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?

We only have to look at the Philpotts and Shannon Matthews family to know that parents don't always act in their child's best interests.

Well it’s all a bit grim isn’t it?
A middle aged man sending money to a young lad for pictures. Not something I would want for my sons.
Illegal? Depends how old the lad was when it started. But definitely immoral.

I wonder how they got the evidence? Did they have permission to access his bank account/phone records or anything else. Have they done something illegal? I'd be bloody furious if my parents had pulled a stunt like this.

Do we know for certain it was a young man involved in this? Because every media outlet is being very careful in referring to them as a "young person".

Lawyer guy on the BBC this morning said they have to tread carefully. If there has been a crime or illegal activity, the BBC have to step back and let the Police investigate - as he put it "you don't want HR people trampling all over a crime scene and interviewing witnesses". If the Met Police decide there has been no crime committed or not to prosecute, then this presenter's reputation has been ruined. With social media sites like Twitter, Reddit and Instagram, it is impossible to keep the identity under wraps.

Who is it!? I can't see a name rumoured online?

Speculating on names is not appropriate and potentially libellous.

I’ve wondered about the bank statement especially as they are mainly online now. I can’t imagine a 20 year old requesting a regular postal copy.

I mean do we even know that this wasn't an OF thing that the BBC presenter was paying for? Which is ick but not illegal (and OF are meant to check on age). Doesn't sound like the sun have a huge amount of evidence and it doesn't sound like the family ever reported it to the police. Which they could have and should have done if the young person was under 18 when the first load of pictures were sent.

It's inevitable that the name will come out somewhere along the line. In the meantime, any presenter who is off air, for any reason, is going to come under suspicion, possibly unfairly. In my opinion they should name the person.

The BBC News website seems ridiculous with its 'Questions for the BBC' and 'What we still don't know' type articles - you do know, you are just not telling anyone.

And the young man/young person thing: the sun hates the beeb and loves a good headline. Much more scandalous if they can imply the presenter was secretly gay on top of everything 🙄

@GenieGenealogy, I see. I thought that only counted for newspapers etc, surely people chatting on Mumsnet is the same as people chatting in the street? Either way god knows where everyone is seeing this name as I can't find it anywhere. Time will tell I guess!

I think deepfaked and probably gonna get sued unless the presenter is proven to be a nonce so I would be careful sharing it until we know it if there's any truth to the parents claims of evidence

Well that's the main question isn't it, @Runningonjammiedodgers. You find out that your child has been selling nude photos to a household name when they were underage. You have a discussion about what you should do about that. And rather than deciding to report a potential offence to the Police, you sell the story to the country's trashiest paper. The whole thing is really odd, a half story of allegations and salacious hints.

I wonder how they got the evidence? Did they have permission to access his bank account/phone records or anything else. Have they done something illegal? I'd be bloody furious if my parents had pulled a stunt like this.

If the police aren't interested that suggests there is no actual evidence of anything happening before the young person was 18, apart from the parents' testimony; and without the young person being on board a criminal prosecution seems unlikely.

One thing I noted, the YP hasn't denied having a drug problem.

Even if what he did wasnt technically illegal, large high profile companies will usually have contract clauses that state employees are not to engage in activities that may bring the company into disrepute and this most certainly has. so I suspect he wont return to work.

Has the young person given consent for these to be looked at?

Legally not, stuff written on the internet counts as "publishing". Whether you are writing articles for a news website or commenting on Mumsnet or Reddit.

Oh I've found it, hmm.

@GenieGenealogy - good to know!

Its a,public forum if we name names the thread will.Get shut down ,if you read other threads and twitter,reddit etc there are enough clues to make an educated guess .

As soon as the boy turned 18 it was no longer illegal for the presenter to exchange sexual content with him. That doesn't instantly stop it being sleazy, morally questionable, damaging to the young person and an abuse of power though does it?

Just like Phillip Schofield and the young person involved there at ITV. Technically legal, probably, but morally reprehensible nonetheless.

Why would a law firm take on the case if there was irrefutable evidence of large sums of money going through a 17 year old's bank account ?
Surely it's easy to check ( because of anti money laundering laws ) whose account the money was transferred from.

A news story just was talking about the potential for am MP to name the person taking advantage of parliamentary privilege rules. I think the BBC chairman is presenting his report to a committee of MPs today and there are opportunities for 'questioning'

The police will only be able to access bank statements if the young person (I refuse to say child they are 20 - an adult, yes to the mum they are still her child but please don’t infantilise an adult here) consents.

Which a lawyer would never recommend doing. So no the police won’t have access to the bank statements, they would need a warrant and to get a warrant they would need a lot more than a mum say so.

As for being vulnerable rable, that is a much tougher question. Someone on drugs does not automatically make them vulnerable and they could still be functioning normally, so the questions would be a) does the presenter know they take drugs and b) are they responsible for another adults choices.

Everyone has the right to make unwise choices - including selling explicit photos/ videos (there is a whole porn industry)and buying drugs. Unless there is significant learning disability, the adult can do what they want, regardless of what the mum wishes.