BBC presenter allegations.

Whitewavemark2

MayBee70

Wouldn’t it be great if Murdoch has got this completely wrong…

Yes, but I reckon he’s costed this in. They are content just to get at the bbc because they hate it so much.

See News Agents

I was just saying this to DH….

If the mother's version is true, and the "child" is now a hopeless drug addict because they spent all the money on drugs, you'd think they would be happy to name the celebrity and sell the story to the Sun to finance more drugs.

If a mother approached a newspaper with a major story related to their now adult child, the first thing the newspaper would do would be to corroborate the story with the person the allegations are being made on behalf of - aged 20.

If the Sun have not done that, whatever else transpires, then the book should be thrown at them.

Good point, Casdon. Son is not a minor.

(But according to Son, they were told.. If this is all true, what on earth was the mum up to, going against sons wishes at age 20?)

We don’t know there were any phone calls and if the young person is 20 his mother has no right to be selling/giving stories to The Sun. No wonder her son is estranged.

Deedaa

If the mother's version is true, and the "child" is now a hopeless drug addict because they spent all the money on drugs, you'd think they would be happy to name the celebrity and sell the story to the Sun to finance more drugs.

Not if the young man has been paid off by unknown presenter

It’s all speculation but it seems entirely possible that this young person has what they see as a relationship of sorts with the tv personality. 3 years is a long time to have allegedly been involved in some kind of sexual activity to gratify another older, wealthier individual. It’s entirely possible the young person wants this arrangement to continue.

If what the mother and stepfather claim is true, the images were first made when the young person was 17, so legally below the age of consent. It’s easy to criticise the mother, it’s always easy to criticise mothers in these distressing situations. Those ‘some posters’ were quick to do so when discussing the Rochdale grooming gangs, or the Epstein abuse of young women.girls.

The key for me is the involvement of so many adult men in taking advantage/exploiting vulnerable young people. Tv/film/youth work/scouts/ wherever there are young people or children we find men ready to exploit them.

That may not be the case here…..

It seems to me, although I'm getting very confused about it all, that the mother made a complaint to the BBC.
Apparently it was not followed up. Allegedly.

Beyond that my mind just begins to plait itself.

I was horrified enough at the fact that people felt forced to issue personal denials in the face of what seemed a genuine allegation.
Should it be the case that the allegation was malicious, it's even worse. I hope books will be thrown.

The BBC gets thousands of complaints about alleged misconduct by its high profile stars - the vast majority being without foundation. This complaint was one amongst thousands, so it is entirely feasible that the bbc was working its way towards this complaint and carefully examining the evidence.

So initially, the implication is that the BBC did not respond to the parents' communications, and there is then speculation that this is why they went to the press, in order to create pressure for action. We now hear that there was indeed contact with the BBC, including a discussion which went on "for over an hour". We also hear that the alleged victim approached The Sun newspaper before they published, told them that the allegations were untrue, and asked them not to print them. The parents are upholding their initial claims, and have suggested that the alleged victim is still being manipulated. The Lawyer for the alleged victim has repeated that the claims are "total rubbish", has advised The Sun accordingly, in writing, and accused them of breaching the privacy of their client. The current Police position on all of this is that they have insufficient evidence even to begin a formal investigation, much less with which to bring charges. I don't see where either the BBC or The Sun can go now. What I do see is that for anyone to give sufficient credence to ANY of the detail in the public arena to draw firm conclusions from it, or indeed to speculate further, is utterly pointless.

Whitewavemark2

The BBC gets thousands of complaints about alleged misconduct by its high profile stars - the vast majority being without foundation. This complaint was one amongst thousands, so it is entirely feasible that the bbc was working its way towards this complaint and carefully examining the evidence.

Indeed.

NanaDana

So initially, the implication is that the BBC did not respond to the parents' communications, and there is then speculation that this is why they went to the press, in order to create pressure for action. We now hear that there was indeed contact with the BBC, including a discussion which went on "for over an hour". We also hear that the alleged victim approached The Sun newspaper before they published, told them that the allegations were untrue, and asked them not to print them. The parents are upholding their initial claims, and have suggested that the alleged victim is still being manipulated. The Lawyer for the alleged victim has repeated that the claims are "total rubbish", has advised The Sun accordingly, in writing, and accused them of breaching the privacy of their client. The current Police position on all of this is that they have insufficient evidence even to begin a formal investigation, much less with which to bring charges. I don't see where either the BBC or The Sun can go now. What I do see is that for anyone to give sufficient credence to ANY of the detail in the public arena to draw firm conclusions from it, or indeed to speculate further, is utterly pointless.

I agree. What I also see, as with the Schofield case is the young person being bypassed. On the basis of what is in the public domain now, why didn’t the Sun contact them directly before printing a story like this about them, and why, having been contacted and told by the young person that the story wasn’t true did they print anyway? We don’t know if they are telling the truth or not, but regardless of that ignoring them is wrong on every level.

IAM64
The key for me is the involvement of so many adult men in taking advantage/exploiting vulnerable young people. Tv/film/youth work/scouts/ wherever there are young people or children we find men ready to exploit them.

How do you propose to stop it?
These sites are legal and they’re the ones making millions.

I don’t believe (just my opinion at present) that begging phone calls were made. I think it far more likely that it has been pointed out that blackmail is a far more serious offence than paying for explicit images (which isn’t illegal unless there’s an age concern).

I’d also like to say a serious crack habit doesn’t just stop and money will be sought elsewhere if that particular source has dried up.

I watched the news last night and the highlight was this very subject. Two other journalists discussed it as well as the main presenter Fiona Bruce.
What a waste of time that was the BBC are just covering themselves. That news headline took priority over events far worth talking about that’s typical of BBC.

So what we know is as follows, although I haven’t yet read today’s news, if any:
An unnamed person sends an email to all the guests at George Osbourne’s wedding that implicates him in some very unsavoury behaviour, and threatens to expose more about other guests, who include high-ranking politicians and supposedly unbiased journalists.

The same day, The Sun runs a story about how a mother has approached the BBC about a senior presenter who has been paying large sums of money to her child in exchange for sexually explicit videos, and the child, who was a minor at the start of this, is spending the money on drugs. The story is not about the celebrity, but about the fact that she informed the BBC, who did nothing to stop the man from paying money, and who continued to put him on screen.

There is a media frenzy of implication, inference and speculation, with numerous names in the frame, most of whom have denied any involvement. Nothing, however has been heard from the main suspect or his lawyers, and he has not been mentioned in lists of those who have been exonerated.

Osbourne’s wedding goes ahead, with little or no mention of the email and its ‘awkward’ contents, as the papers and social media concentrate on the scandal. Mention of the wedding concentrates on a conveniently distracting incident involving a woman throwing orange confetti - an act the media link to Just Stop Oil, who deny their involvement. Odd, but it makes a good story and the email is forgotten.

The wedding over, news of the scandal peters out, but speculation continues. Pushed into action, the BBC announces an inquiry and the police weigh in, saying that they, too, are now on the case. Still no comment from the man in the frame, whose name is now known by hermits living in caves in the Himalayas.

Suddenly a story emerges, suggesting that all is not as it seems with the family of the victim. None of this contradicts what was written in the original story, which had simply reported that the mother had attempted to get the BBC to act against the man in question, and that was never in dispute.

The police say there is not enough evidence to support the allegations at this time, and whereas there is no scandal involving the BBC and nobody has been officially named, the odds are that Mr X will be taking a long holiday from our screens and spending more time with his family.

On Gransnet, there is forensic analysis of what might be the family dynamics and of the possible motives of the mother and the child. The possibility that yet another famous figure has been exploiting young people is forgotten (as that would involve ‘speculation’, which is somehow different from casting aspersions on a troubled family’s possible motives).

The Osbournes begin married life and their guests breathe a huge sigh of relief that the email story seems to have died.

Have I missed anything?

The one thing I would add to your assessment NanaDana is that although there is an insistence on describing the person as "young", they are in fact, an adult whose parents seem to have over-ruled their wish for privacy.

There was also something on Today about the stepfather having told the BBC that they had been to the police in May that they could do nothing as nothing unlawful had happened.

Many adult children do not behave as parents wish but they do not plaster their lives all over the Sun.

The only thing you’ve missed is starting an Osbourne thread Doodledog!

There has been more than one accusation?

Redhead56

I watched the news last night and the highlight was this very subject. Two other journalists discussed it as well as the main presenter Fiona Bruce.
What a waste of time that was the BBC are just covering themselves. That news headline took priority over events far worth talking about that’s typical of BBC.

I thought it was a "Damned if they did and damned if they didnt" situation Redhead56

They have to be seen not to be evasive - I thought they did it very well, unlike other parts of the press where speculations on the family are now rife.

Yes more important news happening but if they didnt go straight for it then accusations of trying to "hide" it.

The BBC also love a bit of self examination and beating themselves up, they do this every tone something like this happens.

Yes, DaisyAnneReturns
"Many adult children do not behave as parents wish but they do not plaster their lives all over the Sun."

Was May the first time the mother knew of money the son was receiving?

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

I feel that the parents were at their wits end with worry for their drug -addicted child. Going to the media certainly worked for them.

The child employed a lawyer and that cost a lot. Child is very anxious indeed, that the trickle of cash into the account will stop, so will the drugs and perhaps money is owed to drug sellers and they will go after the child. Hence the lawyer

A 20 year old is not a child