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?

But if they are estranged how did they hear that if it was in reference to the breaking story this past week?

We don’t actually know that the son is a drug addict though do we?

It’s interesting that if the son had come out and said that it happened he would have been believed without question. But because he’s come out and said that it didn’t happen, and that he’s estranged from his parents, we should consider that he’s clearly not able to know better.

Maybe he’s actually telling the truth, the parents certainly don’t appear to have his best interests at heart, only their own, as I’m sure they were paid handsomely for their story. And no, “didn’t ask for money” doesn’t mean “didn’t receive money.”

I said from the beginning that I believed the story to be made up, and I stand by that.

Look how many toxic parents there are on here, where posters’ parents have gone out of their way to hurt them. I’m sure that if you looked at the stately homes thread you would find posters whose parents would be prepared to tell the world they were a drug addict.

The Sun have blown this up very carefully and it serves two purposes for them (as well as boosting sales)

1. Rupert Murdoch's empire weakens the reputation of the BBC and pushes it closer to being "privatised" in some way - who stands to benefit? Murdoch (and no, he won't be paying an awful lot of tax in the UK)
2. Distracts nicely (timing is no coincidence) from Johnson failing to hand over the phone with the potentially damning evidence to the covid enquiry, and coincidentally also from the debate on the Johnson supporters undermining parliament.

And yes, they have form for making things up (lying) and yes, the sheer hypocrisy when they were happy to sexualise any number of teenage girls for page three or the abhorrent "legal" countdowns (Billie Piper, Charlotte church)

Originally the Sun said that their story was based on an affadavit from the mother. If you have actual evidence, you don't require an affadavit. Asking for an affadavit is an unusual way to go - it is basically a legal disclaimer saying that what you are saying is true. With evidence it is unnecessary. Want to bet that the Sun's legal defence is that the affadavit covers them from having to have any proof, and it is the mother / step father who are legally liable?

On the flip side I’m not against older males in desirable and public media positions thinking beyond if I can pay and get away with it then no issue.

No. If someone possesses an indecent image of a child they are committing an offence (various defences to this but none that would apply if eg someone bought images via OF and looked at them on their device).

Technically, yes, it is an offence. But would the police be interested in pursuing that, out of interest? It's impossible for the subscriber to really be able to verify if the difference is a 17 vs 18 year old. Who's fault is it?

Sorry, yes I replied to the wrong post.

@Qilin not sure but I no the sun aren’t the best of the bunch but they must have to fact check or they are going to get ripped apart…as what seems to be already happening

Yes, referring constantly to “they” is interesting. Personally if I knew my child/ young adult was being harmed such as being prostituted, getting addicted , wanting harmful gender surgery, I would be doing whatever I could to stop it. We know that the police have often ignored the damage that young people are exposed to, and indeed been part of the problem ( Rotherham) I would think twice about going to the police these days…but neither would the Sun be first choice.

How do you support and listen to a child who has gone no contact with you?

And you think going to the Sun would make your child come back to you @Calloffruity?

Am I the only person on the internet who doesn't know who it is ?

Well that's interesting and would explain it all.

Can anyone explain to me why this is bigger news than Schofield please? Why are the government involved in this but they weren't involved with the ITV/Schofield situation?

Yup that worked.

I think I'd contact the presenter and tell him I had evidence of what had been going on and if it didn't stop I'd go public.

Probably not but they haven't gone to the Sun for that reason, it seems like they've done it after exhausting other avenues trying to get the person who has been enabling their child to buy drugs to be stopped.

good question, maybe because ITV is a private company and the BBC is funded by the public?

What makes you think they didn't do that?

I’m sure they didn’t have permission but if your adult child was a crack addict wouldn’t you try and stop any funds going into his account?

Dont you just love a lynch mob...

At the moment it is only an allegation the details of which are very unclear and disputed.

At the end of the day he is only an employee of the BBC. If an offence has been allegedly been committed then it is up to the police to pursue the matter. If an offence is proved by the court then the BBC can act.

How much time is being wasted by lots of people and media...

BBC defunding witch hunt?

@Iwasafool The problem with that is its dangerously close to blackmail. The BBC have seriously f**d up by not dealing with this. There seems to be discussion about senior management not being told (which is bonkers), so it just sitting around middle management level with all doing their best impression of a 'deer in headlights'. Whatever the case, the BBC has a lot to answer for in terms of inaction.

@Calloffruity it is possible that other people may be funding their child's drug habit too, especially if they are on OF. Have they gone after them too? What about the people supplying the drugs?

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

@Superfood you lose the moral high ground from the word go - all you're doing on this thread is speculating. You might as well be taking bets for all the good you're doing in those very worthy and important areas you've listed. Plus you've stalked my previous posts in order to try and shame me.

There's nothing hypocritical in what I've said on this thread. You, on the other hand...

google 'twitter bbc presenter'