BBC presenter allegations.

Smileless2012

So it's the 9th page of speculating on this thread even though the police aren't yet convinced that any laws have been broken.

If I believed my child or GC was suffering at the hands of anyone due to an act I believed to be against the law Doodledog, regardless of who they were or what status they held, I would take my concerns to the police, not the suspected perpetrators employer or a news paper.

Me also, the police has got to be the first port of call if you suspect any wrong doings, to take any other form of action would leave the door open to questioning of one’s motives.

As has been pointed out, the police are very often not interested.

So it's the 9th page of speculating on this thread even though the police aren't yet convinced that any laws have been broken.

If I believed my child or GC was suffering at the hands of anyone due to an act I believed to be against the law Doodledog, regardless of who they were or what status they held, I would take my concerns to the police, not the suspected perpetrators employer or a news paper.

No doubt all those who have been incorrectly named on other social media sites will have their lawyers on speed dial and be looking forward to a few £’s in defamation damages.

DiamondLily

It seems that the police aren't convinced any actual laws appear to have been broken:

"Police today insisted they are not yet investigating the BBC star who allegedly paid £35,000 to a vulnerable teenager for sexually explicit photos.

Scotland Yard detectives have discussed the case with the corporation's bosses in an online meeting this morning - rather than going to Broadcasting House in person.

The unnamed broadcaster has finally been suspended by the BBC almost two months after a complaint was first made by the alleged victim's family.

The mystery star is accused of paying tens of thousands of pounds to the alleged victim. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17, which they then used to fund an addiction to crack cocaine.

After a virtual meeting today, the Metropolitan Police said it is undertaking further enquiries - but added there is currently no investigation while they 'establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12283429/Scotland-Yard-say-NOT-investigating-BBC-presenter.html

The police are looking into malicious communications outside the assment of the report in the Sun.

Spot on Casdon. I'm at a total loss to comprehend what drives some people. I'm tempted to say that I clearly don't inhabit the same planet as they do... but unfortunately that's not the case, is it?. As regards protestations that "I haven't named anyone", the idle speculators should perhaps reflect on a statement from a Lawyer who is already working with at least one Celeb who has fallen foul of the rumourmongers as regards "malicious communication" :
"Even small details that imply someone is involved can land users in trouble , because the imputation that goes with them [social media posts] is that you think that that person could credibly be the individual who is being accused of this wrongdoing". He went on to say that those who have actually been stupid enough to name names, which has happened on some SM sites, could be in big trouble, as where they are concerned, those victimised have a "pretty much slam/dunk case for libel" against them. Ain't Karma great?...

It seems that the police aren't convinced any actual laws appear to have been broken:

"Police today insisted they are not yet investigating the BBC star who allegedly paid £35,000 to a vulnerable teenager for sexually explicit photos.

Scotland Yard detectives have discussed the case with the corporation's bosses in an online meeting this morning - rather than going to Broadcasting House in person.

The unnamed broadcaster has finally been suspended by the BBC almost two months after a complaint was first made by the alleged victim's family.

The mystery star is accused of paying tens of thousands of pounds to the alleged victim. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17, which they then used to fund an addiction to crack cocaine.

After a virtual meeting today, the Metropolitan Police said it is undertaking further enquiries - but added there is currently no investigation while they 'establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12283429/Scotland-Yard-say-NOT-investigating-BBC-presenter.html

And no defamation laws have been broken on here, unless they were deleted before I saw them.

From Sky

A police statement said: "Detectives from the Met's Specialist Crime Command met with representatives from the BBC on the morning of Monday, 10 July. The meeting took place virtually.

They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed.

There is no investigation at this time.

In new allegations published in The Sun, the presenter called the young person to ask "what have you done?.

He then allegedly asked the young person to speak to their mother and urge her to stop the investigation, the paper added.

The mother claimed no one from the broadcaster initially got in touch with her when she raised a complaint in May.

In a statement, the broadcaster said it "takes any allegations seriously" and has "robust internal processes in place to proactively deal with such allegations".

The BBC said that while it first became aware of a complaint in May, "new allegations" of a "different nature" were put to it on Thursday, adding it had been "in touch with external authorities, in line with our protocols".

The presenter remains unnamed due to a number of reasons.

Firstly, the reports in The Sun are allegations and it is not clear what evidence they have and who supplied it.

It is also unclear if any laws have been broken, without knowing the content of the alleged photographs, and when exactly they were sent.

And the UK's defamation laws protect individuals against harm, reputational or otherwise, caused by things that have been said about them which turn out to be false.

No-one has been named on here, there is no prosecution as yet, if at all, and no trial which might be prejudiced.

'Some on here' don't let that get in the way of a chance to form their own self-righteous mob and sneer at others, though, do they? As has been said, we are discussing the News on the News and Politics forum in a discussion board, not knitting at a guillotine, which is a strange analogy for this situation anyway.

*And what did they ( The Met) do when they knew what an evil perverted bastard Wayne Couzens was, they left him to rape and torture women and eventually murder Sarah Everard.
That’s the harm they did*
Well said, MerylStreep. There have been several instances when things have been reported to the police and to TV channels who have done nothing about it.

As for the GB News dig - I can only speak for myself, but I would feel the same if someone on there were accused. They have nobody with as much money or clout as do the BBC (unless Piers Morgan is on there, in which case he might qualify) so the ability to pay for injunctions and expensive PR is lessened, but the principle remains. I have absolutely nothing against the man in question, but don't think that pleas for justice should be ignored.

Nobody has said what they would do if their child or grandchild were suffering at the hands of someone in the public eye and that person's employer took no notice of their complaint. It must be very difficult to be up against an institution such as the BBC (or ITV, or GB News, for that matter) as a 'little person', particularly if they refuse to engage.

I don't think it's about a desire to condemn, Casdon. When people are found guilty I am usually in the 'temper justice with mercy' camp. I'm not motivated by a punitive mentality at all. I do, however, think that justice should be available to everyone, whether they are ambitious young men wanting to break into TV or those who are selling their bodies to get money for drugs. When powerful institutions close ranks there is no justice, and that is when things like this happen. If the BBC had acted when the mother contacted them, things may never have got this far.

Callistemon21

DaisyAnneReturns

Kandinsky

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

I don't know about others but I am "protecting" nothing other than justice, which is being very ill-served on GN.

Justice has nothing to do with mobs. If what we are told is going on on social media, I see no difference to the lynch-mobs of old. Prosecution by mob is not justice.

No, it's not protecting nothing other than justice

No-one has been named on here, there is no prosecution as yet, if at all, and no trial which might be prejudiced.

Could you read my post and quote accurately please Callistemon. You took a part of a sentence, added your own words and used it to suggest that was what I said. There is a name for that sort of thing. Please don't do it again or I will report it. Gas lighting is nothing other than a mental assault.

What I did say was I don't know about others but I am "protecting" nothing other than justice, ... As far as I am aware, I am allowed to do that and you are in no position to tell me not to.

Spot on, Casdon.

It’s the level of assumption that’s wrong though, and the damage that does to people. As soon as this story hit the media ‘the mob’ for want of a better phrase started attacking people’s reputations - so badly that some of them had to publicly defend themselves. Now it’s concentrated on one person people seem to be unable to contain their thirst for more information to satisfy whatever it is that burns in them, and their desire to condemn. There is no justice on social media, DaisyAnneReturns is right

DaisyAnneReturns

Kandinsky

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

I don't know about others but I am "protecting" nothing other than justice, which is being very ill-served on GN.

Justice has nothing to do with mobs. If what we are told is going on on social media, I see no difference to the lynch-mobs of old. Prosecution by mob is not justice.

No, it's not protecting nothing other than justice

No-one has been named on here, there is no prosecution as yet, if at all, and no trial which might be prejudiced.

‘A statement says police are "assessing the information" discussed at a meeting that took place earlier today between the force and the BBC.

"Further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed," the Met says.

It adds: "There is no investigation at this time."

Statement from police been issued

DaisyAnneReturns

Kandinsky

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

I don't know about others but I am "protecting" nothing other than justice, which is being very ill-served on GN.

Justice has nothing to do with mobs. If what we are told is going on on social media, I see no difference to the lynch-mobs of old. Prosecution by mob is not justice.

Exactly.

where's the harm in leaving it to the law
And what did they ( The Met) do when they knew what an evil perverted bastard Wayne Couzens was, they left him to rape and torture women and eventually murder Sarah Everard.
That’s the harm they did

What’s your problem with social media involvement?

You’re on SM now discussing it!

Kandinsky

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

I don't know about others but I am "protecting" nothing other than justice, which is being very ill-served on GN.

Justice has nothing to do with mobs. If what we are told is going on on social media, I see no difference to the lynch-mobs of old. Prosecution by mob is not justice.

Kandinsky

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

What are you implying Kandinsky? Are you suggesting that people who disagree with social media involvement in this would behave differently if this was a GB News presenter?

3nanny6

What an unpleasant thread. (tell me not to read it then okay)

I can have an opinion the same as others though so mine is.

The boy /young man in question was using large amounts of money allegedly paid to him by the "un-named" man. I have read some accounts that the young man was blackmailing him.
The young man was heavily addicted to drugs and the life of an addicted person is unpleasant and frightening especially for those closest to them. An addict will manipulate and look for any area where they can get what they want that being what means most to them their drugs. Although the young man was getting money from the presenter lets be realistic as an addict he would source his money anywhere the possibility presented itself. I can understand that the mother feared for her child's life and went to the BBC asking that this person stop giving money to her son , she would have been better off talking to the police.
One thing is clear drug addiction for most is sordid and filled with squalor. I am not condoning the man as he is just another nasty type allegedly involved in sordid photographs web cam or whatever. Nothing is surprising this is the messed up world we are living in.

Again, may I ask, where was it said it was a ‘boy/young man’? I saw Al-Jazeera referred to a girl, and GB news had a report which mentioned a daughter on two occasions.
There is so much speculation based on unverified things being repeated on social media.

Doodledog

Baggs

Trial by social media, in other words, is not a good thing.

That is definitely a point of view, and there are times when SM can be very destructive. But I am not convinced that it is a bad thing all the time. Bringing things into the open is often in the interests of the powerless.

As I asked upthread, would Savile have got away with it for so long if people could have gone public then without fear of intimidation? Even saying that they had been to the police who did nothing might have made them act on the numerous reports they had about his activities. The same applies to the BBC.

We don’t know that anything illegal has occurred at all though, do we? Social media destroys people.. the young man in the Schofield case has been dragged through the mill, apparently against his wishes. He will be marked for life. How do we know we aren’t doing exactly the same to another young person, whether they are innocent or perpetrator, or whether a presenter is guilty of a crime or is being blackmailed for viewing legal material online or not. We don’t. Yet.

I wonder if certain people would be so protective of the alleged accused if he/she worked for GB news?

Hmm….

Baggs

Trial by social media, in other words, is not a good thing.

That is definitely a point of view, and there are times when SM can be very destructive. But I am not convinced that it is a bad thing all the time. Bringing things into the open is often in the interests of the powerless.

As I asked upthread, would Savile have got away with it for so long if people could have gone public then without fear of intimidation? Even saying that they had been to the police who did nothing might have made them act on the numerous reports they had about his activities. The same applies to the BBC.