BBC presenter allegations.

Kandinsky

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.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I always think that having sex is physical sex with penetration.

Watching someone remove their clothes and/or perform a sex act on themselves whilst the voyeur watches and/or masturbates is just voyeurism not for me, but if it’s between two consenting adults, nothing illegal then it’s down to them, their business nobody else’s, with the caveat that they are not harming anyone else.

The complications of this case are myriad, particularly that it is perfectly legal to have sex once you are 16, but illegal to share naked picture of yourself under the age of 18.

This needs to be taught in schools as many girls and boys are talked into swopping intimate pictures of themselves to prove they love their current partner.

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

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.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

Callistemon21

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

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.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

Blimey!!!

That’s a lot of unfaithful GN members going by the threads of what celebrities/actors they fantasise/fancy…

Doodledog

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.

I’ve just re-read the original story Doodledog and nowhere does it say that the Sun had spoken to the young person who is now an adult directly before publishing the story. That’s surely vital before publishing anything, even if they have documented evidence that the events happened. Obviously I understand that the young person may be being manipulated by the presenter and the mother’s story may be the truth, but surely nonetheless a newspaper would at least have a responsibility to speak to the young person before printing anything.

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

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.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

Blimey!!!

That’s a lot of unfaithful GN members going by the threads of what celebrities/actors they fantasise/fancy…

😂😂😂

I felt guilty for all of two seconds!

GrannyGravy13

I always think that having sex is physical sex with penetration.

Watching someone remove their clothes and/or perform a sex act on themselves whilst the voyeur watches and/or masturbates is just voyeurism not for me, but if it’s between two consenting adults, nothing illegal then it’s down to them, their business nobody else’s, with the caveat that they are not harming anyone else.

The complications of this case are myriad, particularly that it is perfectly legal to have sex once you are 16, but illegal to share naked picture of yourself under the age of 18.

This needs to be taught in schools as many girls and boys are talked into swopping intimate pictures of themselves to prove they love their current partner.

Well said. If nothing else, we should be teaching our young people how to resist the pressures on them nowadays to share intimate photos and to engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviour - and the possible lifetime consequences if they do.

I’ve just re-read the original story Doodledog and nowhere does it say that the Sun had spoken to the young person who is now an adult directly before publishing the story. That’s surely vital before publishing anything, even if they have documented evidence that the events happened. Obviously I understand that the young person may be being manipulated by the presenter and the mother’s story may be the truth, but surely nonetheless a newspaper would at least have a responsibility to speak to the young person before printing anything.

But my point is that nothing it has printed is untrue, not that it has turned over every stone, or that it has necessarily behaved impeccably. There are lots of things they didn't say, but that's not the point.

I am not a Sun apologist - far from it - but the idea that just because something is printed in The Sun it is a lie, and that it is ok to dismiss anything it prints is at best behind the times.

I am not accusing you of this, Casdon, but there are so many people saying that they don't read The Sun, don't use social media, don't speculate, don't want to know who the accused person might be, only deal in 'facts' (whatever they are) etc, yet they are reading this thread, posting their own opinions and making huge assumptions about the family, the young person, their possible motives etc, and are criticising others for their (our?) interest in the story.

Iam64

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

"Fantastic" is certainly the word... as in "fantasy"... although as conspiracy theories go, it's not as "far out" as some I've heard. So all this media feeding frenzy related to the "BBC presenter case" is a cunning plan to divert attention from naughty George Osborne and his naughty guests... and it worked! Baldrick will be so proud. Thank you for brightening up my morning, Doodledog. I was in need of a laugh today, and you kindly delivered.

Doodledog yet another good post from you 👍

I agree that The Sun has not printed any lies due to the fact that its handsomely paid lawyers would have been over every single word and punctuation mark before it went to print.

If anything The Sun could be said to be morally guilty of putting this in the public eye against the wishes of the young person in the middle of this terrible situation.

I hazard a guess that this person will probably have real trust issues with their mother and step-father for the foreseeable future.

I hope that they get the support for their mental health and help for their addiction (if this is true?), bearing in mind that an addict cannot be helped until they wish to be helped.

NanaDana

Iam64

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

"Fantastic" is certainly the word... as in "fantasy"... although as conspiracy theories go, it's not as "far out" as some I've heard. So all this media feeding frenzy related to the "BBC presenter case" is a cunning plan to divert attention from naughty George Osborne and his naughty guests... and it worked! Baldrick will be so proud. Thank you for brightening up my morning, Doodledog. I was in need of a laugh today, and you kindly delivered.

Glad to have amused you. I won't sink to the level of snide comments, but note that you haven't commented on what if anything I have said is untrue. What was your opinion of the email, or are you sniggering about conspiracy theories without having seen it?

Blondiescot

GrannyGravy13

I always think that having sex is physical sex with penetration.

Watching someone remove their clothes and/or perform a sex act on themselves whilst the voyeur watches and/or masturbates is just voyeurism not for me, but if it’s between two consenting adults, nothing illegal then it’s down to them, their business nobody else’s, with the caveat that they are not harming anyone else.

The complications of this case are myriad, particularly that it is perfectly legal to have sex once you are 16, but illegal to share naked picture of yourself under the age of 18.

This needs to be taught in schools as many girls and boys are talked into swopping intimate pictures of themselves to prove they love their current partner.

Well said. If nothing else, we should be teaching our young people how to resist the pressures on them nowadays to share intimate photos and to engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviour - and the possible lifetime consequences if they do.

Well said. If nothing else, we should be teaching our young people how to resist the pressures on them nowadays to share intimate photos and to engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviour - and the possible lifetime consequences if they do.

Additionally - to be wary of individuals in positions of power, however minimal that power - who might quite legally ask them to share compromising photo's for a reward of some kind. Such individuals will not have the best interests of a young person at heart. In fact, I wish mature adults would keep away from the young all together.

If it's true that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain isn't fully functional until around age 25 then I would like to think that those in their teens could be left alone to control and process their emotions and thoughts without some 30 / 40 and upwards adult manipulating and exploiting them... even though it might be quite a legal 'transaction'. And that goes for boys, girls and all gender identities.

I realise I'm being unrealistic though.

You may be being unrealistic, Dickens, but I think your wishes are perfectly reasonable.

I don't understand how so many people on here seem to be ok with the thought of young, vulnerable people being left to the mercies of powerful older men, simply because 'it is legal'. Even when it is not legal, such as where indecent photos are concerned, there is a troubling lack of concern for young people whose lives can be ruined by these predators, and far more worry about the reputation of well-known TV stars, who have lawyers to protect them and media platforms on which to defend themselves, should they wish to do so.

I cannot accept ‘powerful’ , money is seen as power

If my husband was giving money to a young person on only fans I would leave him. I would view him as a creepy man exploiting someone.

Doodledog

NanaDana

Iam64

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

"Fantastic" is certainly the word... as in "fantasy"... although as conspiracy theories go, it's not as "far out" as some I've heard. So all this media feeding frenzy related to the "BBC presenter case" is a cunning plan to divert attention from naughty George Osborne and his naughty guests... and it worked! Baldrick will be so proud. Thank you for brightening up my morning, Doodledog. I was in need of a laugh today, and you kindly delivered.

Glad to have amused you. I won't sink to the level of snide comments, but note that you haven't commented on what if anything I have said is untrue. What was your opinion of the email, or are you sniggering about conspiracy theories without having seen it?

Oh dear. Sinking to the level of snide comments? I've said nothing about Osborne or his guests.. Just telling it as I see it, and expressing a personal opinion, just as you are. And as for the "so many" people who are making "huge assumptions" about anything to do with the case... not guilty. All I've ever been uncomfortable with is the idle speculation which has tainted this case from Day 1. Check my posts, and you'll find I've never diverted from that core issue. I'm afraid that IMHO your recent "conspiracy theory" clearly falls into the more bizarre speculation box, and I'm sorry if my light-hearted response to it has upset you, but it seemed to be set at about the level I thought it deserved. And yes, I've seen the email, and have no more idea than you do as to whether it's true or not, so I certainly won't be speculating about it.. particularly as there are undoubtedly battalions of lawyers out there rubbing their hands at the prospect of arguing a case for the many posts on social media, which although they may not be direct accusations, certainly "impugn the reputation by inference" of the increasing list of victims of "malicious communication". So perhaps accept a friendly nudge that it may not be wise to make unproven "nod, nod, wink, wink" comments about anyone, particularly in writing on social media .. Osborne included.. as they are increasingly likely to come back and bite us. One Celeb's Lawyer has already described such records as a "slam/dunk case for libel". Court cases are being prepared, as I write. Just saying.

Doodledog

You may be being unrealistic, Dickens, but I think your wishes are perfectly reasonable.

I don't understand how so many people on here seem to be ok with the thought of young, vulnerable people being left to the mercies of powerful older men, simply because 'it is legal'. Even when it is not legal, such as where indecent photos are concerned, there is a troubling lack of concern for young people whose lives can be ruined by these predators, and far more worry about the reputation of well-known TV stars, who have lawyers to protect them and media platforms on which to defend themselves, should they wish to do so.

I am probably being over simplistic however, I guess in a vulnerable young person to be acknowledged and courted by someone who they see on their TV screens makes them feel special and wanted.

Do they think that this is/was a genuine relationship, did they think or where they promised a job in TV (my meandering thoughts)

I am in no way condoning the actions of this person paying for the photos, in all probability they need physiological help also.

Galaxy

If my husband was giving money to a young person on only fans I would leave him. I would view him as a creepy man exploiting someone.

Would it be ok if he was viewing content for free? Or if it wasn't a young person?

Interestingly the Telegraph have just published an article on the top BBC presenters salaries.
The name that has been leaked on twitter has been given a big mention.
No comments are allowed.
Oh and Mr Sunak has no idea who the celebrity is.
The powers that be must think we are all very very stupid.

So perhaps accept a friendly nudge that it may not be wise to make unproven "nod, nod, wink, wink" comments about anyone, particularly in writing on social media .. Osborne included.. as they are increasingly likely to come back and bite us. One Celeb's Lawyer has already described such records as a "slam/dunk case for libel". Court cases are being prepared, as I write. Just saying
I don't need a 'friendly nudge', thanks. I understand libel law.

I have made no 'nod nod, wink wink' comments about anyone, and nor for that matter have I said that you were guilty of making assumptions.

I don't think there is a conspiracy, so you're maligning me there too. I do think that if anyone wants to suggest that The Sun has any motive in this whole sorry tale, they might like to remember that a classic way of diverting attention from one story is to create a bigger one (Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster), and the Osbourne story would fit that bill. No conspiracy - more of a cover-up, but that doesn't fit quite so well with the 'bizarre speculation' accusation, does it?

I don't know why you have taken against me, but never mind. I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread, but I didn't accuse you personally of anything, and I haven't attacked your posts.

Why the need to known ? The press and tv cameras can surround the persons house, if this person has family tough .

What are the names of the parents ?

Did the BBC do enough in May?

This was the timeline on May (from 11.59am update I player)

In the last few moments we have had an updated timeline from the BBC - setting out how the BBC could not make contact with the complainant, after the initial contact.

18 May: The complainant (a family member) attends a BBC building to make a complaint about a BBC presenter

19 May: The complainant contacts BBC Audience Services; the details are referred to the BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team

19 May: BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team emails complainant seeking additional information - there was no response

6 June: Having received no response to the email, a phone call was made to the mobile number provided by the complainant - this call did not connect

The timeline says "no additional attempts to contact the complainant were made after 6 June, however the case remained open throughout"

Spent some time this morning pondering on the estrangement issue and the lack of privacy everyone in the family will now endure. (and how it helps no one on the privacy front, in terms of resolving estrangement, indeed to opposite, yet if something very wrong has occurred, it has to be called out.

It's very complicated...but surely the mother could have, in these circs, at least tried to contact the police first? And why not get back to the BBC by email or phone in May?

I’m not condoning what has happened but I do think to myself a) what other news is this pushing to the background and b) not having been able to get Ch4 are they out to get the BBC?
Something just doesn’t add up about all this.

What has George Osborne got to do with all this?
He's not a presenter on the BBC is he? [confusefd]

The problem I am finding is that people think that, if this young person was and is over 18 when all this happened, then it is fine.
I don't think it is because, whoever it was is richer and more powerful than the young person and it is an abuse of his position and power, no matter whether the young person was paid or not.

If the majority think it's fine just because it is not illegal, then I am out of step with the majority and think that standards have sunk to a new low.

Doodledog. I don't know why you think I've taken against you. I don't even know you. I'm merely responding to certain opinions which you have expressed. Moreover, I haven't accused you of "snide comments", or of "hypocrisy", so let's just be clear about who is saying what about who here. As for "attacking" your posts, or "maligning" you, all I'm doing is disagreeing with you about certain issues. Sorry if you're finding that challenging, but that's what healthy debate is about. On that note, I think I'll just quietly withdraw from this exchange, and agree to disagree.