BBC presenter allegations.

Doodledog yet another good post from you 👍

I agree that The Sun has not printed any lies due to the fact that its handsomely paid lawyers would have been over every single word and punctuation mark before it went to print.

If anything The Sun could be said to be morally guilty of putting this in the public eye against the wishes of the young person in the middle of this terrible situation.

I hazard a guess that this person will probably have real trust issues with their mother and step-father for the foreseeable future.

I hope that they get the support for their mental health and help for their addiction (if this is true?), bearing in mind that an addict cannot be helped until they wish to be helped.

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.

I’ve just re-read the original story Doodledog and nowhere does it say that the Sun had spoken to the young person who is now an adult directly before publishing the story. That’s surely vital before publishing anything, even if they have documented evidence that the events happened. Obviously I understand that the young person may be being manipulated by the presenter and the mother’s story may be the truth, but surely nonetheless a newspaper would at least have a responsibility to speak to the young person before printing anything.

But my point is that nothing it has printed is untrue, not that it has turned over every stone, or that it has necessarily behaved impeccably. There are lots of things they didn't say, but that's not the point.

I am not a Sun apologist - far from it - but the idea that just because something is printed in The Sun it is a lie, and that it is ok to dismiss anything it prints is at best behind the times.

I am not accusing you of this, Casdon, but there are so many people saying that they don't read The Sun, don't use social media, don't speculate, don't want to know who the accused person might be, only deal in 'facts' (whatever they are) etc, yet they are reading this thread, posting their own opinions and making huge assumptions about the family, the young person, their possible motives etc, and are criticising others for their (our?) interest in the story.

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.

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

Blimey!!!

That’s a lot of unfaithful GN members going by the threads of what celebrities/actors they fantasise/fancy…

😂😂😂

I felt guilty for all of two seconds!

Doodledog

The Sun, particularly since the Leveson Enquiry, will not publish anything without its lawyers scrutinising every single word. I'm not saying they are anywhere near the moral high ground - clearly they are not - but they will not publish anything illegal or untrue.

As a matter of interest, what do people think they have published which is not the case? Has anyone actually read The Sun's story? It is readily available online, and nobody will be tainted by reading it . There is nothing in there that cannot be verified, as all they say is that the mother went to them, not asking to be paid, as the BBC had not acted on their complaint. Today's headline is a quote from the parents - again, not disputable.

I’ve just re-read the original story Doodledog and nowhere does it say that the Sun had spoken to the young person who is now an adult directly before publishing the story. That’s surely vital before publishing anything, even if they have documented evidence that the events happened. Obviously I understand that the young person may be being manipulated by the presenter and the mother’s story may be the truth, but surely nonetheless a newspaper would at least have a responsibility to speak to the young person before printing anything.

Callistemon21

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

Blimey!!!

That’s a lot of unfaithful GN members going by the threads of what celebrities/actors they fantasise/fancy…

Blondiescot

Kandinsky

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

I do remember years ago reading an article that said just thinking about having sex with someone other than one's husband/wife was as bad as actual adultery 😲
It rather brought me up short!

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.

Kandinsky

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

Stop putting words into other people's mouths - no-one said that. However, I'm pretty sure that most people would take 'paying for sex' to mean actually having sex.

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

So you’d divorce your husband for looking at pictures? Has he ever looked at a girlie mag or a porn film?

Plus there’s no evidence that the £1000’s paid was for pictures. That’s an awful lot of money for something that is ‘freely’ available.

It is not ‘having sex’. Unless you class masturbation as having sex

So if your husband paid a 17 year old 1000’s to take their clothes off you’d be ok with it?

It’s nothing much & isn’t really sex?

How very liberal of you.
If it was my husband I’d be divorcing him.

All the people who looked at topless girls in the Sun were having sex

So looking at film , photographs, is having sex

Kandinsky

*Paying for sex ?*

Yes.
What else would you call it?

Art?

As far as I'm aware, these 'allegations' only referred to photos. 'Paying for sex', to me anyway, would imply something of a physical nature.

Paying for sex ?

Yes.
What else would you call it?

Art?

Sago

I have not read any report who refers to a son, all the reports I have read have been they/their pronouns.

Hi, yes, it was me who said that I’d read ‘my son’ somewhere.
It must have been a secondary source, as like I said previously, I can’t find it; and I also agree that the mother uses neutral pronouns throughout

Paying for sex ?

Whatever the outcome of this is, the presenters career is over & his reputation ruined.
It could all be legal & above board, but anything involving paying for sex with a young person is ridiculously stupid if you’re in the public eye.

No, I agree.

I think, personally, it's not good for young people to be filming sexual acts for money.

But, the young man is an adult, is entitled to make his own choices in life, and it wasn't up to his parents to get involved.

It's just disrupted his life further for all this to be thrown at him.

I understand the parents were upset - but chucking it all over a low-rent newspaper is not the way to go.

As he's been in foster care a while, it sounds as though there have been long standing problems anyway.

I hope the young man gets any help he needs, going forward.

I have not read any report who refers to a son, all the reports I have read have been they/their pronouns.

DiamondLily

It seems more and more that this might have been an unsavoury situation, but it wasn't illegal.

A lot of people, with a crack habit, will do many things to fund it.

The mothers view that her son would stop the drugs, if the money wasn't forthcoming, was incredibly naive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66081060

"Unsavoury" is personal and, if course, very titillating to Sun readers.

It is still not for the parents to splash it all over the less savoury (in my opinion) newspapers.

I heard someone mention foster parents this morning as this case was being discussed. If this is the case then the young man has had a troubled background. It would be good if he can get over his addiction and method of earning money and lead a normal life. However, all this publicity can’t be helping matters and, of course, if the presenter has a wife and family, they must be in turmoil. No I don’t believe going to The Sun was the right thing to do.

It seems more and more that this might have been an unsavoury situation, but it wasn't illegal.

A lot of people, with a crack habit, will do many things to fund it.

The mothers view that her son would stop the drugs, if the money wasn't forthcoming, was incredibly naive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66081060