BBC presenter allegations.

I think you’re correct Smileless.

The damage has been done because of the salacious nature of the story. Nothing illegal may have occurred but in the court of public opinion the presenter is, undoubtedly, finished. Even if the presenter has been the victim of illegal acts he’s still the loser.

Smileless2012

so if the police had been told first and on the evidence they'd been presented with said nothing illegal had happened, why then go the Sun?

Could that have been due to their determination to have this person punished, to exact revenge, by having their identity and the issue made public and in all probability lose their job?

That could well have been their original plan Smileless2012
Desperate parents will go to extremes to save their child when they feel they are not being taken seriously by other agencies

However, according to the BBC there are now four other young adults which have come forward and shown the BBC digital exchanges between themselves and an as of yet unnamed BBC presenter.

I have that suspicion, yes.

so if the police had been told first and on the evidence they'd been presented with said nothing illegal had happened, why then go the Sun?

Could that have been due to their determination to have this person punished, to exact revenge, by having their identity and the issue made public and in all probability lose their job?

Ok GrannyGravy

Sorry Anniebach cross posts

Smileless2012

Exactly Maggie. This person's silence at this time shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt, anymore than those who've been so quick to come out and declare their innocence should be.

I still don't understand why the mother went to the BBC and not the police if she believed an offence had been committed.

I am sure that I have read that the mother and step-father went to the police first, but they were told that there was nothing illegal involved on the evidence that the parents presented.

Going to The Sun could just be a cry of help from the parents when all else had in their opinion failed

The parent’s complained to police before May, they found nothing untoward, then parents went to BBC then the Sun

Maybe she didn’t know if an offence had been committed. She appears to have believed one of the bbc well known presenters was contributong to her son’s drug problem

I just wonder why, if he hasn't done anything wrong, he doesn't come out and say so to avoid others being under suspicion.

OK Doodledog if your concerns are just about the BBC’s response to the mother’s complaints it’s been made very clear that they tried to respond by email the following day and the email wasn’t answered. They followed this up with a phone call to the number provided and it wouldn’t connect. They had no other means of making contact. The matter wasn’t closed but left open. Next thing The Sun printed the story. Now the presenter is suspended pending an investigation. The police have already investigated and found nothing illegal occurred but have now asked the BBC to halt their investigation whilst they look into the matter further. AFAIK that is where it’s at presently and I’ve been listening intently.

When I was listening to the news on tv this morning there was a definite shift in attitude and it seemed more sympathetic towards the older man than on previous days.

I make no apology for speaking of The Samaritans, flip comments on a serious illness - depression was uncalled for,
suicide rates still rising and not only young people

Exactly Maggie. This person's silence at this time shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt, anymore than those who've been so quick to come out and declare their innocence should be.

I still don't understand why the mother went to the BBC and not the police if she believed an offence had been committed.

The Samaritans like every other organisation has safeguarding policies

Iam64

After catching up with the last 3 or 4 pages, I’m driven to having a shout out for Doodledog.
I realise this could result in shouts of ‘clique’, an unpleasant, inaccurate response to posters who share similar views. Doodledog calmly, politely responds to insults to her knowledge and integrity.
This is a discussion on the news and politics thread about serious allegations made by the mother of a 20 year old man. He disputes his mother’s description of events. Information has dribbled out resulting in a lengthy discussion. None of this is surprising. What does surprise me is how rude some posters have been. NanaDana for example, accusing GrannyGravy of being patronising - projection there imo

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

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.

Good point Maggiemaybe

A couple of questions:

1. why would anyone pay £5000 in one transaction for a set of photos?

2. The mother says her child wanted the money to sustain his crack cocaine habit. When did that start?

3. If the habit started with or before the first payment when did the mother notice? Why didn't she do anything about the child's habit?

Here's an excerpt from The Priory website

" Crack cocaine delivers a short-term high in which you’re likely to experience heightened feelings of:

Euphoria
Hyperactivity
Tension
Confidence

These sensations are short-lived, which is what makes crack cocaine such a dangerous drug. In order to keep experiencing the intense highs that it delivers, users of crack cocaine will need to take regular doses. This increases the chance of developing an addiction or doing long-term damage to your health.

After the initial effects have worn off, users will quickly move into a comedown phase. During a comedown, you might experience deep feelings of depression, anxiety and anger. The depth of these feelings can often drive people to use the drug again, deepening their dependence on it.

Drug dependencies often lead to people neglecting their daily responsibilities, leading to problems in relationships, social circles and professional life. Over time, regular use of crack cocaine can lead to developing mental health problems like depression or a type of anxiety disorder.

It’s also possible to develop psychotic symptoms from regular use of crack cocaine. You might experience hallucinations, delusions and paranoia for many hours or even days after your last use. Some people experience what’s known as ‘cocaine bugs’, a hallucination where you feel like something is crawling under your skin."

One would think that the parents would have noticed at least some of the above and done something about it.

Finally, there have been scams in the past involving parents and newspapers.

But perhaps, just possibly, there is nothing for “this person” to own up to? And if that is the case, they and their family have gone through a lot more than Jeremy Vine has.

A reporter has just spoken to Jeremy Vine as he arrived for work. I felt sorry for him. He has had the finger pointed at him and said 'I never want to go through anything like this again.'
This person needs to own up.

I love your posts Fanny.

I am really sorry, I was using the "news" about China invading Taiwan as an illustration of how important news gets pushed aside to make way for speculative gossip.
You see how easy it is to become alarmed though.

It certainly doesn’t seem to fit with the persona we have always seen BUT very few abusers of any kind fit a ‘what you expect’ personality How often has someone been in court or found out in a neighbourhood and you hear shocked quotes of ‘but he was such a nice person’

I'm still stunned at who it might be. I've see the name on Twitter. I really hope it's wrong.

Thank you, Iam. That is appreciated.

Fanny, don't go? It is difficult to respond to some of the (goading?) questions without overstepping the 'keeping it secret' mark and getting the thread removed, but maybe that's the idea. Also, we don't have access to 'evidence', so the constant calls for it are idiotic anyway. As has been said, this is a discussion, and all views need to be heard, and it is possible for that to happen without unpleasantness.

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.

FannyCornforth

Right, if people are just going to argue with me, and each other, I’m off.
It goes without saying that I can’t say what I really think and use examples, as you well know.
See you all later 👋

I understand what you are saying FannyCornforth I think we agreed several pages back that the public face of folks on TV is often different from their private persona

It is getting rather ridiculous that the persons name is all over the internet, and that so far, they have not threatened to sue over the allegations as opposed to many BBC presenters who had been wrongly named in the beginning of this debacle.

It’s a bit like Voldemort he shall not be named