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?

They need to pay these people less. Too much money, too much ego, too much pressure, too much entitlement.

And it’s our bloody licence fee he’s used as well.

Grim bastard.

No, i'm open minded on the subject & of course men can behave appallingly but you nor i have a clue about what has really gone on here but if it were so clear cut, the Police would be involved... so far they are not.

But history tells us that the SUN is not a bastion of truth and honesty, parents and their children fall out over lifestyles.

The Sun has already changed its story to suit the facts and their editor is very anti BBC.

The police are involved and put out a statement saying they are now assessing to see which course of action to take

I find the whole business really strange. Why go to The Sun, rather than the police, if you are concerned about your child? Have the parents received any money from The Sun? The Sun must have realised that there would be speculation about the identity of the presenter. By accompanying their original report with a rear head and shoulders stock image of a young man, The Sun must have known the assumption would be that the young person was male. At the same time, by not confirming the young person's sex, they have caused maximum disruption to the reputation of other presenters as the initial speculation involved presenters known to be straight as well as those who are gay.

I don't feel sorry for the presenter. He behaved unethically if not illegally. However, The Sun is not doing this because it is concerned about sexual exploitation.

Wheres the evidence of grooming?

The young person could have a myriad of different customers, not just this one.

The young person might be involved in selling and dealing, or nothing at all, there may be very good reasons (in their head) for not wanting the authorities involved

Or they might just feel ok about it and want it to carry on

The point is, it is their choice and their instruction that needs to be taken account if, you cant make decisions on someone elses behalf if they have capacity, no matter how much you might want to

They did go to the police, they put out a statement confirming it, the police said no crime, they also went to thr bbc. Now it’s got publicity both the police and the bbc have stepped up

They were 17, they didn't have capacity to sell indecent images of themselves. That's the law.

The stepfather said they went to the police and were told nothing illegal had taken place...

Where has the Only Fans suggestion come from?
It’s my understanding that subscription fees and also tips for bonus/extra content are paid into a persons bank account by Only Fans and not the person paying for the content as a handling fee is charged.
Is the consensus that they met via Only Fans and then took the relationship off the platform?

If they are phoning each other then it’s off platform.

I think it's clear that there's no obvious illegal behaviour.

So BBC has to decide where their 'bringing the company into disrepute' begins and ends.

I imagine the reason they are struggling with it is that it's accepted, normal behaviour among men.

Sleazy as hell. Like many men. This has become normalised. Are they going to fire all the employees that pay for porn?

Why is paying for porn worse than free porn, where a man has enough money to pay for it?

What has he actually done wrong?

Please don't misunderstand me, it's disgusting. But it's currently accepted.

If they are 17 and sent indecent pictures, they have committed a crime.

Sane as any young person who sends sex pics, even if if themselves.

I assume it's an only fans things, and the youth has many customers. So tawdry but not illegal and the presenter should just be allowed to retire quietly on normal pension terms.

My feeling is that even if the presenter is off the hook legally, there will be enough evidence for BBC to justify sacking him for bringing his employer into disrepute.

The young person’s idea of “nothing inappropriate” is likely rather different from that of the average licence fee payer.

If it’s true that the parents have proof that images were transferred when the young person was 17 then why would the police say that no crime had taken place?

I think it's clear that there's no obvious illegal behaviour

really, you need to tell the met asap, as they aren’t so sure.

Only fans is speculation - like so much else in this story

I think people are just assuming it's OF , if the mother has seen the bank statements with the name of the payer , then I don't think the money has come via OF .

If the young person has assured the solicitors that they were gifts then why would they refuse to act for them?

Absolutely agree with this.

Don't think for a minute that photo is genuine (I'm not saying it's not him that's involved)

They haven’t said what they’re investigating or what line they’re taking.

If this is all made up, why would the mother target this particular person ?

What I don't get is the accused presenter is hetero, married with kids.

Well I guess he's bi - but it all seems odd.

It is my opinion that going to the press with details of your child's private life, against their will is atrocious. I don't see anything appalling about it. How does this benefit their child? I don't care if they did not get paid, they have violated their child's right to privacy. Going to the BBC is one thing, going to the bloody sun, quite another.

In that statement, the police have confirmed that "there is no investigation at this time.”