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.

Yes, anyone who works in recruitment knows you have to check every application to see if the name's on The Evil Establishment's Blacklist and if it is you discard the application. Amazingly, not one of the tens of thousands of people who have used this list has gone public with it! I know!!! Scarcely believable is it?

No I don't think it should be banned in law.

But there should be a definite awareness if you are older than pursuing a relationship with someone much young SHOULD attract scrutiny and questions. And SHOULD as a rule be discourage by employers especially if they are in an industry which is high profile. And there have been previous scandals.

It's about promoting prevention of abusive and making it harder.

If you still think you want that relationship you need to understand the implications. It has to be an active choice and that organisations may have to act with concerns in mind.

It's not hard to avoid the situation arising - it's rare to socialise that far out of your age group. If you are DELIBERATELY seeking out someone much younger (if you are over 50 that means anyone under 30) that's red flags all over the place. The arguments about it being fine at 18 because it's legal or that a 17 year old lied about their age miss the point. What reason does an over 50 year old have to be contacting under 25s? Especially someone who DOES understand the nature of power imbalances and why they are not cool.

If you are mentoring, that's even worse - that's a straight no no. If you volunteer with a charity or work with children and young people it's an action that WILL get you kicked out. It's bog standard terms and conditions these days. Cos safeguarding.

The question is very clearly here, why was a man of this age contacting people out of the blue this age? Given what will be in his training and contract.

It's a massive big deal. An organisation with the history it has CAN NOT turn a blind eye to that. Anyone working for the BBC KNOWS this.

Ultimately he can shack up with who he likes, but he can't solicit himself online to young people and expect to continue to work for an organisation who has a duty to protect younger people who may be vulnerable - even if he's done nothing illegal.

Cos Safeguarding.

I was pointing out why such cover ups happen, because people end up scared to speak out, which makes it doubly important that people are able to call out cases like this.

I really don’t care if you don’t believe me.

@Plbrookes I guess you have zero experience of working by within creative fields. For a start most people are freelance. Secondly most jobs are secured In recommendations. You have absolutely no idea how easy it is to be blackballed in this world. Literally thousands of people have had their careers stall for not having a face that fits or being a whistleblower. Ask literally anyone who works in TV, film, theatre if I am right and they will confirm this is how it works.

But there should be a definite awareness if you are older than pursuing a relationship with someone much young SHOULD attract scrutiny and questions. And SHOULD as a rule be discourage by employers especially if they are in an industry which is high profile. And there have been previous scandals.

Scrutiny by who? People shouting at you in the streets? An extensive interview with your employer to find out if you’re a pervert? Social workers?

What you’re suggesting is ridiculous.

In your world, we may as well just do away with the age of consent, just make it the law that you can only date within a year or two of your own age. And do away with any concept of a private life because what’s the point if it’s private in name only?

Thankfully most people are a bit more ‘live and let live’ than this and don’t feel the state (or your boss 🙄) have a right to interfere in who you date, sleep with or marry. Not too long ago this was the same argument used against same sex relationships ‘oh we’re only preventing abuse and maintaining societal standards’.

Let’s just leave consenting people of a legal age to do what they want shall we.

I think I made enough of a fuss over that

The Osborne comparison is problematic for me.

There is no one saying that the information on the more serious allegations is credible. Police are involved.

The BBC one - there is evidence and two media organisations putting their reputations on the line over it - including the BBC itself. In saying that the messages came from the presenter and we're abusive they are saying there is a problem. In having multiple witnesses willing to go public there is a problem. The Sun is willing to go to court over this clearly as they are standing by the story.

Osborne doesn't have this. It's still no more than hearsay. If you started to have victims or other witnesses coming forward there would be more of a fuss and outcry and that's the difference. It COULD be a massive cover up. But that doesn't lessen the problems with the BBC story either.

It's totally different. The fact that idiots can not see the difference is telling tbh. They lack understanding of law and of safeguarding.

Not just the arts, many proffesions are small worlds.

You. Don't. Understand. The. Roll. Of. The. Free. Press. If . You. Are. Asking. About. Scrutiny. In. This. Way.

I suggest you go back to basics on 'what is a liberal democracy and what is the roll of the media and it's relationship with the public'

Before trying to lecture me.

It's kinda fundamental.

Okay, so you were fine with the way they reported on Caroline Flack were you? And Cliff Richard? And Meghan Markle?

'Media studies is a Mickey Mouse subject'

FFS

It's fucking crucial.

If you found out a work colleague, in a normal non celebrity type role, was doing something similar, within the law, but morally questionable, what would you do/what would happen to them?

absolutely @MrsRobinsonsHandprints

Blimey. I had a fling with a 26 year old when I was 19!

And another one when I was 22 and the guy in question was 29!

Times have moved on if people think that's ick. I can assure you I didn't (and don't, they were both nice blokes, one of whom is sadly no longer with us).

Very different to 60 year old going after teenagers.

No I'm not.

But we also need to understand that if you are a fuckhead in your sixties you need to protect yourself too.

Sending abusive messages to young men from your own mobile number is going to bite you on the ass. Good luck to this guy in unpicking that and saying it's within his training and the terms of his contract.

Safeguarding policy works both ways. For the protection of all - both the vulnerable and the person in the position of power. The moment you start doing things which step outside that you make a decision to expose yourself to risk.

He's clearly done that one way or another. Legalities aside.

He knows he can sue if the BBC have reported this unfairly. He knows the standards the BBC require to say something. He IS (was) the BBC. He knows it inside out. And the BBC vice versa. And the BBC ARE being super cautious - to the point that it's leaving them open to criticism from some quarters.

He knows the history of the Cliff Richard Case. He has the money to hit back. He knows the history of the Schofield case. He has lawyers and PR agents. As for Markle, well... I think she's doing well enough out of the lawyering and PR.

And no previous case means he should escape scrutiny either. Scrutiny is essential to protect.

But that’s your ‘free press’ at work, Toothbrush, isn’t it? Why weren’t you happy with that repeating out of interest, and on whom?

Sexual harassment has led to at least one lawyer being struck off recently - Oliver Bretherton (a 40 something married man with kids). It was quite extreme and icky behaviour though I don't think he has been prosecuted for it.

If it was morally questionable but not illegal, I guess it would depend if my employer thought it was bringing the firm into disrepute.

*reporting, sorry, not ‘repeating’

Anyone who can afford to pay 35 grand for sordid imagery is clearly being paid far too much. The public has no say in how much the BBC's so-called stars are paid. Considering that the public are funding these lavish lifestyles (sordid or otherwise), they have every right to comment

If her is willing to collect the public payments, then he should be able to take the risks that come with it.

The free press are held to account by the law. The law is upheld by the press and public pointing out where there have been failings.

And there will always BE failings. But there is still accountability in play in these situations. It may not be justice but it highlights the fragility of the balance between these competing forces.

It CAN NOT be perfect. It's the nature of the beast.

But in greater control, you also run the risk of more abuses of power from people in positions of power who can use this too.

The key here is the need for transparency and things to be out in the open. It is the only way you defuse that conflict point.

At this point FOR THE PROTECTION AND WELL BEING of Mr X he'd be better putting cards on the table, reducing the fall out to the BBC and getting his story straight with his lawyers to put forward.

The situation as it stands, is just a void for even more bullshit. And exposes him to more harm.

It's awful for all concerned.

There are clearly people who he worked with who are concerned about him but also think he's been an utter fucking dipshit and it's a mess of his own making that they can't save him from. Because it's a mess of his own making.

Don't want to be accused of soliciting men in their 20s? Well don't go on dating apps and use your own mobile to send them messages which can easily be verified. Not hard.

I totally agree with you. This is a very nasty smear campaign against the BBC. Perhaps nothing happened at all. But the mud will stick.

Agreed. It is none of my employer's business how much older or younger than me my partner is. A relationship with an age gap is not in itself a safeguarding concern, which is why there is no law against it. Other behaviours are a safeguarding concern and there are laws to protect people in those cases.

Safeguarding policy works both ways. For the protection of all - both the vulnerable and the person in the position of power. The moment you start doing things which step outside that you make a decision to expose yourself to risk.

👏👏👏

It's about protecting people from abuse.

It's about checks and balances.

It's so that those far and deep reaching interpersonal networks in organisations don't prevent people from speaking out about abuse. There is SO much abuse, everyday.

It's about minimising the oh so tempting abuse of power.

After all, if you are so adulated and in a job with influence where everyone is sucking up to you, you have more power than the average person. It's tempting then to think you're entitled to whatever you fancy and that you can get away with murder. Because you can, until someone speaks out.

Thank God for safeguarding. Those who used to get away with abuse in organisations have a much harder time of it now. Not that I feel sorry.

I do not feel sorry for any of those celebs, many just scratch each others backs.

It's all really rather depressing.

Nah, lets not. Older men shouldn't be after young people.

So, according to some, “no crime has been committed”.

So, everyone who thinks this is ok with their vulnerable 17 year olds being paid to exploit their bodies for an old guys sexual pleasure.

This is also a good example of the knock on effects of narcissistic sleaze. The money has gone on to fuel a drug habit, and that chain.

He won’t go to jail, but he deserves to be hounded and lose everything.

I’m not a pearl clutcher, just trying to keep pervert men away from my children, something that takes up a lot of my time.

Good men need to step forward and put their foot on the throats of these men targeting our young and vulnerable.