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?

This. The police say nothing illegal has occurred. The poor presentet and the young man in question must be wondering why he has these money grabbing parents that went firstly to the sun to sell a sordid story.

If its who is wildly speculated upon he has a family who will be reeling from this

It's now becoming a witch hunt over a ma. Who seemingly has done nothing at all illegal

@HurdyGurdy19 no one knows if OF was used , it's just people guessing.

Yet the person in question hasn't come out, as others have done, to say it isnt them. Sure, the photos may be fake, but his silence speaks VOLUMES.

"Superfood · Today 10:03

baroqueandblue · Today 09:56
Don't waste your breath @WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps
There's no reasoning with vacuous!"

*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.*"

Just reading through the thread whilst on a break and saw this. 😂😂 My teenager would say you "owned" them @Superfood some on here are so pompous yet feel chatting about egg and chips is super important.

This is useful for the timeline and reasoning

So it's not illegal but immoral.

I think to most people a man in his late 50's and a child of 17 at the time of the alleged events is pretty 'yuck' to say the least. Individuals in the public eye who use their status and wealth to help engage with 'fans' in a sexual way/or by using them should be called out. Did the BBC cover up? They have been known to cover up for pervs int he past.

Thanks to everyone who helped an old lady figure out the internet! 🙌🏼 Now I know who everyone is on about.

It says nothing. Doubtless that individual is being advised by very expensive lawyers and they will be taking the advice they’ve been given. Presumably they’re keeping their powder dry to be used when ultimately they sue The Sun’s arses off if this has all been trumped up with no evidence. In which case, I hope the parents too have deep pockets because it wouldn’t just be the individual suing them but also the BBC and the alleged victim.

His lawyers will be telling him to say nothing even if it is him there is nothing criminal if The young man in question was over 18 when it happened and to keep quiet and let the papers implode will mean more damages

It's getting really confusing

I've read in the articles about it all that the presenter tried to meet with them at a train station (young person) and that sparked the parents into their complaint

Clearly, what is reported isn't always the truth, often is biased and sometimes is twisted but that implies its beyond an online images relationship at this stage... like PS - it's not illegal for older married men to sleep with drug addicted young men in their late teens/early twenties- but it does drag their employers into the headlines for all the wrong reasons and certainly the behaviour code of conduct likely states not bringing the BBC/ITV into disrepute

It's not equal though - Russell Brand in active addiction sleeping with zillions of women certainly wasn't classed as bringing networks into disrepute- so it only applies to particular brands of presenters and if they align their personality with being a bit of a sleaze openly to the public we don't seem to be bothered about cancelling them or calling it out as distasteful

Personally, I think I do care how people behave in their personal lives- it's not a crime (other than pre 18) but it smells of exploitation. I mean if someone isn't on a major salary and being broadcasted into my home for years obv I care lesser what they get up to in private if I think it's "not illegal but 🤮"

It's also been reported that they received more complaints- from who, about what?, Is this going to have numerous other accusers coming forward once the name is released?

The sticking point seems to be the fact that the individual was under 18 when some of the pictures were obtained. The individual must have lied online to be able to go on there I assume, probably not that hard to do , but my knowledge of these kind of sites is zero. Depends how much they are monitored.
The sun must have bank transfer details , some other evidence other than ' word of mouth '

@dancinginthesky do you have a link to the article?

@Juanmartinez rather not link but it's Daily Fail I definitely read the train station bit in either late last night or early this morning

An allegation is made in May and the person concerned is not advised of it shortly afterwards. Whether illegal or not, the man concerned should have been told. There are people sick enough that they would harm a man's family or get comments made at the young man's workplace to get at the man concerned.

Not that if true it in any way defends what he has done.

It's OnlyFans. I don't think NoFans would drum up much business.

It's for over 18s. It's very prevalent and used by many people, male and female, to pay for various content.

It hasn't been confirmed that the website is remotely involved. People are just speculating. As ever.

If you read the Guardian link below it shows the BBC process. I don’t think it’s bad tbh as a way to deal with the many allegations they get

If its who I'm told it is, then they don't exactly strike me as being in a role that would make a 17 year old ( crack addict or not) an adoring fan.

Perhaps we will never know the whole truth.. Im not convinced that we are hearing it through the media at the moment

It is illegal.

Legally you can not take sexual images of any child under the age of eighteen regardless of consent.

Secondly, I strongly suspect the time line is being contested. The parents have evidence so this should be dealt with relatively quickly.

The parents are no doubt reporting this to protect other children. Other complaints and alleged victims may now surface. It is morally and ethically the right thing to do. They tried to resolve it quietly with the bbc and were ignored.

If this is the same presenter now coming up over and over again and the bbc have sat on the information as looks likely, it could take down the institution. It is morally bankrupt to allow 61 year old male presenters to feed the drug habits of children for sexual gratification. And in the eyes of the law a seventeen year old IS a child.

The mother said contact started at 17 . If pictures were not sent until later when he wa over 18 it's not illegal. Which is what the young man is stating very clearly

The BBC are now saying the complaint on 19 May was not of anything illegal but still a very serious matter.

They tried to call the complainant on 19 May and emailed on 6 Jun, but didn't get any response.

So having made a serious complaint, why would you ignore attempts to contact you, but also having received a serious complaint, did they try hard enough?

Cheers @Countdowntowinter 😁

I just couldn't believe the nerve of charging onto a thread to call everyone on it "vacuous" with all of that in their very recent posting history. How embarrassing.

The hiring of such city big hitters for the child also smacks of said presenter doing everything possible to bypass the law. There is no way an average person can afford them. In the police’s shoes I would want to be content that the alleged victim is not being unduly influenced to withdrew or withhold information.

It is only illegal if it is true that images were shared when the individual was under 18 and that has not been proven although it may be that it is being investigated. What we do know is that a 20 year old is an adult and it is their story to tell or to report to the police, it is not their parent's story to take to a tabloid newspaper.

Morality is a different question and that is between the BBC employee and their employer.

I would say that one unanswered email and one mobile phone call that "didn't connect", and then doing absolutely nothing until it hit the newspapers, isn't really taking it very seriously at all.

The family had gone in person to the BBC building as well as making the phone call. It wasn't a random nuisance call. This is all from the BBC director general's own account of it.

That could be wilfully ignoring the BBCs attempt to speak to them - but equally it could be simply missing a withheld number with no idea it was them or receiving a generic email about the BBCs complaint procedure