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.

You can join the army at 16 and make your application when you are 15 and 7 months - so flashing your arse to an old perv online at 17 doesn't seem so terrible. https://jobs.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-apply/age/

Can one not be a vulnerable young person AND an drug addict.

I would have thought the two go hand in hand?

Yet having sexual images of an under 18 yr old is illegal, joining the army is not. There lies the difference.

Here's a theory, courtesy of a user on Another Board (JTT) on how this might have started.

Presenter and young person (YP) hook up online with YP claiming to be 18+.
‘Racy’ materials exchanged. YP then confesses to being U18 and threatens to go public unless cash is paid.
Presenter pays up £35k over three years. YP’s drug habit worsens, asks for more money, Presenter says “No”.
YP tells parents who go to the BBC with tale of exploitation.
Presenter gives account to BBC which amounts to a victim of sextortion defence. BBC now ???

I have a genuine question.

If you were to find picutres of a married man, naked , 3 times the age of your 17 year old daughter on her phone, would you just shrug it off?

It is not illegal, so just crack on with your day?

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

Except you are. Along with several others who're repeatedly mentioning it. And on the basis of nothing more than an anonymous email!
So, just to be clear... incredibly damaging accusations, that are entirely baseless, are fine - so long as you dislike the person in question? And all the while, claiming the moral high ground?

Yes I remembered that after! And then equally there are questions around how the young person retained the lawyer etc. However I would like someone with legal expertise to say if such an unequivocal denial would be published if the law firm in question didn’t believe it to be true.

Incidentally, you might have noticed the media carefully not gendering the Young Person now.

The representative from Hacked Off on the radio this morning was referring to the 1st person as a He/him

Agree

Time and time again men get away with behaving badly, people make excuses for them over and over again.
My personal stance is to be a conscientious objector. I have no interest in propping up any organisation that covers up this behaviour.

Tories -Bad
BBC - Good

Put in simple terms.

The George Osborne comparison is pathetic, on that basis, can we not hold public figures to account, because someone else has done something bad?

Not if they’re the BBC

Weren't the lawyers just quoting what the young person had said ? So they weren't actually stating a fact, just repeating what they'd been told.

Plenty more to come that's for sure..............

It’s never the man’s fault is it?
Always with these scenarios to take the blame away from a disgusting man, yet again, who prioritises his dick above decent behaviour.

When you say the BBC didn;t take it seriously, what do you think they could have done differently? Someone walked into their office and made a complaint. They then passed it to the relevant people to investigate who then tried to contact the complainant twice. They got no response. On that basis what do you think they should have done differently? Hired a PI to track down the complainant?

An organisation of that size is going to get all sorts of bonkers complaints and messages every single day.

17 years olds are considered too young to buy a scratch card or lottery ticket, or a tattoo or alcohol for that matter. Also too young for benefits, especially housing benefit which doesn't become available until 25. Also too young for prision and too young to share sexual images
Also by law have to be in education.

So no 17 year olds are not classed as adults.

What the presenter did if true was really predatory and creepy and they need to lose their job. The issue of whether anything illegal happened needs to be settled. The young people involved need to be supported and protected from the predatory gutter press.

I use the word predatory advisedly as that is how the Scum are behaving now. The hounding of this person and the press exploitation of young people is now disgusting. Leave the police and BBC to do their job. If we all stop commenting and speculating online the story will die down and the proper organisations can be left to establish the facts. I am going to stop commenting now.

Not if the person is in a position of trust- definition of position of trust is a little woolly so probably wouldn't cover him but it isn't as clear cut as it being legal just because they are 16.

And images are 18.

😂😂😂 No, I haven't. The person I quoted had said we should know all about it now because they believe it's true. I'm saying the police will investigate and if theres a case to answer, we'll here about it then. (If the police can't find any evidence, we shouldn't hear about it at all.)

It's all salacious gossip in my mind. People love to sound shocked about it all and be only concerned about the people involved. When, in truth, they love the opportunity to gossip.

I agree with this. I also feel that the age of consent being 16 muddies the waters and allows people to think that a 16 year old is an adult for sexual purposes. A sixteen year old is still a child, quite possibly still growing. For instance I didn’t start my periods until I was 16. The age of consent was set at 16 because marriage at 16 was legal. Age of consent should be raised to 18 now. Then there wouldn’t be this discrepancy where sex is legal but images illegal.

There is surely an area between illegal and unsavoury where social pressure and censure serves a role to check behaviour that is immoral and repugnant to most people in society. The power imbalance and potential for exploitation in this situation and similar ones, is where strong social disapproval should act as a deterrent. So the “nobody’s business, private matter” attitude means that this behaviour has no consequences . I don’t think sexually exploiting teenagers is acceptable behaviour.

"Convenient" = "I am a conspiracy theorist"

Yes an anonymous email is obviously more believable and carries more veritas than the Sun.

OK, so a pulblic funded body, with a dark history of child explotation should have more robust procedures in place, no excuses.

Complaint made on the 18th May via a 29 minute call.
Reviwed the call the next day and the BBC audience services term deeemed it 'very srious'

3 WEEKS later, they attempt on call on the mobile and send an email, no reply, so end there.

Then when the Scum picks it up, they re look into it.

I find it very disturbing, that the possible explotation of a child, and their parents concerns are badged as ' bonkers complaints'.

The BBC has done this time after time, closed ranks, and protected its 'stars'. Saville did his thing for decades, with jokes about his actions on BBC TV being made.

We, THE PUBLIC, pay his f....king wages >£400k p/a !!!

A TV Tax thats forced upon us pays his wages.

We have a right to know if he's prepositioning under 18's for sexual photos online. That's a criminal act.

I'm thoroughly fed up of these entitled people thinking they're above us all and the defenders of these miscreants on here. If you're in the public eye, you're open to scrutiny. And I am a previous employees of the BBC.
So its 4 now....clearly I'm not keeping up.