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?

You're not allowed to see the grey in things anymore

For those who know who the man in question allegedly is, do you recall reading anything about his behaviour a couple of years ago?

I read something (I think it was posted on Instagram by a news program/publication) which said that the person in question was allegedly sending DMs to some of his younger followers and was apparently 'loving the attention' that his fitter physique was attracting. It also implied that it was an open secret because he'd done it quite a lot.

At the time, he was photographed a fair amount as he'd lost weight/got fitter. I think he was receiving a lot of attention and the article implied that he would sift through the DMs and respond ...

Banks are supposed to look out for money laundering and a young person with no obvious means of income receiving large deposits from someone in the public eye (ie more likely to be open to bribery) and then withdrawing the money as cash looks pretty suspicious.

Who says they have no obvious source of income? OF pats very well so I’ve heard.

Yes this is true.

But the BBC are not willing to have presenters who represent them in a certain way in certain jobs who do the same as it undermines their integrity as a journalistic broadcaster.

Politicans are held to different standards. Rightly or wrongly.

The banks clearly didn't flag it up
Or maybe the person had an excuse lined up

It has been used as a way to attack the BBC.

Just look at the title of this thread, for example: "How does the BBC get out of the presenter mess".

As far as we know to date, it's not "the BBC" in the mess. It's the presenter. But that's not the way some of the press have been spinning it.

Also no shortage of posters claiming the BBC (but strangely not The Sun) were covering it up by not naming the presenter.

Now, it might be that an investigation finds there is some wrongdoing at the BBC. It might find there is wrongdoing at The Sun, or somewhere else entirely, or that there hasn't been anything that is criminal rather than sleazy.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the press have gleefully filled out the front pages and sucked the oxygen away from major stories about wrongdoing in government, and some have jumped the gun on judging the BBC.

Dead-catting can be about something entirely true. In fact it's much more effective if there is at least an element of truth.

But despite their suspensions, they’re still commenting, in their capacity as news broadcasters, on covid related issues, specifically partgate and Boris. And I honestly can’t take anything they say seriously. Kay Burley should never have been allowed back. To be a news presenter, you surely have to come from a position of whiter than white, because your role is to raise questions on behalf of the public you are speaking for.

£35k in your bank from Mr X with a good reputation, might not raise suspicions with the bank - they have no reason to think Mr X is a criminal. He has a good reputation. He might be paying for legitimate services.

However HMRC might still have something to say about it as undeclared income...

I think by announcing that they've decided to scrap The BBC TV Licence and then raising the revenue to fund their organisation by some dodgy means - pay per view featuring BBC Presenter's bottoms, for example.

I think most of the public would be OK with that.

I have no idea but I was listening to a news reporter a few days ago who said they had a story previously about this same presenter but they weren't allowed to run with it . She didn't seem surprised that a new story has come to light now.

There is a lot to be said for this.

I think the BBC might well have taken a harder line than Sky too, because of reputational damage.

It depends EXACTLY on what your job is.

A front anchor man on your flagship show is different to a more minor presenter on a lesser programme.

True, and if it’s in drips and drabs it might not get picked up but it still begs the questions why the photos were worth £35,000 when porn is freely available on the internet.

@SmartHome Exactly, this stuff needs to be recognised as wrong so future generations will see it and that's how we progress.

Old men need to stop seeing young people in a sexual sense.

Why should presenter's kids pay any price for presenter's (presumed) sordid habits? It's very hard to see how Presenter keeps job and the kids don't suffer no matter what else happens next.

I suppose Sun has done a good job of besmirching BBC reputation, which was probably their primary objective all along. They sure didn't care about fact checking or what's bad about witch hunting.

Yes, he spoke at the time of mental health struggles and how the niche workouts he was doing were really helping him. I can’t remember where I read the rumours, I tried googling the other day and couldn’t find anything. You are the first person I have seen mentioning them since this began.

A lot of journalists from the BBC and Sky were asking questions like "why arent you locking down sooner"

And if he was one of those who did this.......

I have no idea but I was listening to a news reporter a few days ago who said they had a story previously about this same presenter but they weren't allowed to run with it . She didn't seem surprised that a new story has come to light now.

I do vaguely remember, around the time Phillip Schofield left This Morning, there was some stuff online about an unnamed bbc presenter and how people would be shocked if they knew etc. There were no details at all, just general stuff about how it would probably come out sooner or later.
Can't remember where I read it though.

Banks don't necessarily know a person's occupation. I've never been asked mine, and if a person is self-employed they could receive irregular payments for work. Say you were a builder or kitchen fitter, it wouldn't be untoward to receive several large sums from clients over the course of a year. Although as someone pointed out, HMRC might be interested. As with state benefits, there may be periodic checks on someone's balance.

I feel sorry for the first person who's parents told the story. They must feel under enormous pressure right now.

I totally agree. We are talking here about the person who reported to the nation, on the British Broadcasting channel, about the most significant events in our lifetime. What a farce

If it is the person who is being reported on the internet, they are in a position of great trust and respect. Being seen as shady under any circumstances will affect the ability for the public to trust them. Therefore, as they are no longer able to fulfill that function of their job, they have to leave. Play stupid games...

It's the unnecessary subtext that's bothering me. The way it's been played out and facilitated as targeting at the persons employer not the person themselves- who is as of this message still has had nothing proved against them. Stirring up all the mud is irresponsible at best and causes more confusion and tribalism... look at the damage that Fox did in the US.

There was a mention of "the [redacted] rumour" on "The Thick of It" many years ago, so I wonder if this was widely known..

IMHO because PS was already in the media due to his very public declaration re his "new" sexuality and the outpourings of affection/media interest at the time and also because there was an awful lot of speculation re he his brother's case and how he handled it. In addition his timelines could be construed as being very dodgy and it could be suggested by others that he "groomed" other young person who "may" have been underage (or borderline) at the time.

The BBC led with the second person…