BBC presenter allegations.

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.

Pro bono? Sue the Sun? Or free as low income?

How sure are everyone that the young person is a young male and not female ?

We need to be very careful in discussing this. The facts are in doubt and I wouldn't personally rely on any article in The Sun.

Redhead56

I watched the news last night and the highlight was this very subject. Two other journalists discussed it as well as the main presenter Fiona Bruce.
What a waste of time that was the BBC are just covering themselves. That news headline took priority over events far worth talking about that’s typical of BBC.

Why shouldn’t it be important to the BBC? They’re the ones getting the aggro, and their presenters.
Btw every news channel is doing the same, even now on Tuesday it’s the leading story.
Not sure if the facts will ever be revealed.

Casdon

If a mother approached a newspaper with a major story related to their now adult child, the first thing the newspaper would do would be to corroborate the story with the person the allegations are being made on behalf of - aged 20.

If the Sun have not done that, whatever else transpires, then the book should be thrown at them.

I spent most of my working life as a reporter. One of the first things we were taught, even as raw cub reporters, was always to corroborate our story. Had I gone to my editor with this supposed tale, I'd have been sent packing (with a flea in my eye) to find some corroboration. Sadly The Sun has always played fast and loose with the 'facts' and it's only getting worse now.

Anniebach

Yet the parents said nothing 3 years ago

Do you think the parents are to blame here, Annie?

The child employed a lawyer and that cost a lot.
Yes. No speculation there. I wonder how the lawyer is being funded? 🤔

On an entirely separate and unrelated note, Phillip Schofield is on record as saying that he is paying for legal representation for the young man with whom he had an 'unwise but not illegal' 'relationship'. Obviously I'm sure that someone somewhere will have ensured that there is no possible conflict of interest in that unusual situation, but I don't remember reading about that side of the deal.

Yet the parents said nothing 3 years ago

A vulnerable 17 year old involved in photographic images is seen legally as a child.

I won’t attempt to raise the issue of power imbalance

A 20 year old is not a child

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

Fantastic summary Doodledog, thank you

Was May the first time the mother knew of money the son was receiving?

Yes, DaisyAnneReturns
"Many adult children do not behave as parents wish but they do not plaster their lives all over the Sun."

The BBC also love a bit of self examination and beating themselves up, they do this every tone something like this happens.

Redhead56

I watched the news last night and the highlight was this very subject. Two other journalists discussed it as well as the main presenter Fiona Bruce.
What a waste of time that was the BBC are just covering themselves. That news headline took priority over events far worth talking about that’s typical of BBC.

I thought it was a "Damned if they did and damned if they didnt" situation Redhead56

They have to be seen not to be evasive - I thought they did it very well, unlike other parts of the press where speculations on the family are now rife.

Yes more important news happening but if they didnt go straight for it then accusations of trying to "hide" it.

There has been more than one accusation?

The only thing you’ve missed is starting an Osbourne thread Doodledog!

The one thing I would add to your assessment NanaDana is that although there is an insistence on describing the person as "young", they are in fact, an adult whose parents seem to have over-ruled their wish for privacy.

There was also something on Today about the stepfather having told the BBC that they had been to the police in May that they could do nothing as nothing unlawful had happened.

Many adult children do not behave as parents wish but they do not plaster their lives all over the Sun.

So what we know is as follows, although I haven’t yet read today’s news, if any:
An unnamed person sends an email to all the guests at George Osbourne’s wedding that implicates him in some very unsavoury behaviour, and threatens to expose more about other guests, who include high-ranking politicians and supposedly unbiased journalists.

The same day, The Sun runs a story about how a mother has approached the BBC about a senior presenter who has been paying large sums of money to her child in exchange for sexually explicit videos, and the child, who was a minor at the start of this, is spending the money on drugs. The story is not about the celebrity, but about the fact that she informed the BBC, who did nothing to stop the man from paying money, and who continued to put him on screen.

There is a media frenzy of implication, inference and speculation, with numerous names in the frame, most of whom have denied any involvement. Nothing, however has been heard from the main suspect or his lawyers, and he has not been mentioned in lists of those who have been exonerated.

Osbourne’s wedding goes ahead, with little or no mention of the email and its ‘awkward’ contents, as the papers and social media concentrate on the scandal. Mention of the wedding concentrates on a conveniently distracting incident involving a woman throwing orange confetti - an act the media link to Just Stop Oil, who deny their involvement. Odd, but it makes a good story and the email is forgotten.

The wedding over, news of the scandal peters out, but speculation continues. Pushed into action, the BBC announces an inquiry and the police weigh in, saying that they, too, are now on the case. Still no comment from the man in the frame, whose name is now known by hermits living in caves in the Himalayas.

Suddenly a story emerges, suggesting that all is not as it seems with the family of the victim. None of this contradicts what was written in the original story, which had simply reported that the mother had attempted to get the BBC to act against the man in question, and that was never in dispute.

The police say there is not enough evidence to support the allegations at this time, and whereas there is no scandal involving the BBC and nobody has been officially named, the odds are that Mr X will be taking a long holiday from our screens and spending more time with his family.

On Gransnet, there is forensic analysis of what might be the family dynamics and of the possible motives of the mother and the child. The possibility that yet another famous figure has been exploiting young people is forgotten (as that would involve ‘speculation’, which is somehow different from casting aspersions on a troubled family’s possible motives).

The Osbournes begin married life and their guests breathe a huge sigh of relief that the email story seems to have died.

Have I missed anything?

I watched the news last night and the highlight was this very subject. Two other journalists discussed it as well as the main presenter Fiona Bruce.
What a waste of time that was the BBC are just covering themselves. That news headline took priority over events far worth talking about that’s typical of BBC.

IAM64
The key for me is the involvement of so many adult men in taking advantage/exploiting vulnerable young people. Tv/film/youth work/scouts/ wherever there are young people or children we find men ready to exploit them.

How do you propose to stop it?
These sites are legal and they’re the ones making millions.

I don’t believe (just my opinion at present) that begging phone calls were made. I think it far more likely that it has been pointed out that blackmail is a far more serious offence than paying for explicit images (which isn’t illegal unless there’s an age concern).

I’d also like to say a serious crack habit doesn’t just stop and money will be sought elsewhere if that particular source has dried up.

NanaDana

So initially, the implication is that the BBC did not respond to the parents' communications, and there is then speculation that this is why they went to the press, in order to create pressure for action. We now hear that there was indeed contact with the BBC, including a discussion which went on "for over an hour". We also hear that the alleged victim approached The Sun newspaper before they published, told them that the allegations were untrue, and asked them not to print them. The parents are upholding their initial claims, and have suggested that the alleged victim is still being manipulated. The Lawyer for the alleged victim has repeated that the claims are "total rubbish", has advised The Sun accordingly, in writing, and accused them of breaching the privacy of their client. The current Police position on all of this is that they have insufficient evidence even to begin a formal investigation, much less with which to bring charges. I don't see where either the BBC or The Sun can go now. What I do see is that for anyone to give sufficient credence to ANY of the detail in the public arena to draw firm conclusions from it, or indeed to speculate further, is utterly pointless.

I agree. What I also see, as with the Schofield case is the young person being bypassed. On the basis of what is in the public domain now, why didn’t the Sun contact them directly before printing a story like this about them, and why, having been contacted and told by the young person that the story wasn’t true did they print anyway? We don’t know if they are telling the truth or not, but regardless of that ignoring them is wrong on every level.

Whitewavemark2

The BBC gets thousands of complaints about alleged misconduct by its high profile stars - the vast majority being without foundation. This complaint was one amongst thousands, so it is entirely feasible that the bbc was working its way towards this complaint and carefully examining the evidence.

Indeed.