BBC presenter allegations.

I just wonder why, if he hasn't done anything wrong, he doesn't come out and say so to avoid others being under suspicion.

Maybe she didn’t know if an offence had been committed. She appears to have believed one of the bbc well known presenters was contributong to her son’s drug problem

The parent’s complained to police before May, they found nothing untoward, then parents went to BBC then the Sun

Smileless2012

Exactly Maggie. This person's silence at this time shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt, anymore than those who've been so quick to come out and declare their innocence should be.

I still don't understand why the mother went to the BBC and not the police if she believed an offence had been committed.

I am sure that I have read that the mother and step-father went to the police first, but they were told that there was nothing illegal involved on the evidence that the parents presented.

Going to The Sun could just be a cry of help from the parents when all else had in their opinion failed

Sorry Anniebach cross posts

Ok GrannyGravy

so if the police had been told first and on the evidence they'd been presented with said nothing illegal had happened, why then go the Sun?

Could that have been due to their determination to have this person punished, to exact revenge, by having their identity and the issue made public and in all probability lose their job?

I have that suspicion, yes.

Smileless2012

so if the police had been told first and on the evidence they'd been presented with said nothing illegal had happened, why then go the Sun?

Could that have been due to their determination to have this person punished, to exact revenge, by having their identity and the issue made public and in all probability lose their job?

That could well have been their original plan Smileless2012
Desperate parents will go to extremes to save their child when they feel they are not being taken seriously by other agencies

However, according to the BBC there are now four other young adults which have come forward and shown the BBC digital exchanges between themselves and an as of yet unnamed BBC presenter.

I think you’re correct Smileless.

The damage has been done because of the salacious nature of the story. Nothing illegal may have occurred but in the court of public opinion the presenter is, undoubtedly, finished. Even if the presenter has been the victim of illegal acts he’s still the loser.

At the very least the presenter has displayed very poor judgement and been involved in pretty unsavoury activities. I'd be sacked from my job if I'd done all that even if it was strictly legal.

He may resign

I thought the mother and son were said to be estranged. If that’s right I question whether her motives were entirely altruistic.
We have become a society which looks for compensation wherever there’s a chance it may be paid.

Forget the mother and the boy if you think she’s making it all up but now there are three other young people come forward

On a news programme I watched the other day, the news reader said she had read the threatening letters sent (I think) to the second person ( to keep them quiet) and they were genuinely threatening
It’s obviously not nice to think it’s someone who has always had a very ‘proper’ stance on our screens but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
If the name doing the rounds on social media is innocent why hasn’t he done what Jeremy vine and others have done and proclaim his innocence Surely his silence is the most damming part of it all

I am conflicted, if nothing illegal has occurred whatever went on has been between consenting adults.

Our sexual preferences and sex life in general is and should remain private. This person may have indulged in practices which others find seedy and inappropriate, but does that mean he should lose his livelihood.

As the person works for the BBC which is funded by all of us it is unlikely that he will be back on our screens however, if they are we all have an off button and are not obliged to watch anything they are on/presenting.

I hope all involved get the appropriate help, support and counselling in order to move forward from this.

(Assuming nothing illegal has taken place, if it has then then it’s down to Judge and Jury to convict not the general public)

Do people come forward in the hope of a payout? It’s not impossible. What else do they hope to gain?

I agree. Particularly the highly distasteful comment up thread regarding volunteering for the Samaritans.

Thank you, GTAT. It was a hurtful comment. I didn't make a 'flip comment' about depression. When someone said that Mr X needed help, I said that he might get it from a prison psychiatrist. All the same, it would be speculation to assume that Mr X is a famous someone who has spoken of his depression, wouldn't it? And depression may be a mitigating factor in some crimes, but is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, if any has taken place. I'm not sure why the fact that suicide rates are rising is relevant to this situation at all. Is there a suggestion that someone suffering from depression should not be held to the same laws as those who do not?

Aveline - yes, most people would lose their jobs if they brought their employers' name into disrepute.

As for the speculation about the mother's motives, obviously we don't know them, but an alternative to 'she must be in it for sinister reasons' is that far from 'not finding anything untoward' (which is more speculation) the BBC simply did not respond. They have admitted that they took too long to get back to her, and that this will be looked into when the enquiry is complete. People saying that the mother could have gone to the police, implying that not doing so is somehow 'dodgy' are speculating too. We don't know why she chose the course of action she did - how can we?

Can't people see that there is as much 'speculation' and 'making up of 'facts'' coming from those who want to shut down this thread as there is from those talking about the News reports? There have been requests for the names of the first boy's parents, and queries about whether Mr X got him into drugs before the videos were made. That is the ultimate in prurient speculation, and it hasn't come from those who are discussing the news .

The enquiry will find what it finds. Can anyone explain to me what anything that has been posted on this thread will do to influence it one way or the other, please?

Doodledog nothing discussed on this thread will have any influence anymore than a discussion down the pub or over the fence.

Our sexual preferences and sex life in general is and should remain private. This person may have indulged in practices which others find seedy and inappropriate, but does that mean he should lose his livelihood.
Not if he is Trevor (or Barbara) from admin, but if he is a teacher or a priest, or anyone whose livelihood depends on the fact that he is trusted as a reliable source of information and all-round 'Good Egg' then yes, he probably should. Who would want their grandchildren being taught by someone who had online photos of themselves in compromising situations? It's not 'fair', but anyone going into jobs like that knows the score.

I don't think it matters whether we 'like' newsreaders, but we need to trust that what they are saying is true, and they need to be a neutral source. If every time we see them we are reminded of what they have been getting up to, then that neutrality is compromised. That's why Frank Bough had to go, and why Angus Deayton had to leave HIGNFY. How could they report on (or satirise) situations such as the ones they were involved in and be taken seriously?

The second person received threats after he/she spoke of making the name known, that was a threat.

Depression can be the cause of criminal activity, fact.

Whatever the outcome (which may be anything from a Savilesque scandal on one end of a line to a lot of hot air on the other) the fact remains that questions have been raised about the speed at which the BBC responded to a mother's complaints (founded or unfounded) about a high-profile presenter, and about the timing of The Sun's release of the story. Both of these things are (IMO) interesting in themselves, and are worthy of discussion.

Exactly, Doodledog.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in a news item such as this. Savile, and the 'Me Too' movement have made it abundantly clear that there are those in positions of power / authority who abuse those positions for personal gratification. Why should we not discuss this issue in principle, and in general?

Both the BBC and The Sun have some questions to answer. If both had behaved / responded differently, it might have been possible to avoid the intense speculation that has inevitably followed.

Anniebach

The second person received threats after he/she spoke of making the name known, that was a threat.

Depression can be the cause of criminal activity, fact.

Do you have evidence of those threats, Annie, or are you just discussing what was in the News?

I thought the unknown person was a tv presenter not a teacher

Doodledog the report from the BBC speaks of the unknown
persons threat to second claimant made in reply to ‘May make name public’

Why would the second person make that threat other than blackmail? A particularly nasty crime.