheads haven't met a dynamic that they won't turn into a hustle.....even a " hello".
This was out of control way before Mr BBC came along and the coyness of The Sun and the weird parenting of the parents tell me that they are trying to offshore blame/ humiliation.
I know nobody who would have gone to a newspaper without money not being on their mind via low key blackmail.
What's put a fly in the ointment is the non capitulation of said presenter.
One's child doesn't become an overnight down bad crackhead Only Fans sex worker under one's roof , so a serious lapse of parenting has been going on and I hope that said parents have enough know how about them to realise that their tea will be exposed if it means that The Sun will get out of schtuck with their "throw rocks, hide hands' machinations where the health and safety of a young person is NOT their concern, but the humiliation of the BBC is.
What thickos! Sensible people do not use The Sun for family salvation!

They did and the police told them the presenter hadn't done anything illegal.

He's 20. He's an adult. His behaviour now is nothing to do with his parents and they had no right to go to the press. If they believe illegal activity had taken place when he was underage it was a matter for the police. Not for the world to know.

Apparently they did go to the police but they said nothing illegal was going on - presumably because youth is now 20yrs (and a crack addict - ie not a credible witness).

If this was my child my first port of call would be to find out where the presenter lived and go ask them what the hell they thought they were doing.

The tried and trusted 'unwise but not illegal' defense yet again