BBC presenter allegations.

I truly do not understand this ‘abuse of power’ same was said on this forum about Scofield, what power ?

Theexwife

If there has been no wrong doing why has the presenter not come forward and said that it was legal and consensual?

Your logic is out again. You don't actually know anything happened. It may have done or it may not.

Callistemon21

DaisyAnneReturns

Callistemon21

🤔

I'm not speculating on the identity of the presenter.

As the BBC has not denied the story, I am assuming it is true, however.

Why? We don't know. Where's the harm in leaving it to the law?

Like so many other cases which are ignored?

Who us suggesting it gets ignored?

If there has been no wrong doing why has the presenter not come forward and said that it was legal and consensual?

Baggs

Well said, Doodledog although, to be fair, I don't really see the point of speculation. The "BBC presenter allegations" are a matter for the police and until we know what the charges, if any, are and the decisions of juries/courts, I don't really see the point of all the blether.

Well, this is more speculation, but IMO the social media hoo-ha has forced the hand of both the BBC and the police, which was probably the idea.

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

FannyCornforth

There was just now a repeated clip of McKenzie on R4 news.

He said that he expects that presenter will issue ‘an independent statement today’.

He also said that the presenter ‘may have different explanation as to how his money ended up in the young man’s account’.

Which I gather could be a suggestion of blackmail

I think he would be well advised to issue his own statement, to put an end to the speculation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more to this than we know, and that it will explain the fact that the mother went to the papers and not the police.

It must have been a difficult decision for her if it has been blackmail, as obviously her child will be prosecuted for that, but faced with a choice between that and watching him or her dying from drug addiction I can see why she made the choice she did.

Well said, Doodledog although, to be fair, I don't really see the point of speculation. The "BBC presenter allegations" are a matter for the police and until we know what the charges, if any, are and the decisions of juries/courts, I don't really see the point of all the blether.

That's the end of his career shouldn't the accused be formerly charged, tried and convicted before their career is over?

DaisyAnneReturns

Callistemon21

🤔

I'm not speculating on the identity of the presenter.

As the BBC has not denied the story, I am assuming it is true, however.

Why? We don't know. Where's the harm in leaving it to the law?

Like so many other cases which are ignored?

The Sun doesn't need to print a lot. It has the gossip mongers to do their work for them.

Much as I dislike The Sun, if it hadn't printed this story everything would have been kept under wraps, the presenter continuing in their job and the young person would still be in the thrall of this man (or woman).

I hope the young person can be helped to overcome their addictions.

Yes, I'd do whatever needed to be done to help my child too if the BBC ignored the problem and the police refused to act.

DaisyAnneReturns

The Sun doesn't need to print a lot. It has the gossip mongers to do their work for them.

I notice you have already moved into the made up and altered "facts" area. Why us that okay?

Social media democratises? How on earth do you reach that conclusion? It is a platform for fake news and propaganda. It empowers disruptive voices, ideologies, and messages of hate.

That may be your idea idea of democracy but it's my idea of an extention of populism. It's a place where those who shout the loudest assume they are the largest in number and that any majority, even an assumed one, is always right and that their views equal democracy.

Just how wrong can you be?

I reached the conclusion that SM can democratise, as well as being a force for harm at times (a part of my post that you didn't quote, as it doesn't suit your attack).

It is not 'wrong' to disagree with you, or to discuss something in the News on the N&P section of a discussion board.

There was just now a repeated clip of McKenzie on R4 news.

He said that he expects that presenter will issue ‘an independent statement today’.

He also said that the presenter ‘may have different explanation as to how his money ended up in the young man’s account’.

Which I gather could be a suggestion of blackmail

Callistemon21

🤔

I'm not speculating on the identity of the presenter.

As the BBC has not denied the story, I am assuming it is true, however.

Why? We don't know. Where's the harm in leaving it to the law?

My last post was in reply to Doodledog Mon 10-Jul-23 14:12.

I feel very sorry for presenters going on a genuine family holiday and feel forced to state why and almost where they are going and with whom so that their name is not top of the list because they have not been on air for a few days.

Twitter have said the BBC will name later today.
However most folk know by now..? the Mumsnet suggestion yesterday appears to be the case.
Apparently someone on TV last night said his first name before the realised what they had done.

That's the end of his career, he was personally not my cup of tea.

🤔

I'm not speculating on the identity of the presenter.

As the BBC has not denied the story, I am assuming it is true, however.

The Sun doesn't need to print a lot. It has the gossip mongers to do their work for them.

I notice you have already moved into the made up and altered "facts" area. Why us that okay?

Social media democratises? How on earth do you reach that conclusion? It is a platform for fake news and propaganda. It empowers disruptive voices, ideologies, and messages of hate.

That may be your idea idea of democracy but it's my idea of an extention of populism. It's a place where those who shout the loudest assume they are the largest in number and that any majority, even an assumed one, is always right and that their views equal democracy.

Just how wrong can you be?

Doodledog

Oh, and I have no obsessions. But I would do whatever it took to protect my children, and I think it is a shame that when anyone speaks out against a public figure they are assumed to be lying or 'out for what they can get'. Deference to power is one of the reasons that powerful people get away with so much.

I agree.
Power is the reason so many rich and famous people get away with such behaviour.
Even if this young person was a young adult when this started, it is an abuse of power.

As is proved time and again, it can be pointless going to the police.

Because the person is in the public eye and rightly or wrongly, people want to know and will speculate.

Doodledog

Has anyone said who they have heard it was or done anything other than repeat what has been in the press and consequently signed off by lawyers? I have read the thread and seen no speculation, belief in rumour or half truth - just discussion of what has been in the news.

The default on here is always to protect the accused, regardless of any disparity in the power between them and the accusers. I wonder how 'some of you' would feel if your grandchild were being preyed on by someone in the public eye?

This man, whoever he is, will have very expensive lawyers working for him, which the mum of the young person in question will not. The burden of proof will be very much with her.

Yes Doodledog they definitelyhave. The only facts we have are those on the main news channels. Assigning motives to any of the people involved until we have all the facts is speculation. I stick by what I said earlier today. We don’t know any of the story. It’s like a dot to dot puzzle with a quarter of the numbers on it, you may end up with a pig whilst somebody else ends up with the Eiffel Tower. I don’t know why people make up the gaps, I really don’t.

Kate1949

It's a news item. People discuss news items. That's life.

The top and bottom of the "news item" is that a BBC presenter has been suspended, whilst investigations are ongoing. And that really is it. What's to discuss? Anything outside of that is idle speculation... and boy, we've seen lots of that.

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.

Oh, and I have no obsessions. But I would do whatever it took to protect my children, and I think it is a shame that when anyone speaks out against a public figure they are assumed to be lying or 'out for what they can get'. Deference to power is one of the reasons that powerful people get away with so much.