BBC presenter allegations.

It's on sky news. Although I can't make out if it's a third person or third allegation by the second person.

The 17 year old was in drugs before involved with the unnamed man Doodledog ?

Oreo

Put it this way, nobody knows the facts in this case and if a person is 18 it’s up to them what they do, either for cash or just cos they want to.It’s no good going all moral about it.
If images were shared and under 18 then it’s an offence, but what an anomaly, you can legally have sex or marry at 16 but not send images.

I missed this.

Do you really think that if anything is adult - adult it is ok? Even if one party is a third of the age of the other, and is potentially unable to give informed consent because of addiction?

I don't think that the sex/video age difference is anomalous at all. Pictures/videos are potentially far more damaging than consensual sex. Once they are out there they don't go away, and a 16 year old is far too young to understand the implications of that. I suspect that 18 is also too young, but as it is the age of majority in the UK it would be difficult to enforce a higher age of consent there.

Listening to the news now, it was said 2 not 3

Using the word teeny, I was trying to be kind.
I don’t think all the speculation helps or describing scenarios that are your own concoction.

NanaDana makes some good points.

Yes MN tend to have a good understanding of safeguarding and of course have a good understanding of the power issues involved in the selling of sex. It was MN where I became interested in the complex issues of paying for consent and the lack of thought behind choicey choice feminism.

Oreo

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.

Do I?

I can't say I agree, but maybe it's easier to see as a reader (and I don't think it's possible to be a teeny bit obsessed - obsession is all or nothing, surely? ).

Anyway, you are right that this is a mess, and that it is perfectly possible that none of the players is 'innocent'. But can there really be a situation involving a young, addicted young person and a rich, famous man who is old enough to be their grandfather in which the balance of power lies with the young one? Remember that Mr X paid the young man £35k, according to the mother. What do you think he'd expect in return for that sort of money?

As an aside, it is now breaking that Mr X broke lockdown laws to meet a 23 year old from a 'dating site'. This is number three.

Put it this way, nobody knows the facts in this case and if a person is 18 it’s up to them what they do, either for cash or just cos they want to.It’s no good going all moral about it.
If images were shared and under 18 then it’s an offence, but what an anomaly, you can legally have sex or marry at 16 but not send images.

Cross posted with you NanaDana.
I looked at mumsnet earlier and was reassured that ‘obsession with safeguarding ‘ is alive and well there.

I’m curious that Doodledog can be accused of being obsessed by safeguarding especially in the context of this discussion,

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.

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 😃

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.

Primrose53

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

Is this number 3 ?

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

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.

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 . . .

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Doodledog

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

Oops - that should have quoted tickingbird above