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?

Men and their insatiable, arrogant penises.
They will never learn, even when they watch their counterparts fall before them.

Why is this SO accurate?! 🫢

I don't get this either. He could have given a fake name. Heck, he could've given his tea name and the lad probably wouldn't know who he is!

And yet - this guy decided to reveal his name and position. Ego caused all of this

Pretty sure threatening behaviour is illegal...

I don't think anyone has confirmed the contact was through OF. In fact someone who uses OF said that OF take the payments and deducts tax, etc - so payments come from OF. The boy's parents seemed to say the payments into their son's bank account had the presenter's name. That seems to mean the presenter wasn't using OF.
Framing the teen as someone on OF - was another way to try to present them as less vulnerable and shift sympathy/empathy away from them.
It does make you wonder why there are a group of people heavily invested in normalising older men contacting young people for sexual purposes; and framing those young people as being the instigators/having agency/being unreliable perpetrators and narrators.

Me too 😂😂

Grindr is like Tinder. But for men. It's primarily a hook up app.

OnlyFans is somewhere to pay for specific content. You pay to subscribe to whoever you're a fan of. Lots of youtubers and instagrammers for example, use it to make money from "extras" (naked photos, "exclusive" videos etc).

I'd imagine arrogance and entitlement were behind the revealing of the face. He's a married man (perhaps) ffs.

all very woolly
complex mess

Yes. One of the best things about MN is that it's full of women, many of us mothers, who are very fuckiing familiar with the abuse, bullying, lies and threats of powerful men, and not afraid to call it out.

Just be careful as your own son could be accused of something similar one day. And it could look very different then.

I'm bringing him up to know that it's OK to be gay, and also not ok to be a total dick.

"very popular"....really? Sanctimonious twerp is how he came across.

His interview with Martin McGuinness was one of the worst ever aired. Complete amateur. Kielty is an enormous step up in quality.

I haven't seen that Martin Mc Guinness interview.
I must check it out.

and don't hang out with Jeffery Epstein unless you're protected by higher powers who wear funny clothes.

But put yourself in the position of the young person, vulnerable at least because of relative age and power balance, faced with the sudden knowledge that the older man he had been messaging was a high-profile in-the-closet man in the public eye (don't forget it was the accused who approached the young person and only revealed who he was after they had been chatting).

The presenter is putting that person in a position, through no fault of their own, where he either keeps the dirty little secret or reveals it and enters a shitstorm.

The very first reports that I saw, the mother referred to "my son". The next day all stories were changed to "my child".

And the risk is the thrill - how far can he push this, he knows it's dangerous and stupid and will destroy his career when it comes out but he keeps on thinking he's in control. Plus arrogance. This big BBC figure knows has this secret side that none of the people who pay his salary know about.

Well, I think the latest allegations, from the second young man, mean the end of the presenter's career. It was starting to look as if he could possibly get away with the first lot, but with this as well, even if nothing illegal occurred it's all so tawdry I can't see the BBC renewing his contract at least, even if he isn't persuaded to resign/take voluntary redundancy.

Do you think the person(s) filling in for him will get a bonus / payrise?

Jeremey Vine has tweeted that it might be better for the presenter to come forward now because the new revelations mean the story is going to run for longer and other innocent people are going to get accused on social media plus it's hurting the BBC.
Maybe JV thinks the second set of messages mean the presenter is going to have to leave so they might as well jump now rather than dragging it on.

How could he sleep at night, knowing that this could be made public at any moment? The people he was in contact with could have mentioned his name to a friend in all innocence , as in ' ooh guess who I'm talking to online'

Yes, an entirely factual and objective headline. I've copied it below. How is that giving them a kicking?

"Huw Edwards is BBC’s highest earner to receive pay rise in salary list
News anchor rose from sixth to fourth place below Alan Shearer, who received a cut, and Zoe Ball and Gary Lineker, whose pay stays the same"

It's a way to vaporise your current existence and clear the decks. Subconsciously wanting to be found out?

Amongst many other references, but Victoria Derbyshire referred to the "young man" on Newsnight last night.

It will be interesting to see whether it is the same person filling in for him on "his programme" or whether various BBC bods have the pleasure of filling the role, a bit like a roller coaster job share scheme.

I feel sorry for the production crew and other presenters having to fulfil the role at the moment as it can't be a pleasant atmosphere at all to work in, plus the remit of the role they undertake.

Everybody's trolling now the Spectator has joined the pile on.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/