BBC presenter allegations.

A vulnerable 17 year old involved in photographic images is seen legally as a child.

I won’t attempt to raise the issue of power imbalance

Yet the parents said nothing 3 years ago

The child employed a lawyer and that cost a lot.
Yes. No speculation there. I wonder how the lawyer is being funded? 🤔

On an entirely separate and unrelated note, Phillip Schofield is on record as saying that he is paying for legal representation for the young man with whom he had an 'unwise but not illegal' 'relationship'. Obviously I'm sure that someone somewhere will have ensured that there is no possible conflict of interest in that unusual situation, but I don't remember reading about that side of the deal.

Anniebach

Yet the parents said nothing 3 years ago

Do you think the parents are to blame here, Annie?

Casdon

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.

I spent most of my working life as a reporter. One of the first things we were taught, even as raw cub reporters, was always to corroborate our story. Had I gone to my editor with this supposed tale, I'd have been sent packing (with a flea in my eye) to find some corroboration. Sadly The Sun has always played fast and loose with the 'facts' and it's only getting worse now.

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.

Why shouldn’t it be important to the BBC? They’re the ones getting the aggro, and their presenters.
Btw every news channel is doing the same, even now on Tuesday it’s the leading story.
Not sure if the facts will ever be revealed.

We need to be very careful in discussing this. The facts are in doubt and I wouldn't personally rely on any article in The Sun.

How sure are everyone that the young person is a young male and not female ?

Pro bono? Sue the Sun? Or free as low income?

The Sun, particularly since the Leveson Enquiry, will not publish anything without its lawyers scrutinising every single word. I'm not saying they are anywhere near the moral high ground - clearly they are not - but they will not publish anything illegal or untrue.

As a matter of interest, what do people think they have published which is not the case? Has anyone actually read The Sun's story? It is readily available online, and nobody will be tainted by reading it . There is nothing in there that cannot be verified, as all they say is that the mother went to them, not asking to be paid, as the BBC had not acted on their complaint. Today's headline is a quote from the parents - again, not disputable.

It seems more and more that this might have been an unsavoury situation, but it wasn't illegal.

A lot of people, with a crack habit, will do many things to fund it.

The mothers view that her son would stop the drugs, if the money wasn't forthcoming, was incredibly naive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66081060

I heard someone mention foster parents this morning as this case was being discussed. If this is the case then the young man has had a troubled background. It would be good if he can get over his addiction and method of earning money and lead a normal life. However, all this publicity can’t be helping matters and, of course, if the presenter has a wife and family, they must be in turmoil. No I don’t believe going to The Sun was the right thing to do.

DiamondLily

It seems more and more that this might have been an unsavoury situation, but it wasn't illegal.

A lot of people, with a crack habit, will do many things to fund it.

The mothers view that her son would stop the drugs, if the money wasn't forthcoming, was incredibly naive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66081060

"Unsavoury" is personal and, if course, very titillating to Sun readers.

It is still not for the parents to splash it all over the less savoury (in my opinion) newspapers.

I have not read any report who refers to a son, all the reports I have read have been they/their pronouns.

No, I agree.

I think, personally, it's not good for young people to be filming sexual acts for money.

But, the young man is an adult, is entitled to make his own choices in life, and it wasn't up to his parents to get involved.

It's just disrupted his life further for all this to be thrown at him.

I understand the parents were upset - but chucking it all over a low-rent newspaper is not the way to go.

As he's been in foster care a while, it sounds as though there have been long standing problems anyway.

I hope the young man gets any help he needs, going forward.

Whatever the outcome of this is, the presenters career is over & his reputation ruined.
It could all be legal & above board, but anything involving paying for sex with a young person is ridiculously stupid if you’re in the public eye.

Paying for sex ?

Sago

I have not read any report who refers to a son, all the reports I have read have been they/their pronouns.

Hi, yes, it was me who said that I’d read ‘my son’ somewhere.
It must have been a secondary source, as like I said previously, I can’t find it; and I also agree that the mother uses neutral pronouns throughout

Paying for sex ?

Yes.
What else would you call it?

Art?

Kandinsky

*Paying for sex ?*

Yes.
What else would you call it?

Art?

As far as I'm aware, these 'allegations' only referred to photos. 'Paying for sex', to me anyway, would imply something of a physical nature.

So looking at film , photographs, is having sex

All the people who looked at topless girls in the Sun were having sex

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

It is not ‘having sex’. Unless you class masturbation as having sex

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

So you’d divorce your husband for looking at pictures? Has he ever looked at a girlie mag or a porn film?

Plus there’s no evidence that the £1000’s paid was for pictures. That’s an awful lot of money for something that is ‘freely’ available.