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?

I understand that if your child is a crack addict you're going to want to do anything you can to stop them. But something that bothers me about going to the Sun and making it so very public is did the parents have the right to do that?

The young person concerned is now 20 and therefore in law an adult. They have made him the centre of the current biggest news story in the UK. If they didn't do this with his permission then they have let him down just as much as anyone else.

Do we know if any of this is true yet? The Sun isn't exactly known for its probity and Murdoch (and the Tories) hate the BBC.
It's certainly knocked everything else off the news (Boris/George).

They have shown screenshots of bank payments and also text conversations. There is sufficient evidence from what the parents have said.

The BBC asked the Sun what evidence they have seen and the Sun declined to respond. Instead they reframed the story as being about the BBC not responding to a complaint quickly enough.

These are the questions the BBC asked the Sun and the Sun refused to answer:

•	What evidence has the Sun seen to back up its allegations against the presenter?
•	How does the Sun explain the different ways it has reported the initial contact between the family and the BBC?
•	Did the Sun ignore a WhatsApp message to its reporter on Friday evening from the young person disputing the story?

I just find it difficult to believe that this presenter in particular would be so stupid. I hope there's nothing in it and he takes the Sun to the cleaners.

The whole thing is getting ridiculous now. I heard on Times Radio this morning that some MPs had been talking of naming the presenter in Parliament using parliamentary privilege. That seems absolutely over the top to me.

The police are investigating and if a criminal offence can be shown to have taken place then the CPS will decide if the presenter is to be prosecuted.

If no criminal offence has been committed then then it is up to the BBC to decide if what has happened merits sacking the presenter. I think it would be impossible for them to pay him off now as there would be outrage over a cover up.

He will then have the usual remedies through the courts and employment tribunals if he feels he has been unfairly dismissed.

Whatever has happened, if it is who people think it is then I feel desperately sorry for his family. Can you imagine what they must be going through at the moment, especially the kids.

If the complaint is true would the parents have complained if drugs weren’t involved?

The attacks on the BBC are increasing - the Telegraph feels free to give Auntie a kicking in their latest headline. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/11/bbc-salary-list-huw-edwards-pay-rise-gary-lineker-zoe-ball/

👏👏👏

Can you imagine what they must be going through at the moment, especially the kids.

Its now the public equivalent of a blood sport. People are enjoying the chase and speculation on innocent individuals more than they will the sense of ‘justice’ if this person is sacked and disappears into the ether. Not to mention the chance to performatively out-condemn his actions to each other.

If it’s right that all this was carried out via only fans
then using that platform it states that all content providers are over 18
so realistically as unsavoury as it is the guy had done nothing wrong or illegal

My friend's daughter is an addict and some of the things my friend wanted to do to save her were far from sensible (visiting a crack den in the middle of the night to hoik her out for example) .
Whether all this is true or not, I can understand a parent, who is at their wits end, acting first out of desperation even if their child is now an adult.

@savory, I’d get that deleted if I were you.

Who cares ?

And my mother begged local publicans not to serve my father whisky, told them he had 3 young kids who were suffering. They all sent lovely wreaths to the funeral.

@Iwasafool I'm so sorry, my friend wasn't successful either.

Me too.

The context is that media are using this brouhaha to attack the BBC in general and the Telegraph along with the Murdoch rags are leading this - in this case banging on about presenter's salaries.

My thoughts on this for what they are worth:

1. It's a massive distraction from other much more serious news stories such as Johnson not handing over the phone he used during the lead up to the pandemic, I can't see any media baying for his blood and calling for his arrest for contempt. Oh and don't forget what is happening to mortgages.
2. What has allegedly happened is not illegal, it is sordid, unpleasant and is in the news because it involves someone employed by a publicly funded organisation who is allegedly very well known. I have no doubt that all sorts of people from all walks of life are doing equally unsavoury things but we are hearing about this because this allegedly involves someone well known.
3. Why on earth would any parent go to the truth-twisting Sun? It is lower than a snake crawling in a gutter. All that rag is interested in is selling papers and online ad revenue and it will publish anything to achieve these ends.

I know. I’d still get it deleted.

I just can't understand why when porn is freely available on the internet and caters to every bizarre taste you can imagine, why someone would pay for pictures. Why would you take that risk. Wtf was he thinking

@savory the BBC are ‘banging on’ about salaries too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66156287.amp

They’ve obviously just been released

This, if true, isn't "just" morally distasteful though, it's about abuse of a position of power and influence.

Absolutely, it's this weeks Nicola Bulley/Phillip Schofield/Titan sub/ story, all of media interest but all blown up massively to fill the news agenda with distractions from the things that are going on that will really impact on people's lives

How did he abuse his power specifically? I’m not aware he used his job in direct relation to this episode.

Yeah my first thought was also why do that - it's so stupid

The only thing I can think is that OF creates the illusion of a relationship rather than being a passive consumer

Am at a loss why the BBC is being dragged into this. Yes, the presenter is in their employ, but this isn't like Schofield, the runner and This Morning, this is something that has taken place with a person outside of the Beeb.

We have very little fact at hand. If the presenter was paying this person via Only Fans, then how is this wrong? The onus is on Only Fans to verify their performers are over 18, not those whom are paying for content. Which the presenter was.

I also find it rather off that instead of going to the police, the mother went to the press. Surely if she was so concerned, the police would be her first port of call.

This is all trial by social media, with very little proof as yet. If the Sun are so sure who it is, why aren't they publishing the name? It will be because they don't actually have proof. Instead, the insinuate and intone. But without solid and concrete proof, they cannot name the presenter.

I know many will disagree, but it's a non-story, one blown out of all proportion by The Sun. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch who has been gunning for the BBC for years. This is just another facet of their assault. Giving the state of the country, it's also proving a great distraction in the press, the Government must be thrilled.