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?

One can hope that The Sun have gone one step too far with this and go the same way as the News of the World.

Whilst 17 is legally underage, it’s also seems to be a bit of a grey area as the individual is very nearly an adult, and a big difference from say a 14 year old. Unless it can be proven that a vulnerable person was exploited/groomed, there is probably little the police can act upon.

Presumably, if the youth in question now has the support and backing of an international and highly regarded law firm (and therefore removed from potential pressure/influence by either parents or BBC presenter) they will feel confident enough to say whether they truly felt exploited or if it was indeed consensual? And at the moment it sounds like it was very much both parties were happy with the arrangement, however sleazy or distasteful it seems to outsiders.

Well of course no-one knows if it actually happened until it's proven in court, but the allegations are of illegal acts and shouldn't be minimised.

That contradicts what the parents have said.
I highly doubt the child waited until their 18th birthday before sending photos!

Putting aside the legal technicalities it is beyond disgusting that an old man approaching pension age if indeed he is to be setting up zoom calls for sexual gratification with a 17 year old child. No one is questioning the age of the victim when it began only the age when the images were sent.

In cases like this I would be amazed if he was the only victim. Almost always there are more.

Well quite. I can't imagine having an important call to make and trying once by phone and once by email.

As a publicly funded state broadcaster, the BBC has a Charter and a public service remit.

Public purposes and purpose remits
The Charter defines the main objective of the BBC as the promotion of six public purposes. These are:

Sustaining citizenship and civil society
Promoting education and learning
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
In promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

this isn't an employee of a random company. The BBC is meant to fulfill the remit above and it is held to different standards, as are its high-profile presenters. It is really essential that it fulfills its remit if it is to retain its reputation and respect in the UK and internationally.

Silence does not speak volumens at all! His lawyers, professional advice and how he deals with this himself. Some people ride above it, he could be just shocked! His name would be tarnished even if he wasnt guilty.

Firstly it is not a ‘grey’ area at all in the eyes of the law. It is illegal full stop under eighteen.

Secondly who do you think is paying for the lawyers? Not the kid I suspect - so they will not be neutral, they will be representing the person paying them not the victim!

With the met now 'scoping' any criminality and the BBC having to pause this investigations it could be months before any new information comes to light.

We have the contrast between a very fast paced news story and the slow wheels of process and law.

If the BBC continue with the current path then will it inadvertantly look like it's kicking these allegations into the long grass hoping collective public amnesia will set in?

It would appear that the presenter by not personally publicly addressing the allegations is hoping to be reinstated at some point in the future. That scenario would be a massive elephant in the UK collective room.

The person who is the subject of so much speculation on Twitter hasn’t remained silent, his account on Twitter has started liking articles that are about the young person’s lawyers saying the whole thing is rubbish and another stating that the Sun needs to show their evidence (the last one a Jon Sopel tweet)

I wouldn’t take that as an acknowledgment that he is the presenter under suspicion but someone is monitoring social media on his behalf.

The BBC must get lots of complaints every day. An email, then a followup phone call, could be a reasonable course of action, as we don't know what the original complaint was - other than it wasn't about anything illegal happening. The allegation of the person being 17 did not come out until the mother spoke to The Sun.

It is entirely possible that the lawyers have agreed to act initially for free in this high-profile case. We have no idea who is paying for the lawyers, and the celeb would be pretty stupid to pay.

I just heard him commenting about it. Seriously? People in glass houses…

The fact that he has lawyers advising him mean it’s nothing good.

Rylan, Lineker and Vine just said ‘wasn’t me!’ There was no need for legal counsel 💁🏽‍♀️

Spins it out, sells more papers

(And, presumably, on the advice of lawyers).

To be fair, Rylan did have access to legal counsel, he was filming with Rob Rinder! They were in Italy filming something for the BBC.

A poll showed 1 in 6 people know who it is. Not difficult going by the salary, the absence and a million posts on social media.
Said person has wife and kids. Naturally cannot name anyone on here nobody wants to get sued.
I hope this person gets screwed to infinity, paying a 17 year old thousands for filthy pics - basically prostitution - so they can fund their crack cocaine addiction, alienate them from their family and fuck up their head.
Now hiding behind lawyers and BBC.
If nothing to hide and allegations are false them come out and show yourself.

I guarantee they all took advice before speaking.

It would appear that the presenter by not personally publicly addressing the allegations is hoping to be reinstated at some point in the future. That scenario would be a massive elephant in the UK collective room.

Or simply hoping to retire quietly without having to say anything publicly on the matter.

I agree. The morality police are becoming quite scary.

Well said
its as if the life of this youngster doesn’t matter - no wonder his parents are so upset.

One in 6 people don't know who it is. They know who they think it is based on social media speculation.

I know who I think it might be. But I don't know for sure. I hope I'm wrong.

Let’s just go along with the idea it was not a criminal matter that doesn’t make it any better for those with any sense of decency whatsoever. Paying a child hooked on drugs to gratify your sexual desires is beyond disgusting.

People keep referring to the child as ‘he’ (which is why a lot of gay celebrities were initially targeted). But do we know they are male for sure? The interview with the mother only refers to ‘my child’ and ‘they’.

Does it actually matter?
They are a child regardless of sex

Makes no difference to me. I don't watch the BBC any more. I'm sick of it. They just churn out unwatchable woke garbage. Even Radio 4 is rubbish now. They can't even discuss Jane Austen without turning it into a rant about colonialism. If it wasn't for my partner, I wouldn't pay the licence fee.