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?

Well yes because the presenter didn’t make them an addict, although I look forward to the mental gymnastics by posters who want this to be the case. The drug addiction (alleged) is a separate issue in my opinion

Doubt they work for BBC so no headline

If he's a crack addict he is not going to have a fun life. And having access to tens of thousands of pounds certainly will have enabled his addiction.

And they can recover, providing they’re not permanently cast in the victim role.

Yes I think Oliver Cromwell is on his way back, bit of a swing from the current government but puritanism seems popular.

It was the last place they went....

I've no idea what the actual sequence of events was here , but I can understand being at the end of your tether when all the proper channels are ignoring you and going to the one place you know will force some action.

I hope to god I'll never do it, but I can see why it might seem like the only remaining option.

Might not be a popular thought as I understand everyone point about anonymity and ‘why do we need to know’…the savile case, Harvey, r Kelly, I could go on….. many people only felt comfortable to say their truth only when they saw that other people had come forward too, and had been listened to. I am no way accusing this presenter of anything as horrific as savile and the like but my point is it must be very horrific and humiliating to go through the fact that something untoward and sleezy has happened to you. And these victims don’t always realise they are victims. Just my thoughts I hope you dont all trash me for this!

It's not puritanical or moralistic to think that married rich men buying sexual services from young drug addicts is grim.

And yet…they spoke 🙊

They haven’t been named and they can get better or not, no one knows.

But no I wouldn’t down play how bad it can be for a young person to become a serious addict

It can be ‘life ruining’

I've no idea what the actual sequence of events was here , but I can understand being at the end of your tether when all the proper channels are ignoring you and going to the one place you know will force some action.

Well they could have replied to the BBC's email to them

You really can’t say what place this person is in. Optimism or not.

Yes, there's something wrong in the world when people are trying to say this is OK. Even if it turns out not to be illegal, it surely can't be OK?

And a high profile person, paid by public money needs to make sure his behaviour is OK.

Did I do that?

Also im seeing many references to the ‘young individual’ being male, can I ask where that info has come from?

Being an alcoholic can ruin your life (left me a child with one parent dead) smoking can ruin your life, eating so much junk food you become morbidly obese can ruin your life. What do you think we should do? Lock up people who make and sell these things? Lock up the planners who let them open businesses to sell this stuff? Lock up the employers who pay people enough money so they can buy this stuff? Do a witch hung for celebrities who endorse such products?

People with capacity are entitled to make choices, even bad ones.

@Translucentwaters 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.

I hate the world we live in now…Onlyfans….men are disgusting

@Sweetashunni the relevance to me is the comments from the young man's lawyer, the denials. A drug addict or indeed an alcoholic is not someone I would automatically believe as telling the truth, given they may be hiding the scale or nature of their addiction.

This may be the one instance where I would believe something in The Sun tabloid instead of someone else's account.

Winchester100
I don’t personally care what people get up to in their private lives providing it’s not illegal. Working for the BBC does not make you public property. I’d like to see this person back in his job tbh, I think he’s good at it and I prefer him to any alternatives.

Totally agree. In any case how do we know the money was paid for images? Could just as easily have been blackmailed.

Like you, I do believe this man and his family, if he has one, deserve this.

That’s don’t not do

Of course it’s not ok. Neither is sleeping with your sister’s husband (for example), constantly popping out babies by different feckless men, or refusing to mingle with anyone who is gay. But all of these are legal, and the question is, should you be sacked or subject to a public witch hunt over something that is morally distasteful but not illegal? If so then think very hard about things you posted online 15 years ago, or that time you had a threesome on holiday, or when you pulled at a house party but it turned out they were in a relationship. The line won’t get drawn at ‘paying young adults for nudes’ it will keep edging further and further towards you…

We only have the parents’ word they are a drug addict. I’d believe a flat earther over The Sun - particularly after its Hillsborough performance.

There's worse stuff going on, maybe a bit of outrage about that would be more useful. It is puritanical to try and dictate what other people should do as long as it is legal.

Personally I'd quite like to ban alcohol. I lost a parent when I was a child because of alcohol, my first marriage fell apart because of his addiction to alcohol and my kids suffered for that. I don't suppose my view would be popular on here and I don't expect anyone to stop drinking because it is disgusting to me but trust me a drunk smelling of alcohol is far more disgusting to me than a naked body. So buying/selling a photo seems less disgusting to me than buying/selling a bottle of whisky. I wonder how many people at the BBC (or on here for that matter) drink too much?

We all choose our own poison, mine is chocolate.

Very well said.

Tbh - and I’m aware I’m wading in with my opinion too! - there’s too much trial by SM. The police and our politicians seem to react to shouty public opinion rather than whether something should be pursued or enforced for the right reasons. This became more apparent to me during Covid. Decisions were made very much on what was public mood and trending rather than based on sound reasoning.

The same is happening here. The parents have lit the touch paper, the public are predictably jumping on the outrage bus and the BBC, Sunak et al are responding accordingly and predictably, when really this is absolutely nothing to do with anyone except the youth and the BBC presenter.