BBC Presenter and yet more allegations

[friendlycat]

It would appear that the front page of tomorrow’s The Sun has further allegations about messages with a new 17 year old. Creepy hearts etc

Scrolling through Sky news and seeing front pages of the papers. This appears bottom right on The Sun front page.

If this person has not done anything illegal, then it's their private life.
It may be distasteful, but if they didn't break the law, it's a non-issue.
They are a TV presenter, not the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope.

It is possible that certain events took place when the young person was 17. It may be those events were not illegal. We don't know (yet.) The police appear to believe there was nothing illegal.

(sending photos to someone under 18 is illegal, gay sex is not illegal at 17.)

Totally this.

The Sun is SCUM. They destroy lives for a good story. They'll offer to pay for the story, and if you refuse, they'll do the story anyway and print what the hell they like as "revenge".

And the rest of the media are not much better for following suit.

17-year-olds are children. In law. Also in areas like access to mental health services.

And the numerous MPs who are under investigation for sexual offences. Convenient, isn’t it?

Well I'm ever so pleased that I haven't paid my TV license in a number of years. Its absolutely disgraceful that the BBC didn't take this seriously in the beginning and for people to say, "the police have said no crime was committed" unfortunately who trusts the police these days? I certainly don't.

But not where sexual relations are concerned.
Age of consent is 16.

You might find it morally wrong but legally, a 16 year old can have sex with a 60 year old man.

Consenting adults by law.

Very convenient.

That was for @theDudesmummy

These are the facts as I understand them - please correct me if I am wrong:

1. In April the parents of Young person 1 reported something to the police. Presumably they would have handed over any evidence they had. The police said nothing illegal had occurred and took no further action.
2. May 18/19 they visited / spoke to BBC and again presumably presented evidence. BBC took this seriously but again felt nothing illegal had happened so attempted to follow up and got no further.
3. Last week parents went to the Sun with purported evidence of sexual images requested from a minor. This evidence has not been published anywhere else. Based on previous points it was not provided to police or BBC.
4. Police are still investigating IF a crime has occurred.
5. Now young person 2 alleges threatening messages in response to a threat of outing. Says they never met. Nasty, but not a crime.
6. Young person 3 says they met during lockdown - I don’t think they have said any sexual activity took place - but if it did they were over age. The issue is breaking lockdown.
7. Person 4 - unproven messages containing a couple of emojis and x but nothing suggestive at all in the language. This was a 17 year old but once they referenced their age the conversation becomes totally benign.

So what are we left with?

1. A possible crime in the instance of person 1 - sexualised images from a minor
2. A bunch of grubby stuff - none of it illegal.

Unpleasant, distasteful - yes 100% Suggestive of a worrying tendency because of the collective youth of the people - yes. But in terms of actually breaking the law? Nothing as yet. There is nothing here to suggest it’s in the realms of Jimmy Savile - comparisons like that at this point are crazy.

IMHO this needs to pan out away from the news schedule where it’s diverting from much more important issues, until the police do their job.

To be clear I have teenage sons - I would be the first to seek every punishment under the sun if someone did this to them.

I also happen to believe that the principles of the BBC as an institution are ones worth protecting. In an era of hysterical social media, AI created images etc where we can’t believe anything we are told, a place to go for information that is not held accountable to anyone but the public is a prize worth hanging onto.

I think all of this is the new 'hanging and executions' of the Middle Ages.
The crowd baying for blood. Caught up in a witch hunt.

Except now it's trial by social media.

It's getting ridiculous now and I think people are fed up with seeing this on the front of the news every day.

Excellent summary @Whatonearth2021. You forgot the statement via lawyers from the first alleged victim saying the allegations their parents made are rubbish.

I think it'll all likely end up falling into 'unwise but not illegal' - either way the person's career and reputation is ruined. Whether that's deserved or not, well who knows.

People are saying it is not illegal, technically yes, however, how would you feel about your daughter receiving naked pictures of an allegedly married allegedly man?

Has there been any suggestion that’s happened? I haven’t seen it.

The drug addict who happens to release a solicitor generated statement a day after the person was found out, how very convienient! Pro Bono work these days?

It's not so clear cut in UK law. Depending which statute applies it could be:
<18 = child
<16 = child and <18 = young person
<14 = child and <18 = young person

The presenter in question could've identified himself at the outset, a brief statement denying any wrongdoing - he didn't, thus it's completely unsurprising to see the streisand effect in response.

Given the evidence that BBC news has of abusive and menacing messages sent to a second young person, it's clear that his identity is being protected (at this stage) on complex technicalities, not because anyone thinks it's morally correct to 'respect his privacy'.

Meanwhile we're not talking about George Osborne allegedly shagging teenagers while his now wife was pregnant.

Or Boris Johnson failing to comply with a court order to turn over his phone with all his pandemic whatsapps - which almost certainly show a cavalier attitude to the needless mass death of citizens.

Newspapers must have a storecupboard full of sex scandals like these they're sitting on until one of their mates needs the papers to be full of speculation about something else for a while.

What is at stake is that someone in the public eye has (perhaps) been outed for doing something unsavoury but not illegal.

What it does in my mind is show how they felt they were above suspicion, and /or lack of judgement about the possible outcome.

There have always been men like this.

Profumo
Cecil Parkinson (got his mistress pregnant)
Jeffery Archer (prostitutes- went to jail.)
Jonathan Aitken (went to jail)
Clinton (you know the rest)
John Major (affair)
John Prescott (affair - like Clinton in his office)
Tony Blair (rumours of an affair)
Jeremy Thorpe (conspiracy to murder his gay lover)
Paddy Ashdown (pants down Paddy)

and more that I can't recall at the moment.

Meanwhile we're not talking about George Osborne allegedly shagging teenagers while his now wife was pregnant.

Why should we care? A one-time politician and his now private life. It's all gossip.

Make up your mind. This person is a vulnerable young person when it suits, then a drug addict who lacks veracity when that suits the argument. Why wouldn’t Child and Child work pro bono?

The problem with the George Osborne email is that it’s anonymous and no victims have come forward. If anyone can tell me how the Police are expected to investigate this I’m all ears

Well you and others keep talking about it every few posts so that’s not true.

Isn’t there another thread on those two by now, you can all fill your boots

You are welcome to them - just don't try to limit other people's.