BBC presenter allegations.

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.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, perhaps a little more clumsily.

karmalady

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

This person may be "their" child but not "the" or "a" child. They are adult and the parents should not be doing this. They are interfering where this adult asked them not too.

If an adult has capacity you cannot decide how they should live. If they do not, then this is a legal and mental health issue. What next?

Although I have simpathy with their concerns these parents have behaved in outrageously and could quite easily end up being sued.

Wonder how many children in the armed forces , teaching 17
year olds to kill is acceptable !

I don't see what that has to do with this. If you think the age of acceptance into the army is too low, complain about that, but it has nothing to do with the age at which you can marry, smoke, drink or have explicit pictures taken or shared.

NanaDada, I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, object to rudeness, and accusing me of posting bizarre conspiracy theories and of providing you with a good laugh was rude.

It has everything to do with this,

Anniebach

It has everything to do with this,

Why do you think that? I just can't see the connection, but am happy to have it pointed out.

I can’t understand why this “vulnerable child” has been predicated by this older, powerful man, according to some on here.

I may be wrong but I thought the young person was working/selling images on a web cam line. Only Fans, Adultwork or similar. Older person using the service. Why is everyone so naive about men and their sexual urges? As long as it’s two consenting adults it’s nothing to do with anyone else but one man’s life is probably ruined, likewise his family if he has one and the youngster can’t be in a good place either. These service providers ask for photographic ID before anyone is allowed to be a service provider. No one under 18 is allowed to provide content. I don’t understand where people on here have got the idea that this pair had a relationship. I wasn’t aware they had actually met. Do people truly believe the older man set the youngster on this path? Do you believe the older man was the first and only person the younger was engaging with?

As for the front of the brain only maturing at 25?! At what age do any of us start taking responsibility for our own behaviour?

Doodledog

Anniebach
It has everything to do with this,

Why do you think that? I just can't see the connection, but am happy to have it pointed out.

So you find it acceptable to teach a 17 yr old how to kill someone and send them into the most horrific situations but taking a picture of their genitals is a great big NO NO?

Very skewed thinking in my book.

As I said, I don't understand the link. FWIW, I think that 17 is too young to join the forces, but that is separate from my views about their being used as masturbatory fodder for older men. The two things are wrong for different reasons.

The whole thing is beginning to sound more and more like dirty tricks.

The BBC responded to the complaint by email and by phone, and received no response in return. Next stop, The Sun.

I am horrified that a man's career may have been ruined, not just by the original complaint but by all the pitchforks which followed.

tickingbird

I can’t understand why this “vulnerable child” has been predicated by this older, powerful man, according to some on here.

I may be wrong but I thought the young person was working/selling images on a web cam line. Only Fans, Adultwork or similar. Older person using the service. Why is everyone so naive about men and their sexual urges? As long as it’s two consenting adults it’s nothing to do with anyone else but one man’s life is probably ruined, likewise his family if he has one and the youngster can’t be in a good place either. These service providers ask for photographic ID before anyone is allowed to be a service provider. No one under 18 is allowed to provide content. I don’t understand where people on here have got the idea that this pair had a relationship. I wasn’t aware they had actually met. Do people truly believe the older man set the youngster on this path? Do you believe the older man was the first and only person the younger was engaging with?

As for the front of the brain only maturing at 25?! At what age do any of us start taking responsibility for our own behaviour?

The age of consent to sex is 16, but it is illegal to take, commission, store or distribute explicit sexual images of a person under the age of 18.

That has nothing to do with naivety - it is the law.

Also, someone can be vulnerable at any age. The fact that this person was addicted to drugs makes him or her vulnerable, whether he or she is 15 or 50.

It would not be illegal to have photos/videos of a 50 year old, but I'm not sure what sort of moral compass would show it as an ok thing to do if the 50 year old were vulnerable.

Doodledog

Also, someone can be vulnerable at any age. The fact that this person was addicted to drugs makes him or her vulnerable, whether he or she is 15 or 50.

It would not be illegal to have photos/videos of a 50 year old, but I'm not sure what sort of moral compass would show it as an ok thing to do if the 50 year old were vulnerable.

So had this person been sectioned, or their capability challenged?

Or do we just let a poster on GN decide their legal status?

I think you are clutching at straws and you are not doing it for this young adults sake, any more than the Sun was.

What are you talking about?

I was referring to a hypothetical 50 year old, not deciding anyone's status.

If the man's career is ruined, he has no one to blame but himself.

tickingbird

As for the front of the brain only maturing at 25?! At what age do any of us start taking responsibility for our own behaviour?

Well many of us were probably taught to start taking responsibility for our own behaviour when we were first caught out by our parents as mere children doing something we shouldn't have done...

The point is that an older mature adult has a greater understanding of 'life' - to put it at a simplistic level - than a young person who has yet to experience the highs and lows of adult behaviour and all its vagaries.

You would find it far more difficult to manipulate a mature adult than you would a young teen who has yet to acquire the necessary cynicism required to question and challenge the motives of those in political circles, the entertainment industry, etc, etc... all those in fact who are in positions of influence and power.

BTW, the development of the pre-frontal cortex and its maturity is the subject of scientific study. It wasn't something I made up.

Doodledog

What are you talking about?

I was referring to a hypothetical 50 year old, not deciding anyone's status.

You were referring to your hypothetical 50 year old in order to support your "point" that "a young person ... has yet to experience the highs and lows of adult behaviour and all its vagaries."

As we are on a thread about the Sun's version of this young adults behaviour it is reasonable to assume you were taking about their capability to adult.

DaisyAnneReturns

Doodledog

What are you talking about?

I was referring to a hypothetical 50 year old, not deciding anyone's status.

You were referring to your hypothetical 50 year old in order to support your "point" that "a young person ... has yet to experience the highs and lows of adult behaviour and all its vagaries."

As we are on a thread about the Sun's version of this young adults behaviour it is reasonable to assume you were taking about their capability to adult.

For the sake of accuracy - the "point" was mine, not Doodledog's

Doodledog

The age of consent to sex is 16, but it is illegal to take, commission, store or distribute explicit sexual images of a person under the age of 18.

That has nothing to do with naivety - it is the law.

Try reading my post please. As I explained before, the webcam sites don’t allow anyone under the age of 18 to be a content creator and insist on photographic ID as proof of age. Therefore, anyone viewing said content does so in the belief that everyone is over 18 and legally allowed to be on there.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it’s acceptable for anyone to be providing masturbatory fodder, as you put it, for 50 yr olds. Just because someone works for the BBC doesn’t mean they’re public property. We have no right to be indulging in the destruction of someone’s life and career because we don’t approve of his sexual preferences.

I think there’s a lot more to this than we know and maybe we’ll never know but doesn’t look like the police are interested.

Then this unknown man was enticed by a 17 year old claiming to be at least 18 years old.

I still haven’t the foggiest who the man is

Callistemon21

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.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, perhaps a little more clumsily.

Who has said they would be ok with the thought of young, vulnerable people being left to the mercies of powerful older men, simply because 'it is legal'.

The point I am making is that although the Sun has reported what the parents have said, the legal representative of the young adult concerned has denied laws were broken and the police have found no evidence.

Your bias is such that you prefer the unconfirmed reports, by a paper that pays for such information, from two people who have no jurisdiction over this young adult.

If that information changes, then I may change my view. I will try, however, not to be led astray by gossip.

Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

Doodledog

What are you talking about?

I was referring to a hypothetical 50 year old, not deciding anyone's status.

You were referring to your hypothetical 50 year old in order to support your "point" that "a young person ... has yet to experience the highs and lows of adult behaviour and all its vagaries."

As we are on a thread about the Sun's version of this young adults behaviour it is reasonable to assume you were taking about their capability to adult.

For the sake of accuracy - the "point" was mine, not Doodledog's

Thanks, Dickens.

tickingbird, ignorance is no defence in law, as I'm sure you know. Mr X didn't just view the videos online, it is alleged that he solicited them from the young man. I agree that it isn't always easy to tell someone's age (particularly young people), and he may have believed him to be 18, but that is not a defence, any more than saying a 14 year old girl claimed to be 16 would be if an older man had sex with her. The onus is on the older person to make sure. If that's not possible, then they should err on the side of caution, like supermarkets asking for ID if customers buying alcohol look under 25.

I'm not sure what you think I am defending or attacking, Daisy. Or why you think I am clutching at straws for that matter. My view is that the law is simple, but vulnerability is less so. In the former case there is a line in the sand (which appears to have been crossed) but in the latter it comes down to moral compass.

And for the record, I was making the "point" you refer to in response to the idea that there is a connection between the age at which one can join the army and the legality of buying photos of a minor, not Dickens' point about the immaturity of young people over the age of 18, (which is a valid one, IMO).

Doodledog

What are you talking about?

I was referring to a hypothetical 50 year old, not deciding anyone's status.

I understood the hypothetical point you were making.

It is quite possible to legally exploit any vulnerable individual - not just sexually either, they can be manipulated financially.

Like you, I have no idea of this young person's mental - or physical - status. But what little we do know about the case does raise questions about people's vulnerability and the possibilities of exploiting it, legally or otherwise. At any age.

We cross-posted, but thanks again. .

Anniebach

Then this unknown man was enticed by a 17 year old claiming to be at least 18 years old.

I still haven’t the foggiest who the man is

If both parties claim their right to privacy under Article 8 you may never know, and quite honestly in the big scheme of things - does it matter?

What is all boils down to if there is no crime committed, is two consenting adult minding their own business and hopefully we will mind ours.