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?

Absolutely this. It’s time for all the nonce apologists to pipe down.

Anyone who is rich is in a position of power. But the presenter has the added 'power' of having an audience, being in a position of 'influence' in society and having a public persona that is contrary to their private behaviour - which means people will lend more weight to their words and that image of them as being respectable.

Thats not quite right, some people hold positions of power not necessarily financially but influence. Who is going to believe a 17 yr old drug addict from the estate over a very principled respected presenter of 30 years?

No, the person's lawyers have said nothing improper or illegal happened.

There are strong suggestions that the pictures were sold on OnlyFans (you have to be 18+) on that site. Therefore the assumption is pictures of an adult were sold.

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.

It depends what sort of programmes he works on. If it's anything to do with news and current affairs, he can't go back to work while this is such a big story. If he works in another department, fair enough.

Yes and usually they will be well looked after as the talent. Giving an idea of being untouchable.

As Kelvin Mackenzie (ex editor of the Sun) tweeted earlier this morning

With the BBC presenter said to have hired the law firm Harbottle and Lewis , I fear he/she/they will be seeking a payoff of hundreds of thousands of pounds out of your licence fee money. How mad is that?

^^

I doubt very much that he didn't know that he is gay. The media is full of glass closeted men and women.
I'm still shocked that a certain BBC person wasn't outed when the Kids' Company financial carry on occurred.
He is/ was very known for his toilet cottaging with and without a certain beloved openly gay presenter/ thespian known for being a clever clogs. And yes, the man is another " family man" and we'll esteemed presenter of the connoisseur type .
Media, arts and politics has a well above average amount of gay people within its institutions out and closeted.
Think about why these institutions were so easy to capture recently and what possible leverage a particular set of lobbyists have to encourage learned people to say that Up is Down and that we have to follow suit.
There is such a thing as the " closet industry" and straight homophobes are far from being the top people to benefit from it.

As I say it depends on his BBC contract.

It could fall under that umbrella if he's said 'do you know who I am?' to try and keep someone quiet. Even if no relationship.

Either way pretty sure he's into gross misconduct for bringing BBC into disrepute at this point.

We're making assumptions over a 17 yr old drug addict, we don't know that, again it is all assumptions (because a lot of key details are missing).

My assumption (again as facts are missing), but I don't consider someone who sells photos on OnlyFans, makes a lot of money and buys drugs to be that vulnerable.

There's a remarkable concept 'not doing anything you're ashamed to admit in public'!

Old fashioned, I know, but a handy rule of thumb to avoid embarrassment!

I used to run parenting decisions past it. How would I feel if the tomorrow's headline was 'toddler falls off stool while mum stand right next to him!', or 'toddler falls off stool while mum nips upstairs to the loo!'.

If you don't like 'BBC presenter pays very young person for sexual favours', then don't ducking do it!

Speaking to former colleague. They are just going 'why, why?!'

It affects them too.

It's another effect of the BBC mismanaging this so badly. They can say he brought the organisation into disrepute which will be against the terms of his contract. He can say if the BBC had managed this better when they were first informed about it, then the reputational damage wouldn't have been so bad.

None of this is a reason to kick the BBC imo. ITV showed they were equally inept at managing allegations. All broadcast media needs to look at their processes in these situations\

It's more about the power imbalance than position of power as such.

Someone older and with a lot more money generally holds all the cards.

Until the other party says I'll out you.

Then the card holder panics and we find ourselves here.

The arrogance of thinking you can share your face and name when you're trading sexual favours or whatever on social media, and expect some sort of guarantee of anonymity, is absurd. I do think this must be what the spoken or unspoken arrangement was with person 1 - keep sending me footage etc and I'll keep sending you money. Just don't tell anyone.

I maintain that this whole thing has been handled poorly though, and I don't think the parents should've exposed their adult child like they have.

Well a lot of posters here have. Except it’s not even the 17 year old, it’s their mum.

Why would someone risk everything for a bit of grim sexual titillation?

Cos that's the thrill!

Imagine thinking Kelvin Mackenzie is worth quoting.

Oh dear, it sounds like there's more than one and this time "BBC News has been able to verify that the messages were sent from a phone number belonging to the presenter."

The message do seem to have been using his position to exert power.

Men and their insatiable, arrogant penises.

They will never learn, even when they watch their counterparts fall before them.

Because they’re used to people looking up to them and it makes them feel more untouchable

They can do what they want

See also the Telegraph online.

I know who you're talking about and I'd always assumed he was openly gay!! Just Googled and no he is married with children.

Is Grinder and OF like using WhatsApp? Is it all anonymous? If so what on earth possessed this person to reveal their identity? Ego ?

I find the language on the BBC report intriguing but I could be looking too far into it

Reporting on their presenter and saying they've seen evidence and confirmed it's from his mobile number they use the word 'threatening'
^
But referring to the second accuser they don't state they threatened to out him

They state the word "implied" they would publicly name him at some point^