BBC presenter allegations.

Callistemon21 I have just searched Twitter and Google along with various news channels and can see no mention of China invading Taiwan anywhere.

Grammaretto are you able to provide a link please?

I find this case (what I know of it) incredibly sad and just hope there isn’t a tragic end to it.

I agree tickingbird. The media should remember that people’s reputations are at stake here, and families may be torn apart. This could be damaging to many of those involved - some of whom, I think, may be very vulnerable. I wish the media would back away from the story now and let the proper investigations take place. It’s all beginning to feel like a malicious media witch hunt!

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21 I have just searched Twitter and Google along with various news channels and can see no mention of China invading Taiwan anywhere.

Grammaretto are you able to provide a link please?

If it was posted as a distraction, or even worse, a joke, it was in very poor taste as the situation there is worrying.
I am 😥 and trying desperately to find out more without phoning her to find ut.

Here is something for everyone to get their teeth into.🙂

Article by Kirsty Welsh - senior lecturer in Law.

The developing scandal surrounding allegations that a BBC presenter paid a 17-year-old for explicit images is full of questions – the identity of the presenter (who remains unnamed in the media), the age of the young person when the alleged explicit images were taken, and of course, whether the allegations are true and can be proved to be true. What is known, however, is UK law when it comes to the exchange of sexually explicit material involving young people.

According to allegations by the young person’s mother published in The Sun, the presenter paid tens of thousands of pounds in exchange for explicit images. Online communications between the two allegedly began when the young person was 17.

The young person has claimed through their lawyer that “nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place”. Whether this can be established to be true or not will depend in part (it also depends of course on whether they were explicit so as to breach the law) on the age of the young person when the images were exchanged. If the images were exchanged after the young person turned 18, it could be that no law was broken. If, however, they were under 18 – a child, for the purposes of the law regarding indecent images - there could hypothetically be a range of possible offences, the seriousness of which could increase depending on the circumstances.

The age at which young people can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can consent to sexual activity. The self-production by children of indecent images is an area of increasing concern in this age of poorly-regulated social media. The claims in this case, then, are likely to be taken seriously, irrespective of whether or not the young person consented.

From what we know – and it is a very incomplete picture at the moment of course – the most likely offence to be under consideration here will be that set out in in the Protection of Children Act 1978. This law makes it an offence to take, show, make, distribute or advertise indecent photographs or “pseudo-photographs” of a child. The definition of “make” includes livestreamed images, since, when viewed, images are “made”.

It is also an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 18, even if the photos were distributed after the person in them turned 18.

For anyone to be convicted in a case of that sort, a jury would have to consider the image to be “indecent”. This is an objective decision based on recognised standards of propriety and include the age of the child.

Importantly, it is not a defendant’s conduct that must be regarded as indecent, but the photograph of the child which results from it. The age of the child would be relevant to whether the images are indecent.

Police and prosecutors could decide that a jury is likely to feel that a child was close enough to 18 for the image not to be indecent, and so take no action.

Police have not yet launched an investigation. But if action is ultimately taken and were to lead to a prosecution and conviction, the likely sentence (based on what we have been told so far) would be based on the making or possession of images involving “non-penetrative sexual activity” by a child. The offence of making the image attracts a sentence starting at two years’ imprisonment, while possession starts at 26 weeks.

An abuse of power?

There is the statement from the young person’s lawyer, while their family reportedly sees this as a case of coercion by a person in a position of considerable influence on a vulnerable young person.

Any abuse of power or trust could be an aggravating factor which, for sentencing purposes, could increase the maximum sentence to four years’ imprisonment for the making offence. A judge may also take into account the vulnerability of the child depicted, the number of images made or possessed and whether the child appeared to be intoxicated or drunk.

In this particular case, the mother’s claims that the large amount of money she alleges was paid to her child was used to fuel significant drug consumption could, if proven, give rise to other, more serious offences.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to intentionally cause or incite a child (again, under 18) to be sexually exploited, and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. Sexual exploitation here includes the provision of sexual services for payment. Since 2017, it extends to situations where images are streamed (such as via the internet) or otherwise transmitted by some other technological means.

Again, in cases under the act, the young person’s age could be relevant. Should the presenter claim that he thought the child was over 18 – questions that are no doubt being currently asked – then a potential prosecution would need to establish that the average person would not have held the same belief.

The age of a child in a prosecution is also relevant at sentencing, with the maximum sentence available being significantly reduced where the victim is aged 16 or 17. The starting point for sentencing would potentially be 12 months’ imprisonment but, if the judge felt that there had been “cultivation of a dependency on drugs or alcohol”, this could increase to a starting point of three years’ imprisonment with a maximum likely sentence of around five years’ imprisonment.

From The Conversation 12/07/23

Of course things will move in from here.

Re. "certain mindset", I would have thought that the inference is fairly obvious. In the context within which I use the phrase it relates to those who are constructing a complex, imaginary world around the few, bare facts that we have available to us. My posts have repeatedly given examples of exactly that unfortunate tendency, and not one instance of where that is actually happening has been refuted. That comes as no surprise, as I have always used direct quotes to illustrate my argument. Zero speculation on my part. As regards that expression being rude... I don't think so. I myself have a "certain mindset" which leads me to speak out against idle speculation, and will continue to do so. Some correspondents here may not like to hear what I have to say, and will always be free to disagree, as in any healthy discussion, but that doesn't make my opinion any less worthy of appearing here, along with everyone else's. Nor does it justify any unwelcoming suggestion, oblique or otherwise, that I should simply go away. As I said before, that's not much of an argument is it?

Good grief😂

I’ve never been on a RF thread but keep hearing about the nastiness and hysteria on them from people who nail their colours to the mast and defend them to the death. If this is what they are like, I’m pleased I’ve stayed away.

Nobody is setting herself up as judge and/or jury. Nobody is being salacious. I very much doubt that if any of us were on a jury we wouldn’t take it very seriously and insist on seeing all the evidence that the accused’s lawyers would provide. Far from being ‘hanging judges’ or ‘tricoteuse’ I would be surprised if those of us not telling others what to do would be in favour of the death penalty, never mind revelling in it.

No names have been named on this thread. Nothing other than published news has been revealed. It’s not even gossip, unless any repetition of published news counts as such unless we have all seen the bodies or attended the trials, in which case the News and Politics forum may as well close.

I am interested in the story from the POV of media manipulation. I posted what feels like ages ago that this is detracting from other stories (GO’s email and Johnson’s phone) and I still think that is true, however amusing or ‘fantastical’ others find it. The fact that there was a story involving a BBC ‘big mane’ came out online when the Phillip Schofield one (which was also well-known for years) was all over the news. I find the timing interesting, rather than amusing but there we are.

I also think that abuses of power are A Bad Thing and that vulnerable people should be protected. Controversial? Really?

Nothing on this thread will destroy lives 🙄. That is hyperbole of the worst kind. Believe me, if Mr X is reading this it is probably as light relief from what is being said elsewhere - none of which has been repeated on here!

If it all turns out to be a storm in a teacup, which is possible, nobody has been affected by anything on this thread. Nobody. It is just a rehash of what is in the News, which anyone can read or choose to ignore.

As regards that expression being rude... I don't think so
🤔

It was you who said you were leaving the thread but you are still a contributor, as is your right, of course.

However, I'm more concerned about other matters than this.

Callistemon21

Callistemon21

Grammaretto

Why are we hearing about this salacious drivel?
In other news: China has invaded Taiwan.

Oh no 😥 😲
Our friend's family are all there

I can't find the news about it, 😥
Is this true?

I looked too but all I could find was a Chinese military exercise near Taiwan.

Doodledog when someone posted that the unnamed man suffered with depression you spoke of him being seen by a
prison psychiatrist

I also think that abuses of power are A Bad Thing and that vulnerable people should be protected. Controversial? Really?

No, it shows a sense of decency.

If it all turns out to be a storm in a teacup, which is possible, nobody has been affected by anything on this thread. Nobody. It is just a rehash of what is in the News, which anyone can read or choose to ignore.

It is a Chat Forum, after all.

We should get back to the kitchen sink and the crochet.

Callistemon21

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21 I have just searched Twitter and Google along with various news channels and can see no mention of China invading Taiwan anywhere.

Grammaretto are you able to provide a link please?

If it was posted as a distraction, or even worse, a joke, it was in very poor taste as the situation there is worrying.
I am 😥 and trying desperately to find out more without phoning her to find ut.

Worry not, Callistemon. There is no invasion, and the comment was posted as a joke, in very poor taste, bearing in mind what a potential flashpoint Taiwan is. Unfortunate.

Oh thank you.
My stomach is churning.

Thanks WhiteWave, I’ll get back to that later

Callistemon21

Oh thank you.
My stomach is churning.

Oh no. What an awful ‘joke’

I also googled it thinking it would be on BBC news

Anniebach

Doodledog when someone posted that the unnamed man suffered with depression you spoke of him being seen by a
prison psychiatrist

In response to someone saying he needed help, I said that if that were true he might get it from there - not quite the same thing, is it?

Yes, momb, I’ve been listening to Today this morning and didn’t hear anything; but I didn’t think that a poster would say it in jest either

Doodledog
I also think that abuses of power are A Bad Thing and that vulnerable people should be protected. Controversial? Really?
You only appear to think that certain abuses of power are a Bad Thing though. You only seem to believe that being wealthy is enough to be powerful and to use said wealth to abuse others less wealthy.

You have demonstrated repeatedly on this thread your belief that a vulnerable child has been exploited by an older, powerful man.

You’ve decided who’s done what and to whom and you’ve already had the older man in prison being treated by the resident psychiatrist.

There may well have been wrong doing on the part of the older man but, equally, he may be a victim of wrong doing, but don’t let that stop you clicking your knitting needles.

No Doodledog you did not say ‘if that were true’ you said -

Quote Doodledog Tue 11-Jul-23 17:03:32
No, I didn't mean you grin. Or anyone in particular - I was speaking generally.

Maybe he will get help from a prison psychiatrist.

I googled China/Taiwan too, feeling a sense of dread.

mumofmadboys

I also googled it thinking it would be on BBC news

I keep wondering if there's been a news embargo.
Does anyone know?

tickingbird

Doodledog
I also think that abuses of power are A Bad Thing and that vulnerable people should be protected. Controversial? Really?
You only appear to think that certain abuses of power are a Bad Thing though. You only seem to believe that being wealthy is enough to be powerful and to use said wealth to abuse others less wealthy.

You have demonstrated repeatedly on this thread your belief that a vulnerable child has been exploited by an older, powerful man.

You’ve decided who’s done what and to whom and you’ve already had the older man in prison being treated by the resident psychiatrist.

There may well have been wrong doing on the part of the older man but, equally, he may be a victim of wrong doing, but don’t let that stop you clicking your knitting needles.

No, that's not true. You are speculating about my feelings. I have commented on abuse of power by those who can afford lawyers and injunctions, but not mentioned other ones because they are not relevant to this thread.

Do I believe that a child has been exploited? I don't know about 'child', but I think that yes, a vulnerable person has been taken advantage of. I have not 'decided' anything, so please retract that. I have commented on the News, as have others on this thread.

I am not going to trawl back, but someone mentioned that they felt that the accused needed help. I thought that that was an odd way to see it as it ignored the fact that there are victims here, and commented that psychiatric help might be available if he is convicted and jailed. I have not 'had him in prison' as you suggest. You are twisting my words, and I'm sure you know that.

My knitting needles click a lot, but that's because I am a knitter. I have never visited a guillotine, but don't let that stop you being offensive, whatever you do.

Are you people always so rude? I have often thought that the accusations of nastiness that are alleged to happen on N&P threads are exaggerated, but as I say, I avoid both RF and Estrangement threads, so maybe I've had a sheltered life. I don't go on those threads as I don't have an interest in them, so don't see the point. I suppose I could start posting about how I find the RF an irrelevance, but what would be the point? I am aware that they are of interest to others, and respect that there are different ways of looking at things.

I am not making personal comments to anyone on here (although I do find some of you shockingly unpleasant on this thread). I am (like others, although I seem to be drawing the flak) mostly responding to questions about things like whether the first young man took drugs before or after meeting him, when I am directly addressed, to the lies about speculation and destroying people's lives, and to the name-calling and character assassination by those who don't think that this is a suitable topic for conversation are posting on a regular basis.

Anyway, I haven't seen today's news - did anything break overnight?

Anniebach

No Doodledog you did not say ‘if that were true’ you said -

Quote Doodledog Tue 11-Jul-23 17:03:32
No, I didn't mean you grin. Or anyone in particular - I was speaking generally.

Maybe he will get help from a prison psychiatrist.

Dog, meet bone.

Maybe means 'there is a possibility'. It was a throwaway comment. This is not a court of law, and such things are allowed 😂

Doodledog yes, there have been more accusations

Unless you’ve already seen this.
I have not kept up with the thread

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766