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?

This sounds like a disfunctional family and if they aren’t talking to each other how come the Mother has so much info. Why is the son denying and employing such a high profile law firm.

If something isn’t illegal then I am not sure what can be done. The porn industry is huge. Do we close the whole lot down because we don’t approve?

Ultimately I suspect money is at the root of all of this. The Mum’s account has now changed in that firstly no one from the BBC contacted them to we spent an hour discussing this with the BBC and nothing was done. They don’t sound the brightest sparks.

In fairness, the nation voted for Boris Johnson for Prime Minister knowing he was a cheater and sleazeball.

Just to point out - hinting at the identity of this presenter involved in this case by stating how old you think he is, or what sort of position he has in the BBC, or whether or not he is married or has children is not OK.

The late Queen would have rolled her eyes and offered the opinion "aren't men strange beasts" and then quickly moved onto the weather whilst writing another multimillion pound cheque for Andrew.

I just can't understand why a man so well known in the public would do something as stupid as this. Is life really so boring?

So so many have.

Does anyone know which lawyers he used? There is a world of difference between the likes of Carter Ruck or Schillings and your average high Street lawyer

@HaveYouHeardOfARoadAtlas nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together would believe that these are real.

I also agree. Hiding this shit enables it. I don't want the presenter on my TV screens doing it, just like I wouldn't be happy with ny husband, brother, sons behaving like that. It's sleazy and an abuse of power - same as kerb crawling men and all the other sleazes on OF.

Really? Loads of money tends to make more unsavoury things possible if anything

I understand there isn't a injunction to stop him being named but the Sun didn't name him. Clearly they are concerned about being sued which perhaps suggests either the evidence was more shaky than they would have liked or nothing illegal happened, just distasteful..

Well quite. After all, it's not like we have generative AI which can create anything these days. I read a stat last week that 97% of all deepfakes are pornographic.

I don't know what to think about all this. I agree it seems like yet another attack on the BBC and also a little too convenient in terms of timing.

Certainly your stereotypical drug addict is usually unable to afford the likes of Harbottle & Lewis.

If people's private lives involve illicit sexual contact with vulnerable young people while their adult spouses are unaware then I'm all for it

It's nobody else's business unless a crime has been committed. As I said on the other thread, if you contact someone on a platform which is meant to be for over 18s, is the onus on you to check that they are? Or do you rely on the platform. Assuming that is what has happened here,

Iritis proved that there was no sharing of underage pics, it makes things difficult. That is an entirely private matter, not a police one. It's unsavoury but not illegal. What are the BBC to do with that?

True, but it's a stupid thing to do when you are high profile and in particular at the BBC. You know people are always digging around for things to bring people down.

Modern life is incredibly judgmental and unforgiving. If you have a brain, you don't give people an excuse.

It’s been explained so many times, both on here, all media and by the bbc. It’s privacy laws, they are as strong as human rights.

They are not concerned enough. The mother's actions are atrocious.

It's not the actual doing of it ( each to their own) but the doing it in a risky online scenario if that is the case. I suppose the same thing could happen if meeting privately one to one. I guess the risk is part of the rush.

As a friend of mine put it, “Yeah, no crack addict has ever told a lie…”

It was also specified on the news last night that “This [solicitor] isn’t a high street firm - it’s a top firm with offices across Europe; they know what they’re doing”. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that a 20 year-old addict isn’t paying for that themselves.

The denial from the young person is because that's exactly what grooming is. The YP thinks they did everything of their own free will, this man hasn't exploited them, they're their friend/boyfriend, they helped them out when they needed money. He understands them like their parents couldn't possibly...

Possibly there are issues within the family that made them vulnerable to grooming too, but that doesn't mean they weren't groomed.

I'd also be interested to know how the YP comes to have a lawyer.

I don't think the BBC has done a huge amount wrong. They have a duty of care to their staff as well as to the public especially given the name floating round has a long history of severe mental health issues.

They got a report, they investigated, the family didn't cooperate, they kept it open but not active, the family went to the papers, the BBC suspended the star and reopened the investigation. Of course certain parts of the press are baying for blood, they hate the BBC!

Yes and my parents had always assumed that Frank Bough was more respectable than the rather “loud” and not so “respectable” Dickie Davies …😂

… which just shows you can’t judge a book by its cover

What an aappalling post. The mother and father have received no money and are disgusted by his actions, the BBC’s and want the money to stop as this kid is a crack addict. I’d do the same and more, I’d be out there with a fucking placard.

But are they actually a crack addict? Or do they use drugs recreationally but to the parents it's the same thing? And if it was an OF thing and they pulled in 35k from one of their many followers they may not be short on funds. Isn't it the Sun who always tells us stories of the woman who quite there jobs and make 50k a month on OF?

I dont understand why people are perplexed about things like this

Whether we like it or not, sex is a huge driver and motivator for human beings. Men more so in my opinion

So you can go back to the likes of Pompei with its porn on the walls and the brothels and further back and further back again where sex is a commodity, it sells, its motivates, it drives people to engage with it

It wont change because of a 'sex scandal'.

The parents say their life is ruined and they are now fully addicted, I see no reason to think they are just using crack recreationally, how odd.