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?

@AdamRyan - well that argument doesn't hold water. Time and time again since time immemorial there have been high profile men cheating on their wives, etc, etc and the British public is hardly the great upholder of moral virtue. We vote for them and one of the biggest lying, philandering ones of them was PM recently with people dismissing his piss poor behaviour as not important rather than as a true indicator of his character.

The parents reaction has made me think they have the proof and are angry enough to keep pushing

The parents have received no money.

I’m not sure they are estranged, because the parents seem to know exactly what’s happening, if Any Estrangement it’s in the last couple of days

They habe not sold. Both parties confirmed no payment made.

You believe the SUN???? Really?

Monies promised for a future story... paid to a 3rd party... options a plenty.

its a disgusting rag, with a very clear anti BBC bias, plus we have a GE approaching, so lets trash the BBC.

@Thearseyone thats what I think, if the alleged victim is hooked on drugs , they wouldn't want the money to stop coming in, their allegiance would be to the person bankrolling them.

Black mail is also a possibility

Sleazy man, being sleazy, used to cover up even sleazier men being even sleazier (George Osbourne, Boris Johnson), will be retired off. The prole young man and his family traumatised collateral damage, as per the sleazy men's families. The end. T'was ever this.

In this yes I believe the parents and do not find it unbelievable a parent would try to stop something like this and protect their child.

I find it bemusing folks are trying to blame the parents or the sun and accusing them of lying rather than think this could be true, because it’s so unbelievable that a man could behave like this.

@mangochops

you are probably right in the end.

However does this not set a really dangerous president that people's private lives are open to tabloid scrutiny to an extent that careers and reputations can be destroyed?

What is the bar for public probity in senior BBC roles and how can we be consistent?

We've had something similar with a close family teenager, just not with a person on tv. The young person couldn't see it was wrong, didn't want to see and enjoyed what was going on. The person I knew would swear blind nothing inappropriate had happened and being over the legal age left it a grey area. He will be infatuated and enjoyed the attention at the time so can't see what was wrong about it so will of course deny it

I agree with you. And the parents were paid posts have been shown no to be the case.

Maybe the man will just leave and then what, not much I suppose

I agree. I think it also raises an important question of: if something isnt illegal but its very distasteful/sleazy, what should be done about that? On the one hand, he has every right to do what he likes sexually, as long as its not illegal and its not really anyone else's business, but, as a presenter for the BBC- isnt there an expectation to not behave in such a way?

I'm not sure I know what the answer is really.

‘The father says’ - that’s just one word against the other isn’t it? Could be the BBC, could be the father. My only point was that we don’t know enough to say definitively the BBC covered it up.

Even the bbc isn’t denying they got a full report or gently stating payment made, some posters are really scrabbling. If it wasn’t true the man can just put out a statement saying this is false, money changed hands, never met this person, but he hasn’t, he’s hiding behind very expensive lawyers who are now also representing the kid.

Sure if the story was real the accused person wouldn’t be the only person giving the child cash.
so is their problem with the presenter or with the behaviour of their child

Is the "bum" picture real or fake. I've seen it online, just can't believe it's true!! 🙀🙀🙀

The parents' claim that The Sun paid them no money is as unbelievable as a certain famous couple receiving no money from Oprah 😂

Does it really matter whether real or no? Aren’t people allowed private life ?

Bum's prettier than the face. Makes you wonder.

However does this not set a really dangerous precedent that people's private lives are open to tabloid scrutiny to an extent that careers and reputations can be destroyed?

This isn't new - people in the public eye have always been held to a higher standard/don't bring the corporation into disrepute.
Hence PR companies and the gossip industry existing.

If people's private lives involve illicit sexual contact with vulnerable young people while their adult spouses are unaware then I'm all for it. Keeping it quiet is how they get away with it and why we have abominations like OF. And I'm talking about all 3 men here

It's fairly normal for young people to think I'm in control here, I've got the power. I'm using these pervs to get money and laughing at them behind their backs, why shouldn't I when they're so pathetic and just see me as a sex object. I was the same as a student.

Unfortunately, there more to it than that, as this case shows if true (enabling a drug addiction) and they don't necessarily see the harm caused to their lives, self esteem and psyches atvthe time that this kind of sex work involves. many older ex-prostitutes will attest to this. Up until recently, the punters got off unscathed. If the Sun changes that by bringing sunlight, whatever their own questionable motives, then I'm personally all for it.

Daily fail was reporting a few hours ago that the BBC had received numerous complaints from the public regarding who it is since the story broke. I'm not sure if that's tabloid speak for let's make "the public are unhappy with this" sound as sinister as possible

Or it's that once somebody breaks the damn and goes public with those type of allegations others feel they can come forward- and if they actually have received more allegations then I think they are doing themselves no favours not naming him. Also confusing with it being reported that they'll consider using parliamentary privilege to name him and discuss privacy laws

But I also wouldn't put it beyond TV stations to try and pull the BBC down in the same way just a few weeks ago another network was in the news for bad management affecting its other employees and protecting stars Vs taking seriously allegations and investigating and lose them a major "star" like they just have