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?

So all this has prompted them to re look

Quite possibly. But there was a lot of money sloshing about, so I jumped to a financial solution.

Victoria Derbyshire had an interesting slip of the tongue on Newsnight last night.

I don’t understand that either. Why can’t the investigations run in tandem?

Oh is that yuw then? Why so defensive?

Agreed. And mother should try to support her son in seeking treatment / help for his addiction and any mental damage, but she is now giving evidence in public against her own son by saying how he could afford an expensive law firm.
I am not surprised their son is in such mess. He must have got into drugs in his mid teens and offered sleepy services to get money to buy expensive drugs.
Also, what is this website nofans? If minors are allowed to do such acts, then they facilitate abuse of minors. So there should be an action against the company and the CEO / Founder.
And if we allow businesses to exist, then we cannot call it scandal now just because the person in question is a well known journalist.

This. Plus Murdoch wants to distract attention from the little issue of Johnson's contempt of court in failing to hand over his phone.

IDK but it's the same thing as happened with Partygate - Sue Grey paused when Met began to investigate

Risk that the evidence gets contaminated?

I believe The Sun haven’t named as they aren’t able to produce evidence of illegality, that is still just someone’s accusation and is disputed by the young person involved. If the police decline to take it any further then that effectively drops away.

without evidence of illegality The Sun would then struggle to justify why it is printing details of the sex lives of two consenting adults, as that would infringe both individuals’ right to privacy.

Just because people think it it juicy gossip doesn’t give them a right to know about it, and it starts to look like the bad old days of celebrities being forcibly “outed” just for being gay - not a good look for The Sun. Moral disapproval by a newspaper isn’t enough to justify exposing people for engaging in otherwise legal behaviour.

If it is potentially a crime the police don't like other people getting involved.

There's something just really odd and "off" about this whole circumstance. So many obvious questions that can't or won't be answered. Lots of chess pieces being moved around. I think it will all come out in the wash eventually, but at the moment everything is anyone's guess.

It's a murky, toxic world that needs to be exposed. Journalists know of a lot of MPs who get up to dodgy stuff too. And other BBC 'talent'. To be frank, it's rife. Cocaine in the Commons bogs, in the BBC bogs, in newspaper newsroom bogs ... lots of money slushing around, promises of internships, sexual exploitation dressed up as 'relationships' or 'friendships' ... it even happens at local councils, within political parties, within charities ...

And the police repeatedly refuse to take action and the CPS refuse to prosecute unless the young person makes a statement, provides 'proof', and agrees to give evidence in court. Sometimes even where the victim does want to prosecute, the police back off because 'the important man' has more 'credibility'. It's bloody infuriating. I've seen cases where absolute nonces have just walked away laughing.

What I don't understand is: if all the parents wanted was for the presenter to stop sending their child money, why wouldn't he just stop? There must be infinite other sources of dodgy photos. The obvious answer would be blackmail from the child, but once the parents came out of the woodwork any threat from the child would have lost its sting.

Everyone is so interested in blaming BBC but the bigger question is why such businesses exist? The entire business model is based on sexual abuse. If authorities allow or turn a blind side on that. What is the rational? If it is freedom, then all these 2 individuals have done is a transaction, which is allowed on the website, so why so much interest now? Why was that website allowed to exist? Which regulations were they following? What industry is it under? And do we think once the presenter is named and shamed, we have solved the issue of abuse of minor, if that is the concern at the heart of this mass public interest?

The sense of a 'relationship' between the presenter and the child/young person? A mutual dependency. The presenter expecting consideration as well as sex for his money - I was reading on Nordic Model Now about a sex worker being surprised at how many men wanted to think she enjoyed having sex with them, and not that she was just in it for the money. Maybe something like that?

My points relate to the general principle of privacy which I feel could end up applying to any one of us.

We as the public don't know the all the facts, the newspaper does not know all the facts. I feel that like so many people either in the public eye of who work for the NHS and probably more likely schools there are allegations that are made which are not true - in many cases. I feel anominity is crucial - I would go so far as to say that even court cases where the victim has anominity the accused should be given privacy. There are cases of malicious allegations which are distressing for those who are accused.

It must be very surreal for BBC colleagues at the moment who are having to try and continue as normal, fully aware of who their colleague is that has been suspended.

Watching last night's 10pm news with the presenter addressing the issue and referring to the BBC and the current known facts that are in the public domaine with the BBC logo in full view behind her. Just imagine how all the production staff feel at the moment having to prepare for the news programmes etc?

Then Victoria Derbyshire on Newsnight discussing the events with guests evaluating the current known (publically declared) circumstances. All rather mind blowing.

My opinion on this matter is quite straightforward, but apparently deeply unfashionable: it's none of my business.

Risk that that evidence might be tainted, not clean

That’s why they pause BBC investigation

Yes and the police told them what was happening WAS NOT illegal - that’s kind of a crucial point you missed out!

Twitter is full of shite, fake twits twitting away and you believe it?
If the person is not guilty and innocent till proven guilty, why the baying for blood and the name of the presenter? What do we gain from it? Do we get our knitting needles out and start poking them in the eye for entertainment or whatever?

BBC director general Tim Davie answering press questions - Guardian Live blog

On the balance of probability I believe it probably is him. But I’m certainly not baying for blood or thinking his name should be released. He’s done nothing illegal as far as I can tell. The young person says it was all consensual and non illegal. 🤷‍♀️. Ideally he’d be able to go back to work but not sure that will happen.

Another one that just cannot help themselves returning over and over to a thread that is beneath them and doesn't interest them. 🙄😏