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.

Line to Take 2: it's all an attempt to distract from Tory scandals.

Totally this!
His position is untenable.
He's bringing the BBC into disrepute.

It's been less than a week. Real life is not CSI New Orleans where a complex investigation is concluded in a heartbeat. So far the police have said no crime has been committed based on the evidence they've been shown. The Sun is now grubbing around for whatever it can find.

It’s a script. Next one

To those people screaming that ‘no offence has been committed’ please note that taking, making, sharing and possessing indecent images and pseudo-photographs of people under 18 is illegal.
Unless you know for absolute certain that this hasn’t happened please be quiet and let the Police get on with their job.

If I read this one more time I shall scream.

MH, depression etc are not a get out of jail free card, do you really think that people can behave as they wish just because they maybe a suicide risk?

This is straight out of the abusers playbook- #bekind or else.

No form of mental health issues is an excuse for abhorrent or depraved behaviour and do suggest so is disrespectful for the millions that struggle every day but manage to not pay underage children for sexual images.

What a ridiculous thing to say. The person is a presenter. They're not a chaplain or a counsellor.

There has been a crime.

And many don’t want to see a sexual exploiter on TV.

You can’t ignore crimes because of mental health issues.

No form of mental health issues is an excuse for abhorrent or depraved behaviour and do suggest so is disrespectful for the millions that struggle every day but manage to not pay underage children for sexual images.

Woah there: you are now making things up. Completely.

Exactly

I’ve already explained it is a service widely offered by crisis PR companies?
Hardly a conspiracy 😂

I float by headlines now and again.
and can hardly have failed to notice the screeds and screeds on this story.
I'm hardly sat on here feeding burning torches.

From the Guardian:

*Could the presenter have broken the law?

If the presenter solicited pictures of a 17-year-old performing sexual acts then they could have come into possession of child abuse images, which is considered a serious sexual offence with a starting sentence of 26 weeks in prison.*

I wish the entire circus would pack up and stop filling the news. Let the police investigate, let there be charges brought if need be. But until then, we shouldn't be hearing about it - all it does it encourage awful speculation and abuse being thrown at innocent people.

@WeAreTheHeroes Can’t you grasp that this is an ongoing situation? Evidence, if it exists, will come in as and when, much like what happened in the Jimmy Savile case.

Not being part of the police investigation, I have no idea what actually happened, as opposed to the sensationalised version of allegations. But, to date, there is not a shred of evidence that anyone, with or without money, has "got away with" anything. Nor that any abuse has occurred. And just because you or I may question the morality of certain choices does not mean that someone has done anything illegal, nor that the other person (no evidence that they have been wronged) is not trying to get money out of them.

Far too many judgements are being passed based on the morality of choices. Morality is not an agreed thing. This whole situation has been mishandled to the point that a person's career, livelihood, family and health have been put at risk without establishing any facts that point to illegal activity, and based purely on a mob of (largely anonymous) morality enforcers.

As for those now crawling out of the woodwork to jump on the gravy train, if they had thought for one second that there was something wrong or illegal going on, why did they not come forward years ago? Seems like they were ok about the moral choices they were making until they saw £ signs.

so you are saying that mumsnetters on here are being paid?
care to name names?

You are wasting time on it just as much as anyone floating or not

Other people commenting are doing the same, even if you disagree with what they’re saying

He's not a chaplain or counsellor no, but he presents himself as a Christian, clean living, family man, which is a lie. This wouldn't matter if he wasn't held in such respect by the public and the BBC. We've been had.

Which of my posts are you responding to? Quite what your argument is isn't clear.

To be honest I dont really care about this story. If it is who people think it is well..
When you think of all those other household names that were convicted it was shocking but it didnt make any difference to my life. The only ones I feel for is the persons family.
People just want the gossip and there is more things that are much more important than this. No matter the outcome this sort of thing goes on and there is always higher ups who cover up and get away with it. Nothing changes.

No I'm not. The law is clear that in relation to sexual images, those that are under 18 are considered to be children and that asking or using images under 18 is illegal. That is the law.

You stated you managed not to pay for images of underage children. There's no evidence this person has either.