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?

Also look.at age of both phiiip.schofield and the alleged.presenter in question
I would like to.think in the this day and age people can be more open about their true sexuality,and not fear any retribution and certainly there are presenters who are open about their sexuality
But this wasn't the case when both Philip schofield,and the alleged presenter were starting their careers .

Exactly

How is it appalling though. It seems to me that making this all so public is a cruel thing to do to their child, with a variety of potentially terrible consequences for them. The young person hasn’t consented to being part of this circus. Whatever the relationship was like before, I can’t imagine the relationship with the parents ever resuming happily after a move like that.

Feels very similar to Scofield - denials by the young person, lots of pressure to keep quiet and not 'ruin' everyone's lives, expensive lawyers wading in. Groomers are very good at this.

I agree the image all over twitter may well be AI but I'm surprised that the person the image is of hasn't denied it/commented on defamation. If the parents have the proof they are talking about then I guess they will be looking at releasing it or demanding that the BBC confirm what they've seen.

Social media says Harbottle & Lewis but, as far as I can tell, that is based on a misunderstanding. The unnamed presenter is said to be using Harbottle & Lewis. The lawyers representing the young person have not been identified.

i think this tale is as old as time. Before the internet this type of behaviour would be hushed up on accepted within the male club. Nowadays the public don’t accept it. Even if it lies within the boundaries of ‘not illegal’ it’s morally unacceptable and the public says no.

Michael Barrymore was the one from my youth that sticks in my mind. Spectacular fall from grace yet wasn’t charged with any crime. Career ending for him.

Genuine questions here:

As sleazy as it is - and not in anyway excusing the presenter’s behaviour to his family - if you’re supposed to be 18 to sign up to OF, who is at fault? OF for not having adequate screening of its membership or the presenter for not checking the age of the participant before he engaged in the exchanges.

Also, if The Sun is so sure the story is accurate and the facts are true, why are they not naming the presenter?

Everyone knows who it is although people are careful not to say, it's not a secret.

If it's not illegal under grooming for sexual pictures then it's immoral if a man in late 50's with a 17 year old (at the time) now both 3 years older. I imagine the BBC were badly bruised by Savile and ITV by Schofield so perhaps they need to look at how improvements can be made.

Perhaps the presenter has used the law to prevent being names? Gagging orders are very common but run out eventually.

Some gay men get married, maybe for their image, they want a family but prefer the same sex.

It isn’t unknown for a gay man and a gay woman to come to an arrangement either, if both wanted children and neither wanted to be out. For example, if they were both devout Christians.

They have. According to The Times it’s Child and Child.

Its a very clear line, u18 = illegal, their first assessment was no further action & of course, with publicity, comes the opportunity for new evidence....

We don't know or rather most of us don't.

This seems to be the way that the rich men take these things. The younger person feels guilty for ruining family/career/image. It's all pretty sleazy

The person cannot deny it as the other named people have because

Well, quite …

Denying it or commenting on it would be ill advised, in my view. It would publicise the existence of this image (which may be fake) and give oxygen to the allegations that they are the presenter involved.

In my view, the fact that the Sun hasn't named the presenter is telling. The only reason I can see for them not doing so is that they know they don't have the evidence to stand up this story.

The person cannot deny it as some of the other named people have because

Fixed it for you

I agree with this too

Get out of what? While all this was going on Boris Johnson failed to hand over his WhatsApp messages and all other documents requested in relation to his ongoing party scandal. This is exactly what the government and the bbc wanted to happen. Get us all salivating over a bbc sacndal so the government can go back to quietly dismantling the country and getting away with the usual fuckery.

Indeed. It's worked.

However:
"SmartHome · Today 08:03

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. Keeping it quiet is how they get away with it and why we have abominations like OF. And I'm talking about all 3 men here

It's fairly normal for young people to think I'm in control here, I've got the power. I'm using these pervs to get money and laughing at them behind their backs, why shouldn't I when they're so pathetic and just see me as a sex object. I was the same as a student.

Unfortunately, there more to it than that, as this case shows if true (enabling a drug addiction) and they don't necessarily see the harm caused to their lives, self esteem and psyches atvthe time that this kind of sex work involves. many older ex-prostitutes will attest to this. Up until recently, the punters got off unscathed. If the Sun changes that by bringing sunlight, whatever their own questionable motives, then I'm personally all for it."

Vulnerable young people need protecting from pervs.

Have the BBC actually done anything wrong. The step dad has now said that he went to the police, they said nothing illegal has happened and he then sat down with the BBC for an hour presumably the BBC wouldn't have grounds to suspend the presenter if he his only crime was using a legal but grubby website.

When the Sun run a story the 'victim' is now 17! And the BBC act.

Interesting that the Sun don't appear to have seen any of the screenshots the step dad claimed to have.

You lot must be stuck in an echo chamber. I don't know one person in real life who has mentioned or even given a second thought to this so-called scandal. The drama online is fucking unbelievable. What do you do with yourselves between media-created so-called crises?!

Seriously, have you heard yourselves?

I work in a job frequently dealing with complaints. I bet the BBC gets malicious and/or inaccurate complaints about celebrities. I wouldn't expect them to suspend someone without evidence. Doesn't sound like the now adult child wanted this story in the sun. Police apparently not interested. Ive got more questions about the parents choice to go to a newspaper and the papers choice to publish. Sounds like a shit situation and like the adult child isn't in a good place but is this helping?

You're on this thread discussing it. So welcome to the dark side - hypocrite!

Prince Andrew is far worse and he still gets to cosplay at various state occasions and hasn'tttty answered any FBI request for cooperation less we forget.