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?

So it looks as if a third young man (23) has come forward now and is saying the presenter met him via a dating site, was persistent and pushy in trying to meet him even though the Covid lockdown was on, used his fame to try to impress and then sent the man money. It's the money and the age difference that make it so sleazy and unpleasant. Rich older men banking on young people at least desiring their money if they don't actually desire having sex with them. I also really despise the cynicism in using up a woman's life to hide your homosexuality. I understand not feeling that you can come out, but using somebody else like that is plain cruel.

Quite.

For the BBC to verify they are threatening, its enough to indicate they fall into the 'problematic' camp. If they say they are threatening that has to stand up in court if it comes to the crunch. They have to have enough confidence to say it counts as 'threatening'.

This means they feel it WOULD reach a legal definition of 'threatening' if it ultimately came to it otherwise they could be defaming this person or be accused of trying to constructively dismiss this man.

In this sense it probably goes beyond even if another reputable news agency said the same.

There is a double jeapardy for the BBC to explicitly say they have 'verified' the messages and class them as 'threatening'.

So we can take this seriously.

The sun have told lies and been taken to court in the past , so people being a bit skeptical at first isn't unusual.
In this case they seem to have done the right things , but let's not pretend they haven't always been the good guys. Like most tabloids they have had a checkered past when it comes to gossip and smearing campaigns.
A third person now looks really bad and breaking lockdown laws as well.
Although most of the government can't really say too much about that one.

That's the same person.

It's the same person who claimed to be terrified by his messages or the sun would be making a massive deal about this being a third.

How does a man pose for a 'semi naked photograph'? Odd choice of words.

No, both the BBC and Sky are saying a third person has come forward with allegations.

That article still manages to have a go at the BBC. The Sun is fucking toxic and it doesn't give a shit about any of the people involved in this.

The extent of those 'allegations' are they both breached covid guidelines potentially.

I'm sure it'll be on the News at Ten which is starting in -oh, five minutes.

The current BBC article only mentions 2? I'm sure there will be more, whether genuine or not. Probably some of each.

Sky news are saying this is a third young man, separate from the first two.

Whatever, there’s bound to be several more…

The article in the Sun now, does NOT say whether its a male or female. It is gender neutral throughout.

The articles DOES say that the presenter was sent a half naked photo. So the sex of the person will matter in this context - if its a female then it will be considered more sexual than if its a male.

One of the key points in this new Sun article is this line:

On January 15, 2021 — days after Britain’s third national lockdown was announced — the presenter said to the youngster in a WhatsApp message: “I’ve been as patient as I can. I’m not used to being turned down like this. Sorry.”

The implication here seems to be that he was used to people saying 'yes' and that implies that this wasn't a one off.

All those posters on the thread that got deleted yesterday are all looking pretty stupid now

Their continued banging on about the Sun and refusing to accept that things have changed since 1989 was just daft

The article in the Sun now, does NOT say whether its a male or female. It is gender neutral throughout

Ok lets all pretend we don't that they are boys then

This is definitely a third person:

Person Number 2:
A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.
They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

There is also a little more detail in terms of 'threatening' there in the detail from this latest version of the report from the BBC - 'abusive, expletive-filled messages'.

Harder to argue that a message is not threatening if its expletive-filled and the tone is abusive.

The Sun tried to heavily imply that there had been a criminal offence but they are now moving back from the age of the 'victim' because it wasn't true. That is why the police have said no case both times they've looked at it.

He still hasn't done anything wrong. Seedy yep but it's not that unusual.

This now has ‘momentum’

I think there is a lot of snobbery involved in the Sun-bashing and scepticism, and the insinuation that the accuser's family are money grubbing opportunists.

What does 'hinted online' mean?!

I've no idea why there was so much effort to excuse this man and blame everyone else but him when the most plausible answer was always a middle age man caught being sleazy with people young enough to be grandkids.

He is the only person to blame for his downfall. He chose to behave like this.

I'm trying to focus on the DETAILS of the allegations because its far more important.

Yes the implication is they are male, but there is nothing thats officially been says that says that explicitly.
In terms of putting together stuff based on what IS in the public sphere its important to read the words to letter as everything is just so carefully worded at the moment.

Plus all the posts bemoaning this as a way to attack the BBC because they’re anti ‘Beeb’

Well the BBC are happy to lead the reporting anyway

I do hate it when certain publications use a story as part of their axe to grind against Covid regulations but in this case it does seem to suggest the presenter was both desperate and reckless. It would just take one curtain-twitching neighbour to report the young man for having visitors and the police could have been involved. What staggers me about all this is you go to all the trouble of hiding your sexuality for years (including being married to someone of the opposite sex) but then you're texting half of Grindr, despite being one of the most well-known faces in the country.

The person in questions has a fantastic bottom for someone of their age I have to say.