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?

Agree. I can't imagine a law firm would publish a statement if there was a chance their client had been groomed and was a victim of child sexual abuse images. Surly they would do some due diligence before getting involved.

And young people are surrounded by "sex positivity" "sex work is work" messaging.

The Sun itself has run stories on universities offering students courses on staying safe while doing sex work.

There are millions - millions - of "content creator" accounts on Only Fans, the majority of which offer sexual content.

I think the customers are sleazy, but plenty of young people see nothing wrong in getting others to pay for sexual images.

17 is too young, strictly speaking, for an Only Fans account. It's still over the age of consent in the UK, though.

Plus if he was on Only Fans the recipient would have every right to believe he was over 18 as is the terms and conditions, and then it's just sad, sleazy private behaviour in his own time of no consequence to anyone but his partner and himself.

Was it all made up or has it turned into a pay off with the super rich presenter buying silence and a 'it was all made up, nothing to see here'.

Cover up or made up. Someone's paying for the very expensive law firm to look after the interests of the young person with a drug habit and no money to pay for themselves. Someone has a vested interest in saying nothing inappropriate/illegal etc happened.

Where has that been reported? I’ve seen it mentioned on threads but I can’t find the original source. I also can’t see where it was officially reported that contact btwn young person and presenter was made on Only Fans. Can anyone enlighten?

It isn't illegal to give money away. Even to a 17 year old.

And we can look at millions of others who do.

there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the sun and this family are in cahoots and lying about evidence in a random attempt to go after this man of all people. I find it really odd that some folks actually think that’s more believable than what’s being accused could happen. Unbelievable in fact, but there you go.

I reckon it’s fake, why is the writing in French?

It is illegal to do it in return for sexually explicit photos. However no one knows if any laws broken Ie he may not have known. However paying a teenager for sexual photos is for me sickening.

"Last night Nazir Afzal, the former Chief Crown Prosecutor who led the prosecution in the Rochdale grooming gang cases, said that the presenter could potentially be charged with sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
He added: “The police should have been engaged as soon as they worked out whether the complaint was genuine.

“Where are we now — the middle of July?
“Six, seven weeks on."

Absolutely agree with this !

If the BBC have any sense they will leave it in the hands of the police and step back. If there is a case to answer then it will come out in the courts.

Prosecution via The Sun and social media is neither justice nor reflects well on any of us for indulging. I'm curious yes but I'm not going to set up an account on Twitter to find out. It's none of my business if no criminal offence has been committed.

I'll never forget waking up on a Sunday many years ago to see Mr BBC Nice Guy Frank Bough in his sex and coke hookers scandal. I lived in Chiswick at the time with my brother and was gobsmacked at the newspapers. He was the last person who you would ever thought would have done that !

I was replying to this 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 ? Irrefutable evidence of large sums of money (of course large sums is relative and to the person concerned £1k per month for 3 years might not seem large) doesn't mean anything illegal was going on.

If nothing illegal is going on then it is no one's business what people do in their private life.

@Iwasafool replied to me

"It isn't illegal to give money away.
Even to a 17 year old."

No, but surely one would have to question why in the circumstances at the moment.

The law firm is dealing with privacy laws only. That’s their specialty.

If this is indeed the case, why haven't The Sun printed the name.

I think if it was a gay, single man there would be less of an issue. But as this is a married err heterosexual man and a high profile one and seemingly upstanding one that is the issue.

This.

It is not the first time the Sun has printed lies. I hope this brings it down.

I agree. If you work for a high profile company in the public eye, you have to know that yes, to a certain extent your actions will be scrutinised. Thats part and parcel of being "famous"- the upside of course is a prestigious job and massive salary. Thats what you sign up for- if you dont like it, noone is forcing you to stay in the job.

The whole story feels very dead cat, its built up over the weekend.

The news is poised to report on something and wham another twist to the story , just as 4pm looms the deadline for Johnson.

It’s the annual report presented by the Director General, the Chairman is already in the process of stepping down.

Why is it an issue for anyone except the person's immediate family?