BBC presenter allegations.

Doodledog

Anniebach

No Doodledog you did not say ‘if that were true’ you said -

Quote Doodledog Tue 11-Jul-23 17:03:32
No, I didn't mean you grin. Or anyone in particular - I was speaking generally.

Maybe he will get help from a prison psychiatrist.

Dog, meet bone.

Maybe means 'there is a possibility'. It was a throwaway comment. This is not a court of law, and such things are allowed 😂

Seems to me like your own kangaroo court Doodledog

Ah, I see. No problem .

For your explanation.

How can I respond without speculation? Still, if that is now ok, I will suggest that the mother reached the end of her tether when the boy's addiction reached the point where she feared for his life (which is, as I remember it, what the original report said?) and stepped in.

Annie, I'm not sure why you are thanking me - I didn't bring up Mr X's alleged depression, as I am aware that it is something he has discussed and reference to it may be 'outing'.

Doodledog

*One would think that the parents would have noticed at least some of the above and done something about it.*
But at the risk of accusations of speculation, that is what happened - the mother noticed and tried to do something about it. When going to the BBC got nowhere, she went to The Sun, and the rest is history.

That was 2 or 3 months ago. The apparent incidents had been going on for 3 years

Thanks Doodledog

As far as I'm concerned, we can repeat what we like, if it is in the public domain (as opposed to unverified sources such as social media). I'm not the one laying down the law, or accusing others of speculation, am I?

Nothing I have seen on this thread falls outside of repeating published news (except for the comment about Mr X's depression, which is perilously close to outing him) but there has been so much vitriol against those doing so that I thought I'd check.

I didn’t know we couldn’t repeat what was released by the BBC but ok by the Sun . We can only discuss what we hear from the news, we know the parents went to the Sun, sorry Doodledog
but !

Anniebach

I thought the unknown person was a tv presenter not a teacher

Are you being deliberately difficult?

*Doodledog the report from the BBC speaks of the unknown
persons threat to second claimant made in reply to ‘May make name public’*
I know, but that is discussing what is in the News, which I thought was discouraged on this thread?

What about the third and fourth person then ??

Why would the second person make that threat other than blackmail? A particularly nasty crime.

Doodledog the report from the BBC speaks of the unknown
persons threat to second claimant made in reply to ‘May make name public’

I thought the unknown person was a tv presenter not a teacher

Anniebach

The second person received threats after he/she spoke of making the name known, that was a threat.

Depression can be the cause of criminal activity, fact.

Do you have evidence of those threats, Annie, or are you just discussing what was in the News?

Whatever the outcome (which may be anything from a Savilesque scandal on one end of a line to a lot of hot air on the other) the fact remains that questions have been raised about the speed at which the BBC responded to a mother's complaints (founded or unfounded) about a high-profile presenter, and about the timing of The Sun's release of the story. Both of these things are (IMO) interesting in themselves, and are worthy of discussion.

Exactly, Doodledog.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in a news item such as this. Savile, and the 'Me Too' movement have made it abundantly clear that there are those in positions of power / authority who abuse those positions for personal gratification. Why should we not discuss this issue in principle, and in general?

Both the BBC and The Sun have some questions to answer. If both had behaved / responded differently, it might have been possible to avoid the intense speculation that has inevitably followed.

The second person received threats after he/she spoke of making the name known, that was a threat.

Depression can be the cause of criminal activity, fact.

Our sexual preferences and sex life in general is and should remain private. This person may have indulged in practices which others find seedy and inappropriate, but does that mean he should lose his livelihood.
Not if he is Trevor (or Barbara) from admin, but if he is a teacher or a priest, or anyone whose livelihood depends on the fact that he is trusted as a reliable source of information and all-round 'Good Egg' then yes, he probably should. Who would want their grandchildren being taught by someone who had online photos of themselves in compromising situations? It's not 'fair', but anyone going into jobs like that knows the score.

I don't think it matters whether we 'like' newsreaders, but we need to trust that what they are saying is true, and they need to be a neutral source. If every time we see them we are reminded of what they have been getting up to, then that neutrality is compromised. That's why Frank Bough had to go, and why Angus Deayton had to leave HIGNFY. How could they report on (or satirise) situations such as the ones they were involved in and be taken seriously?

Doodledog nothing discussed on this thread will have any influence anymore than a discussion down the pub or over the fence.

I agree. Particularly the highly distasteful comment up thread regarding volunteering for the Samaritans.

Thank you, GTAT. It was a hurtful comment. I didn't make a 'flip comment' about depression. When someone said that Mr X needed help, I said that he might get it from a prison psychiatrist. All the same, it would be speculation to assume that Mr X is a famous someone who has spoken of his depression, wouldn't it? And depression may be a mitigating factor in some crimes, but is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, if any has taken place. I'm not sure why the fact that suicide rates are rising is relevant to this situation at all. Is there a suggestion that someone suffering from depression should not be held to the same laws as those who do not?

Aveline - yes, most people would lose their jobs if they brought their employers' name into disrepute.

As for the speculation about the mother's motives, obviously we don't know them, but an alternative to 'she must be in it for sinister reasons' is that far from 'not finding anything untoward' (which is more speculation) the BBC simply did not respond. They have admitted that they took too long to get back to her, and that this will be looked into when the enquiry is complete. People saying that the mother could have gone to the police, implying that not doing so is somehow 'dodgy' are speculating too. We don't know why she chose the course of action she did - how can we?

Can't people see that there is as much 'speculation' and 'making up of 'facts'' coming from those who want to shut down this thread as there is from those talking about the News reports? There have been requests for the names of the first boy's parents, and queries about whether Mr X got him into drugs before the videos were made. That is the ultimate in prurient speculation, and it hasn't come from those who are discussing the news .

The enquiry will find what it finds. Can anyone explain to me what anything that has been posted on this thread will do to influence it one way or the other, please?

Do people come forward in the hope of a payout? It’s not impossible. What else do they hope to gain?

I am conflicted, if nothing illegal has occurred whatever went on has been between consenting adults.

Our sexual preferences and sex life in general is and should remain private. This person may have indulged in practices which others find seedy and inappropriate, but does that mean he should lose his livelihood.

As the person works for the BBC which is funded by all of us it is unlikely that he will be back on our screens however, if they are we all have an off button and are not obliged to watch anything they are on/presenting.

I hope all involved get the appropriate help, support and counselling in order to move forward from this.

(Assuming nothing illegal has taken place, if it has then then it’s down to Judge and Jury to convict not the general public)

Forget the mother and the boy if you think she’s making it all up but now there are three other young people come forward

On a news programme I watched the other day, the news reader said she had read the threatening letters sent (I think) to the second person ( to keep them quiet) and they were genuinely threatening
It’s obviously not nice to think it’s someone who has always had a very ‘proper’ stance on our screens but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
If the name doing the rounds on social media is innocent why hasn’t he done what Jeremy vine and others have done and proclaim his innocence Surely his silence is the most damming part of it all

I thought the mother and son were said to be estranged. If that’s right I question whether her motives were entirely altruistic.
We have become a society which looks for compensation wherever there’s a chance it may be paid.

He may resign

At the very least the presenter has displayed very poor judgement and been involved in pretty unsavoury activities. I'd be sacked from my job if I'd done all that even if it was strictly legal.