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?

@Sartre agree, I expect there's plenty of casual hook ups on heterosexual dating sites too. Let's not make this into a homophobic issue, however much the Sun wants it to be

Similar in Ireland, but not a "sex" story - a media star - very popular - has been given extra money by the State broadcaster, instead of Renault paying for it as was thought.
Our parliamentarians are wasting valuable days investigating it.
It has knocked the important overspends like a Children's Hospital being built and costing vastly more than estimated and the housing crisis in Ireland, the war in Ukraine etc off the agenda. And our parliament will shut soon for the summer recess. 🙄

I'm not homophobic at all , but I was pointing out how naive I am I suppose
Didn't mean to offend anyone

I have 2 friends who have met their long term partners on Grindr and are very happy. People shouldn't be so judgemental.

We are allowed to have our own views regardless and if someone thinks Grindr is grim then they are entirely within their rights to say so.

I don’t know about the morality police - you don’t seem to have much of a handle on how free speech works!

Grindr repulses me as do many other sites. It really is gutter level for me, but I imagine someone must approve or it wouldn’t be operational.

What I find fascinating is the apparent members of the public bending over themselves to find excuses for the presenter's behaviour and to vilify the young people rather than the older, wealthier, more influential white male with a position in the public eye.
Those 'defenders' have gone from - it's just homophobia and no-one knows the sex of the young person - to 'well we know the sex of the young person but we don't know their age' - to 'well if they were underage then they probably lied about their age to him' - to 'they were wrong to threaten to tell other people' - to 'well maybe they were blackmailing him' - to 'oh maybe he had a breakdown'. . . Or maybe he's like the many millions of older white men with money and power who treat more vulnerable people badly and except to get away with it because there are are always people queuing up to excuse wealthy, white men's bad behaviour whether it's immoral or illegal.

They are grim as well.

@Translucentwaters not something that appeals to me either but plenty of people do use them

Or maybe, multiple things can be true at once? He can be an older man who thought he could have an affair and try to have sex with younger men

And man 2 is also out of order by threatening to splash his name out for gossip, and was also scared by the threats the presenter made

Yes and it’s up to them. Regardless of sexuality it just looks like a hotbed of STIs to me. I hadn’t really considered how vulnerable some of the members might be.

Man 2 has every right to tell people who he is messaging. And nothing justifies threatening behaviour. You're rather proving my point about how posters will look for reasons to excuse the presenter and vilify perfectly normal behaviour on the part of the young people.

Well I can hardly say my first hand impression of Vernon Kay was too great...

You can only get into deep shit by being
unethical in the first place. If you are living an honest life people won’t have the ammunition to take you down.

Every right to as in not illegal. It's doesn't make one beyond criticism or that's it's normal to do that.

If he's 17 it's different as the presenter has committed a crime but an adult just exposing someone in the public eye, for gossip.

I guess the presenter also has every right to cheat on his wife with young men on Grindr but it's not a good thing, either.

At this stage, the broadcast media should call for an independent body to be established to investigate any future claims of abuse or inappropriate behaviour. Both ITV and the BBC have proven they do not have robust processes in place. An independent body could focus on complaints and have a standard procedure that meant alleged victims and their families felt heard and supported throughout.

ITV must be so relieved.

If you are in a position of power the universal law as decreed by Clarkson, May and Hammond applies: 'Don't be a dick'

If you are a married male high profile TV personality don't go on dating apps because it makes you a dick.

If you do go on a dating app and you are making contact with people over 30 years younger than yourself you are being a dick. (And also a creepy perv regardless of whether it's legal or illegal)

If you are in a position of power like a high profile BBC presenter, then making threats even if you are threatened with being outted (for being a dick - see above two points) makes you a dick.

If you follow the laws of 'not being a dick' you will not find yourself being questioned over whether your actions are illegal nor will you find yourself suspended by the BBC and about to lose your job because your employer has now verified your phone number and messages from your phone of you being a dick.

This is not hard to manage. Anyone claiming he's being victimised at this point really need to give their heads a wobble.

I feel for the wife and kids.

Spot on.

The bbc should tell this presenter that, if they have done nothing illegal, they should get on with their job. Let’s see them jolly well get back on air and style it out, and if they don’t like the negative attention then bloody tough. He’s responsible for his own actions.

Or leave.

If the bbc use public funds to pay this grubby individual off with a handsome early retirement I’ll be bloody furious.

The Guardian's headline is very intentional though. The BBC one doesn't even mention the name in the headline.

Absolutely

There is a massive difference between a young person telling his friends or others who he is messaging. And a husband cheating on his wife. Or a high-profile presenter who trades on his 'respectable, family man image' actually conducting illicit affairs with vulnerable young people.
There is no societal or moral expectation that a young person will keep a relationship secret. In fact, society excepts the opposite since young people being urged to keep relationships secret can be a sign of grooming.
Your attempt to equate behaviour that is not at all the same is very telling.

But it’s a big if, isn’t it? The person alleged to have sold pix says it never happened.

The "position of power" is being a bit abused here. Unlike other scandals that involve fellow employees that could be potentially sacked, these people are not.

Technically you're saying that anyone who is rich is in a position of power because they have access to lawyers etc.