Gransnet forums

News & politics

BBC presenter allegations.

(935 Posts)
Kandinsky Sun 09-Jul-23 13:10:49

I know the last thread was taken down at the op’s request - but if anyone wants to continue discussing this major news item I’ve started this one.

Kandinsky Sun 09-Jul-23 13:12:02

Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will hold urgent talks with the BBC's director general on Sunday, after a presenter was accused of paying a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit photos

That’s the latest on my BBC news app

MerylStreep Sun 09-Jul-23 13:27:24

I wondered why the thread had been deleted as it is still going on Mumsnet with some very broad hints being bandied about.

Oreo Sun 09-Jul-23 14:21:33

There seem to be quite a few presenters saying it aint me gov!

lemsip Sun 09-Jul-23 15:06:07

that's because they all know who it is, it's common knowledge among the presenters but no one can actually say the name out loud or in print..

FannyCornforth Sun 09-Jul-23 15:09:10

MerylStreep

I wondered why the thread had been deleted as it is still going on Mumsnet with some very broad hints being bandied about.

The op asked for it to be taken down

BlueBelle Sun 09-Jul-23 15:09:40

So why didn’t they have the same rules over Philip schofield his name came out pretty quickly with all the back stabbing that went on afterwards
It seems as if the other thread was taken down at the original posters request Merylstreep

FannyCornforth Sun 09-Jul-23 15:10:28

Here

MerylStreep Sun 09-Jul-23 15:12:40

BlueBelle
This person has taken out a super injunction.

Pammie1 Sun 09-Jul-23 15:16:11

Just had a news alert on my iPad - the BBC have now formally suspended, but have still not named the presenter, saying that investigations are ongoing and there will be more information in the coming days.

Pammie1 Sun 09-Jul-23 15:18:04

Mumsnet have deleted several threads on this subject because people were speculating and naming names as suspects, which would invite legal action if the threads were allowed to stand.

Germanshepherdsmum Sun 09-Jul-23 15:22:08

Well, the man has been suspended so I guess his identity will become obvious even if it can’t be discussed.

Smileless2012 Sun 09-Jul-23 15:22:37

None of this should have been made public until someone's been charged.

NanaDana Sun 09-Jul-23 15:46:55

The problem with threads like this, even though they're described as "an opportunity to discuss a major news item", is that "major" or not, there's actually very little in the way of "news" to discuss. All we actually know is that "someone" has been suspended, and that an investigation is ongoing. So what's to discuss? That's when the idle speculation begins, and threads are rightly taken down before some ill-considered implications or even accusations arise. I would much prefer that incidents such as this should not be placed in the public domain until someone has actually been charged with an offence. Pre-trial by media, including social media not only works against any subsequent fair trial in the courts, but in the recent past has also caused much pain for the likes of innocents such as Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jimmy Tarbuck, Matthew Kelly, Craig Charles et al, and with this latest incident, 5 BBC celebs have now been forced to go public to deny that it is them. That's all I have to say on this.

eddiecat78 Sun 09-Jul-23 15:50:42

I do find it concerning that the mother felt it was more appropriate to speak to The Sun rather than the police. It is claimed that she hasn't taken any payment but she must be very naive if she thinks her child's identity will be protected now she has involved the tabloid press

Galaxy Sun 09-Jul-23 16:25:52

I wouldnt speak to the police about a sexual assault against myself. I would have to about a child but can understand peoples reluctance. Also the behaviour of the family isnt the issue.

Visgir1 Sun 09-Jul-23 16:28:19

Just been onto Mumsnet wow they really are going for it.. Reading between the lines bit obvious who they think it is..?

Germanshepherdsmum Sun 09-Jul-23 16:29:37

I agree eddiecat. I would be very surprised if she hadn't been paid for the story. Going to the police would have been more appropriate.

Louella12 Sun 09-Jul-23 16:34:49

I don't know if the police could do anything though. The boy was 17.

It appears that the man in question is now identified by many online. No doubt the name will be made public sooner rather than later

merlotgran Sun 09-Jul-23 16:36:49

Visgir1

Just been onto Mumsnet wow they really are going for it.. Reading between the lines bit obvious who they think it is..?

I’ve just had a look at Mumsnet and I’m none the wiser. 😂

Galaxy Sun 09-Jul-23 16:38:37

Sharing images with those under 18 is illegal.

Germanshepherdsmum Sun 09-Jul-23 16:45:49

I didn’t realise the young person was a boy until I read it above. Makes no difference though, criminal offence.

lemsip Sun 09-Jul-23 17:00:53

the only names online are wrong cruel speculation.. some having no connection to bbc even! all thos working for the bbc know the name of course but it is illegal to speak his name at this stage.

OurKid1 Sun 09-Jul-23 17:31:31

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree eddiecat. I would be very surprised if she hadn't been paid for the story. Going to the police would have been more appropriate.

Me too. I'm also wondering why the general assumption seems to be that the un-named presenter is guilty. I'm wondering why on earth the mum went to the Sun, rather than the Police. I understand that making allegations of this nature to the Police can be traumatic, but surely not (especially for the young person) as seeing it plastered all over the Sun and now the internet.

OurKid1 Sun 09-Jul-23 17:33:17

Smileless2012

None of this should have been made public until someone's been charged.

Absolutely agree and if the mum had gone to the Police instead of the Sun, it may well still have been under wraps.