BBC presenter allegations.

Speaking of naming the man is a threat , but he is only a child in his 20s so that’s acceptable

tickingbird

kircubbin2000

The presenter suffers badly from depression so he will probably use that as his excuse.

How do you know this?

I’ve been watching Wimbledon so missed this. Listening to the news now and it sounds pretty damning. If he wasn’t suffering from depression before he will be now!

Friend at BBC told me.

I wonder what number it will be when the sympathy dries up.

Best you start counting

Ok.

tickingbird

Doodledog

You sound pretty obsessed with safeguarding etc. There are no children involved as far as we know. This second person wasn’t selling images or videos and they are in their 20’s. They were on a dating site and they progressed to private messaging. They didn’t meet. The older man told him who he was (silly man). The younger person then went onto twitter and posted about this tv person he’d been chatting with and alluded he would name him. He then received the abusive text. Not good but the younger person behaved badly and the older one is in need of help in my opinion. According to the BBC this 2nd person hasn’t made any complaints to them or the police.

When you’re posting stick to facts and not what you imagine happened.

I promise I am not 'obsessed' with anything .

Your post is full of what you believe to have happened - maybe you should also stick to facts, assuming you, too, only know what is in the News?

Because of the nature of its business, the BBC does have a safeguarding code. And like it or not, when people are vulnerable (eg addicts) and when there are videos of 17 year olds in the hands of older men, there is a need for it. Mentioning that doesn't equate to obsession.

Anniebach, I'm not playing judge and jury. I am keeping as open a mind as I can, and not assuming that the young people are to blame, whether or not they take drugs or are involved in sex work/are on 'dating sites' (whatever that means in this context).

Somebody else has come forwarded and accused the presenter according to The Telegraph. The plot thickens.

Doodledog How do you know the presenter is in possession of videos of a 17 yr old? You don’t. You’re making it up. He would have been charged if that was the case.

JenniferEccles

Doodledog yes that’s what I meant.

I think that if it had been a hell-raising rock star, or an actor who is an obvious lothario it would have been different, but (assuming this is who we think it is) this man has made a lot of money from being the voice of respectability and reason, so it seems worse, yes.

Ok. It's all in my obsessive mind. You clearly know better.

Doodledog

Ok. It's all in my obsessive mind. You clearly know better.

Oops - that should have quoted tickingbird above

Doodledog I think you are correct, if it is a respected presenter, it feels far seedier than a rock star.

Both are equal in legal terms.

It's no difference to me. I thought Bill Wymans behaviour was appalling.

I have just looked at the Bill Wyman thing and feel a bit reassured, my memory was that nothing happened but in fact prosecutors wanted to bring charges but it was eventually dropped.

Galaxy

It's no difference to me. I thought Bill Wymans behaviour was appalling.

Bill Wyman was by U.K. law a paedophile, and should have been up in front of a Judge and Jury.

The young adults in this case are over the age of consent for sex, although the mother is alleging that the young adult was 17 when pictures were sent.

Galaxy

I have just looked at the Bill Wyman thing and feel a bit reassured, my memory was that nothing happened but in fact prosecutors wanted to bring charges but it was eventually dropped.

That’s what I recall

Yes I was just referring to the idea that professions made a difference.

Galaxy

Yes I was just referring to the idea that professions made a difference.

It doesn't make a difference, but it seems less shocking, is what I meant. Wyman wasn't presenting himself as anything like Mr X. It would be a lot easier to say what I mean if he could be named!

(and I know that he can't be, and rightly so)

It comes down to power & boundaries.

A starry eyed youngster may make advances to someone much older/better known/powerful/wealthy they meet. It is up to the decency of the older person to say 'Flattered, but no thanks.'

Unless you are a politician, that is . . .

It’s the dead cat again. A story pulled out of the file to detract from some other story…sleazy politicians; dodgy financial dealings … take your pick.

Saw a newsflash that another person has come forward accusing the presenter in question.

Primrose53

Saw a newsflash that another person has come forward accusing the presenter in question.

Is this number 3 ?

Doodledog

Ok. It's all in my obsessive mind. You clearly know better.

You do sound to be a teeny bit obsessed with the safeguarding issue from your comments.
I bet nothing is one sided in this whole mess.

Anniebach

Speaking of naming the man is a threat , but he is only a child in his 20s so that’s acceptable

Dry wit, love it 😃

Just come back to this thread after a few hours break, to see that another "Hare" has reportedly broken cover, and that the usual "Hounds" are immediately on its trail with the usual hue and cry, despite the fact that once again, there's no way of knowing whether or not there's the slightest grain of truth in the latest disclosure. But hey, let's pile on in anyway, as that clearly doesn't bother some people , as they continue to populate their self-constructed world with purely fictional characters, based on nothing more than pointless speculation. "Hypothetical", "allegedly", "reportedly", "it appears that", "seemingly".. all of which simply means we don't actually know, so why pretend otherwise? What is driving this strange obsession? I honestly don't get it. What I do predict is that this latest claimant is unlikely to be the last to chase this particular bandwagon, so look on the bright side those of you with that particular mindset... there's probably loads more opportunities for breathless speculation up ahead.. although it will still remain baseless. And who knows, one day we may actually get to know the truth of it all, and if required, justice may even be served.. or not.. but we ain't there yet, folks.. not by a very long way.