BBC presenter allegations.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

It has everything to do with this,

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.

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

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.

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.

Doodledog. I don't know why you think I've taken against you. I don't even know you. I'm merely responding to certain opinions which you have expressed. Moreover, I haven't accused you of "snide comments", or of "hypocrisy", so let's just be clear about who is saying what about who here. As for "attacking" your posts, or "maligning" you, all I'm doing is disagreeing with you about certain issues. Sorry if you're finding that challenging, but that's what healthy debate is about. On that note, I think I'll just quietly withdraw from this exchange, and agree to disagree.

What has George Osborne got to do with all this?
He's not a presenter on the BBC is he? [confusefd]

The problem I am finding is that people think that, if this young person was and is over 18 when all this happened, then it is fine.
I don't think it is because, whoever it was is richer and more powerful than the young person and it is an abuse of his position and power, no matter whether the young person was paid or not.

If the majority think it's fine just because it is not illegal, then I am out of step with the majority and think that standards have sunk to a new low.

I’m not condoning what has happened but I do think to myself a) what other news is this pushing to the background and b) not having been able to get Ch4 are they out to get the BBC?
Something just doesn’t add up about all this.

Did the BBC do enough in May?

This was the timeline on May (from 11.59am update I player)

In the last few moments we have had an updated timeline from the BBC - setting out how the BBC could not make contact with the complainant, after the initial contact.

18 May: The complainant (a family member) attends a BBC building to make a complaint about a BBC presenter

19 May: The complainant contacts BBC Audience Services; the details are referred to the BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team

19 May: BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team emails complainant seeking additional information - there was no response

6 June: Having received no response to the email, a phone call was made to the mobile number provided by the complainant - this call did not connect

The timeline says "no additional attempts to contact the complainant were made after 6 June, however the case remained open throughout"

Spent some time this morning pondering on the estrangement issue and the lack of privacy everyone in the family will now endure. (and how it helps no one on the privacy front, in terms of resolving estrangement, indeed to opposite, yet if something very wrong has occurred, it has to be called out.

It's very complicated...but surely the mother could have, in these circs, at least tried to contact the police first? And why not get back to the BBC by email or phone in May?

Why the need to known ? The press and tv cameras can surround the persons house, if this person has family tough .

What are the names of the parents ?

So perhaps accept a friendly nudge that it may not be wise to make unproven "nod, nod, wink, wink" comments about anyone, particularly in writing on social media .. Osborne included.. as they are increasingly likely to come back and bite us. One Celeb's Lawyer has already described such records as a "slam/dunk case for libel". Court cases are being prepared, as I write. Just saying
I don't need a 'friendly nudge', thanks. I understand libel law.

I have made no 'nod nod, wink wink' comments about anyone, and nor for that matter have I said that you were guilty of making assumptions.

I don't think there is a conspiracy, so you're maligning me there too. I do think that if anyone wants to suggest that The Sun has any motive in this whole sorry tale, they might like to remember that a classic way of diverting attention from one story is to create a bigger one (Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster), and the Osbourne story would fit that bill. No conspiracy - more of a cover-up, but that doesn't fit quite so well with the 'bizarre speculation' accusation, does it?

I don't know why you have taken against me, but never mind. I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this thread, but I didn't accuse you personally of anything, and I haven't attacked your posts.

Interestingly the Telegraph have just published an article on the top BBC presenters salaries.
The name that has been leaked on twitter has been given a big mention.
No comments are allowed.
Oh and Mr Sunak has no idea who the celebrity is.
The powers that be must think we are all very very stupid.

Galaxy

If my husband was giving money to a young person on only fans I would leave him. I would view him as a creepy man exploiting someone.

Would it be ok if he was viewing content for free? Or if it wasn't a young person?

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.

I am probably being over simplistic however, I guess in a vulnerable young person to be acknowledged and courted by someone who they see on their TV screens makes them feel special and wanted.

Do they think that this is/was a genuine relationship, did they think or where they promised a job in TV (my meandering thoughts)

I am in no way condoning the actions of this person paying for the photos, in all probability they need physiological help also.

Doodledog

NanaDana

Iam64

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

"Fantastic" is certainly the word... as in "fantasy"... although as conspiracy theories go, it's not as "far out" as some I've heard. So all this media feeding frenzy related to the "BBC presenter case" is a cunning plan to divert attention from naughty George Osborne and his naughty guests... and it worked! Baldrick will be so proud. Thank you for brightening up my morning, Doodledog. I was in need of a laugh today, and you kindly delivered.

Glad to have amused you. I won't sink to the level of snide comments, but note that you haven't commented on what if anything I have said is untrue. What was your opinion of the email, or are you sniggering about conspiracy theories without having seen it?

Oh dear. Sinking to the level of snide comments? I've said nothing about Osborne or his guests.. Just telling it as I see it, and expressing a personal opinion, just as you are. And as for the "so many" people who are making "huge assumptions" about anything to do with the case... not guilty. All I've ever been uncomfortable with is the idle speculation which has tainted this case from Day 1. Check my posts, and you'll find I've never diverted from that core issue. I'm afraid that IMHO your recent "conspiracy theory" clearly falls into the more bizarre speculation box, and I'm sorry if my light-hearted response to it has upset you, but it seemed to be set at about the level I thought it deserved. And yes, I've seen the email, and have no more idea than you do as to whether it's true or not, so I certainly won't be speculating about it.. particularly as there are undoubtedly battalions of lawyers out there rubbing their hands at the prospect of arguing a case for the many posts on social media, which although they may not be direct accusations, certainly "impugn the reputation by inference" of the increasing list of victims of "malicious communication". So perhaps accept a friendly nudge that it may not be wise to make unproven "nod, nod, wink, wink" comments about anyone, particularly in writing on social media .. Osborne included.. as they are increasingly likely to come back and bite us. One Celeb's Lawyer has already described such records as a "slam/dunk case for libel". Court cases are being prepared, as I write. Just saying.

If my husband was giving money to a young person on only fans I would leave him. I would view him as a creepy man exploiting someone.

I cannot accept ‘powerful’ , money is seen as power

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.

Blondiescot

GrannyGravy13

I always think that having sex is physical sex with penetration.

Watching someone remove their clothes and/or perform a sex act on themselves whilst the voyeur watches and/or masturbates is just voyeurism not for me, but if it’s between two consenting adults, nothing illegal then it’s down to them, their business nobody else’s, with the caveat that they are not harming anyone else.

The complications of this case are myriad, particularly that it is perfectly legal to have sex once you are 16, but illegal to share naked picture of yourself under the age of 18.

This needs to be taught in schools as many girls and boys are talked into swopping intimate pictures of themselves to prove they love their current partner.

Well said. If nothing else, we should be teaching our young people how to resist the pressures on them nowadays to share intimate photos and to engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviour - and the possible lifetime consequences if they do.

Well said. If nothing else, we should be teaching our young people how to resist the pressures on them nowadays to share intimate photos and to engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviour - and the possible lifetime consequences if they do.

Additionally - to be wary of individuals in positions of power, however minimal that power - who might quite legally ask them to share compromising photo's for a reward of some kind. Such individuals will not have the best interests of a young person at heart. In fact, I wish mature adults would keep away from the young all together.

If it's true that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain isn't fully functional until around age 25 then I would like to think that those in their teens could be left alone to control and process their emotions and thoughts without some 30 / 40 and upwards adult manipulating and exploiting them... even though it might be quite a legal 'transaction'. And that goes for boys, girls and all gender identities.

I realise I'm being unrealistic though.

NanaDana

Iam64

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

"Fantastic" is certainly the word... as in "fantasy"... although as conspiracy theories go, it's not as "far out" as some I've heard. So all this media feeding frenzy related to the "BBC presenter case" is a cunning plan to divert attention from naughty George Osborne and his naughty guests... and it worked! Baldrick will be so proud. Thank you for brightening up my morning, Doodledog. I was in need of a laugh today, and you kindly delivered.

Glad to have amused you. I won't sink to the level of snide comments, but note that you haven't commented on what if anything I have said is untrue. What was your opinion of the email, or are you sniggering about conspiracy theories without having seen it?