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?

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/which-newspapers-does-the-bbc-buy/ September 2021

News UK titles accounted for the largest number of newspapers delivered to the BBC which included 45,897 copies of The Sun , 6,476 copies of the Sunday Times and 4,359 copies of the Sun on Sunday.

Like it or not, the Sun and the Mail are the most popular and most read tabloids - so if they weren't getting any answers from the BBC going to a tabloid that's not only widely read in the country but also at the BBC makes sense if they want to see some answers. Plus the Sun can't be brushed off in the way a private person can.

Well written! It’s not a witch hunt. He has a family with 5 children, they all have to go through this and it can be seriously damaging for them.

So to summarise where we are on Tuesday:

No evidence offered yet to back up the parents allegations that anything illegal happened. Unless evidence comes out we may never know what (if any) of the allegations they made were true - especially if the person alleged to have been involved maintains the allegations were rubbish.

Separately an adult in their early 20s says they received messages they found bullying and threatening, but this was only after that person had implied on social media that they might publicly “out” someone who appears to be secretly homosexual and presumably feared that having that revealed to the world would be very damaging (and so themselves reacted to feeling threatened).

The BBC - as this person’s employer - now needs to navigate potentially outing someone’s sexuality against their will and determining if, in the absence of any evidence of illegal activity, that persons private life/sex life amounts to gross misconduct or gives the BBC sufficient grounds to sack that person without being exposed to an almighty wrongful dismissal/ defamation claim themselves.

Not tricky at all then.

I didn’t read pp as making them on same level

Just that people defend them

I don't know what it would achieve if he said something now , no one else is in the frame anymore.

Normally no - that's why people agree to resign so they can get severance. The key point here will be if the person is an actual BBC employee or if they are an independent contractor.

He has a family with 5 children, they all have to go through this and it can be seriously damaging for them.

Assuming that is true - maybe he should have thought of his family and children and the potential impact on them before he started procuring young vulnerable men? Just a thought...

@Nesbi agree

According to reports the police were contacted first and said no crime was committed, the bbc tried to clarify information but a super injunction prevented reporting. Seedy behaviour may be distasteful to us but unless a crime has been committed it's very hard to legally sack someone.

I've worked in hr, you have to do it by the book and not sure what anyone expects the bbc to do, the individual is free to resign of course.

It has been said that there wasn't an injunction. Where did you hear that there was?

so if they weren't getting any answers from the BBC going to a tabloid that's not only widely read in the country but also at the BBC makes sense

What would make sense would be replying to the BBC's email before going to The Sun. I'd have been constantly refreshing my emails and replying as soon as possible and as thoroughly as possible if I'd had reason to make a complaint like this.
Putting information about my child's sexual activities in the hands of The Sun would be the last thing I'd do.

Exactly.

If it is who people say it is, he must be crazy to think he can retain his career, even if nothing technically illegal has occurred. It's just completely incompatible with his public persona and role. He needs to face the music, for the sake of his own mental health if nothing else. Plus that of anyone who is close to him.

I predict a settlement between presenter and BBC has been agreed for his resignation and statements by both parties prepared for release tomorrow. Surely it cant go on any longer because of the second allegation ?

Well of course he should. Obviously. I just feel for his family.

With regard to his family, the assumption seemed to be that this persons wife was unaware of all this. Maybe she wasn’t, but in a long marriage there is also a chance that she did know about it but it suited both of them to stay married.

That may not be something we’ll ever know. Assuming his name will be released they may decide that it protects her reputation (and the kids) to maintain that she didn’t know.

Know one knows the truth of how people’s marriages work.

There wasn't an injunction.
And the police are still investigating to see if a crime has been committed or not. They haven't concluded that there hasn't been a crime.
Certain posters are keen to muddy the waters in a way that downplays what has happened, criticises the young people and supports the presenter. It's an interesting use of their time. But social media has emboldened a lot of people with unsavoury views.
I always ask myself who benefits when we downplay abuses of power? when victims are criticised? when false equivalencies are drawn between being honest about who you are messaging and threatening abuse over that honesty? It feels as though it's about creating a threatening environment for young people, vulnerable people and victims. What an awful way to use your time. And how brave the people are, who still come forward - knowing that all these types of people will crawl out of the woodwork to try to discredit them - even if they have bank statements, phone logs, messages and photos. It seems you can never have enough evidence and never be perfect enough to be considered a victim.

It's always horrible for the families of someone disgraced ... but I think the blame for that lies entirely with the behaviour of the disgraced person

Not anyone else (unless it's shown to be false and malicious)

How much digging can the police do ? If it's not a criminal investigation, can they access someone's phone records or seize laptops etc?

He has a nice kindly grandpa face - quite shocking really. I know there are all types but he isn't your obvious looking sleazy type.

@Inkanta what does an obvious sleazy type look like?

Brilliant post. It's still quite shocking to me how many people are falling over themselves to justify this. I think you're spot on that "cui bono?" is the right question to ask.

So which report mentioned a superinjunction? Specifically please.

Quite, @DaisyQuakeJohnson The people defending the presenter's 'right to a private life', even if he is a married man with children, are little different from those of a previous era who turned a blind eye to powerful men philandering and keeping mistresses. It's just institutionalised dick-pandering, like the Queen Mother excusing Charles's infidelity by declaring that 'that is just how men are.'

It is, isn't it? And it's as exhausting as it is predictable. I honestly feel like we're going backwards.