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?

The boy denied anything wrong had happened before the sun printed it and printed it anyway the sun are disgusting and hopefully this will finally be the end of them

This was nothing but a sensationist story to sell papers and to put the hoot into the bbc which the sun hates
I hope this presenter can continue as normal - - and sues the fuck out of the sun--

So going to the Sun was seen as helpful?
they are changing their story too - it doesn’t feel like they have their child’s best interests at heart..

@Wheresthebeach don't need to name someone to be sued.

I expect they feel their lives are already in tatters and this was a desperate attempt to make it stop, after they'd already tried more usual avenues.

@HellonHeels They have improved in many ways from the 70s.
Old men can't fondle teenagers against their will in public etc
But yes it's also got much worse in other ways.
How can we be progressing in some ways and then prostitution and onlyfans are okay. Women still being objectified constantly
Young men growing up must be so confused, just gotta try and raise my sons to be the best they can be.

While men are in charge and testosterone exists then I guess true progress will never be made

Maybe go and be nosy about the actual laws around libel and defamation. Also what counts as "publishing".

It can't be that The Sun (who will have taken legal advice) have put themselves at risk of being sued for massive damages by printing a story where they have no proof? Time will tell but why would they risk it? Murdock may be a massive Right Wing Tory supporter but this would be business suicide.

Still waiting to find out what went on there’s just page after page of speculation

The thing I don’t understand is that it started on OnlyFans which means it is legal, isn’t it? If not then OF should be in the sticky stuff not the presenter. Even if he paid the young person thousands of pounds that is between them, no?

From BBC News

Kelvin Mackenie, former editor of the Sun newspaper, believes the BBC presenter at the heart of the allegation will never be named. Not now that a lawyer representing the young person involved has offically disputed their mother’s account of events.

Speaking on the BBC's Nicky Campbell show, however, he said the story could continue to pose problems for them and their employer down the line.

"I have never believed that the presenter will be identified now," said MacKenzie. "Once that statement was made, it ended the chance of a court action, somebody being charged in relation to this one way or the other.

"The young person has said that nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened. Therefore there is no evidence and there is no witness, so that's the end of that."

No. It's a popular tactic though isn't it? If no-one cares about the scandal you want to promote, look at what else is in the news and make snide comments about the timing of that being very "convenient".

I disagree. I think it sounds like the mother and step father do have the youths best interests at heart.

If it was my child I would do everything in my power to get them off drugs and away from prostituting themselves. The Sun, while far from a quality newspaper has a wide circulation so if you want to make a splash it's a good place to start (especially if you feel your concerns have been ignored by the police/BBC)

If it was my son having their name exposed would be the least of the presenters worries once I found out where they lived 😂

What would you do if your teenage child had developed a drug habit that was being funded by a BBC household name...you go to the police but are told nothing illegal has happened, we can't help...you go to the BBC and they do nothing...it's understandable why you would try a tabloid as a last ditch attempt to make people listen

Absolutely agree

You should post this in the tinfoilhatconspiracynutter topic.

The Sun is constantly sued and constantly lies. I don't know why everyone assumes they don't.

This. It’s still being sued for phone hacking.

I wouldn’t, no. Because it is clearly never going to work, and it will alienate your child even more. It is an incredibly stupid stunt to pull if your intention is to get your child off crack - clearly going to have the opposite effect.

I can’t imagine what the parents are going through but I would say their actions would push me even further away.

It is interesting that Phil had to resign but this person is protected for now.

He was protected for quite a king time it seems.

And it involved a child who was just 14y when it started and initial contact from being even younger, and there being direct contact.

That's definitely different to someone who was 17y at the outset, and it being non direct contact.

and how would they know who they were and their contact details?

Er... a quick google? I am assuming the young person can read. It's important that they have access to good independent legal advice, whoever has paid for it.

Very quick and simple searches for "who are harbottle and lewis" and "talk to press legal advice england" bring up useful answers.

@Calloffruity I don't think I would go to a tabloid, I wouldn't want my family life being broadcast to the nation and then being talked about all over SM. As we can see on here not everyone feels sympathy for the parents, and there is a likelihood the name of family members will be out there soon (if they aren't already) and then other people come out of the woodwork to tell stories about you.

What would you do if your teenage child had developed a drug habit that was being funded by a BBC household name...you go to the police but are told nothing illegal has happened, we can't help...you go to the BBC and they do nothing...it's understandable why you would try a tabloid as a last ditch attempt to make people listen.

Probably not go to a tabloid or seek any kind of publicity - it never ends well. Particularly not a hypocritical rag of a tabloid regularly showed sexual images of children on page 3 until recently, and wrote headlines like "Gotcha!" when a ship was sunk with multiple casualties and for years blamed the fans for the Hillsborough disaster, and for years was completely homophobic, more than 20 years after homosexual sexual activity became legal and caused gay young men to commit suicide with the filth that they wrote about them.

I'd just support my child and listen to them.

@Catspyjamas17 exactly.

It's a right old conundrum and in the fullness of time more firm facts will develop and be released. Both the BBC and The Sun are going to have to defend their handling of this so inevitably the story has quite a way to run yet.

The sticking point at the moment from what limited information has come out is whether any illegal activity has taken place. If it firmly transpires that nothing illegal has happened realistically there is still no coming back from this for the presenter in question as the optics are still sleazy and "unbecoming" of a senior presenter.

Realistically the presenter will be retired off as his position is untenable.
There will be so many factors that contribute.

But there will also be wider issues as well

This is a quote from Kelvin MacKenzie - former editor of the Sun

"They (the presenter) won't get their job back but what will be worse for the corporation and worse for Tim Davie and his management is the idea that they are going to get a severance," he said.
"That's what I see as the biggest problem now looming on this story, that eventually the star presenter receives licence fee payers' money to go away. What an extraordinary moment that will be."

In addition there will be future considerations. For instance if the BBC Presenter is the person being widely named on SM, historical footage for instance of things like "Top of the Pops" have had to be edited to remove Jimmy Saville featuring on any archive material that they show. This will certainly present a real issue when showing past major and significant events that the presenter has previously covered in a senior role!

The whole thing is a big mess at the moment for all parties involved, and there are many players in it. We've recently seen the outcome for Philip Schofield employed by a rival TV station - but that was a commercial station with very different funding by advertisers. The BBC is in a different funding position which just adds another layer to it all.