BBC presenter allegations.

Kate1949

The name of the alleged person is now all over social media. Probably wrong.

More than one person has been named and all those people may choose to sue for huge amounts in deformation. I hope they do. We should not have trail by social media.

Wyllow3

I cant help feeling that going to the Sun is far from the young persons best interests to it all to be so public.

I agree, Wyllow, but then I'm not in the shoes of this desperate Mother whose child is killing itself through drug addiction, funded by the alleged perpetrator. A nightmare situation, which I thankfully will never be in a position to relate to. So very sad.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree eddiecat. I would be very surprised if she hadn't been paid for the story. Going to the police would have been more appropriate.

I don't think posting on here is appropriate either. It seems to me that the letters in green ink, once sent to newspapers, have now proliferated onto social media.

One defamation case could mean no more gransnet. I would personally rather that didn't happen.

I'm interested that all the reports now refer to a young Person, when I'm sure that in the first reports I read the mother spoke about the harm done to her son.
Or I could be having a memory lapse.

I cant help feeling that going to the Sun is far from the young persons best interests to it all to be so public.

Advice from the former chief prosecutor, Nazir Afzal who wrote on Twitter, If you name someone and get it wrong then they may sue you for defamation and you can say goodbye to everything you own. So don't.

If the mother felt that the BBC were unreasonably dragging their feet over the investigation, I believe it would have been better to contact the Police - or even her MP. Going to The Sun was a bad choice. Her child, though not named, and no longer a child, will be having a tough time over this. As will all those innocent news presenters who now feel compelled to declare their innocence.

This is all so wrong on many levels.

We don't have an identified perpetrator to focus on, so let's have a go at the alleged victim's Mother instead, despite the fact that we know nothing about the circumstances in which she felt it appropriate to contact the media, and that she must already be hurting so much. Sad.

Totally accept your thinking Bluebelle but apparently the unknown person has been suspended from work whereas these 'declarers' are still actively and obviously on screen which would naturally eliminate them. However, it's not really an earth shattering matter (other than to those actually involved) in the grand scheme of things these days.

FannyCornforth

Sago in reports that I read the mother referred to ‘my son’ (unfortunately I can’t find it now).
However, Al Jazeera are explicitly claiming that it is a girl

www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/9/bbc-suspends-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-images

The BBC today is still only referring to the ‘young person’.

Where does it say he is a news reader Fanny?

It’s illegal to make indecent images of children, ie under the age of 18. The press report the young person is male and was 17 when the older man began asking him to perform sexual acts, my impression is on line. The young man is now 20. His mother alleges these incidents led him to become addicted to crack.

nanna8

The trouble with all this secrecy is others who are innocent will be thought to be guilty. It also encourages rumourmongering. If someone doesn't like your face-watch out.

I think that it will all come out very soon.
If it’s who I think it is, then it was the first person I guessed.
The BBC are now reporting that it’s a news reader

Thanks BlueBelle, yes, that was a bit odd, well spotted

Oh you probably would if you were a national name and heard it bandied around Kim

Don't really understand the declarations of innocence from some presenters. If I knew I was innocent I don't think I'd feel the need to tell anyone other than the police, my nearest and dearest and employer at the time of they were implicated.

The trouble with all this secrecy is others who are innocent will be thought to be guilty. It also encourages rumourmongering. If someone doesn't like your face-watch out.

FC even Al Jazeera aren’t sure what they are reporting as the first paragraph talks about a teenage girl and the second paragraph refers to a youth

Sago in reports that I read the mother referred to ‘my son’ (unfortunately I can’t find it now).
However, Al Jazeera are explicitly claiming that it is a girl

www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/9/bbc-suspends-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-images

The name of the alleged person is now all over social media. Probably wrong.

Who leaked this to the press !

It's claimed the unnamed star, who was suspended by the BBC on Sunday, allegedly rang the teenager in question - who is now 20 - asking: "What have you done?"

The male presenter also reportedly asked the now 20-year-old to get their mum to "stop the investigation" last week, as it's revealed the BBC were told of the allegations in May

MerylStreep

Ourkid
You ask why the presenter is presumed guilty: because his mother saw the video on her sons device.
She went to the sun because the bbc told her they would look into it. There was no more communication with her from the bbc.

As said before, the sex of the young person has not been revealed. They have only been referred to as ‘ my child’.

lemsip

*Keeleklogger that of course is ITV. when it is a BBC person in the news.

He was on the BBC it’s Mr Blobby

lemsip

*Keeleklogger that of course is ITV. when it is a BBC person in the news.

Unless I’ve missed some subtle clue MrBlobby was on the BBC for which they own the rights too.

GrannyGravy13

There are multiple layers to this.

1) were there any illegal activities by the BBC employee

2) did the person claim to be 18 to be on one of these sites (only fans etc)

3) did the alleged activities take part during work hours

If it’s no to the first and third, and yes to the second, why is it anyone else’s business?

1) As the police are involved it is assumed there has been illegal activity.
2) This has not been suggested anywhere.
3) If it is proved the presenter was a sexual predator it makes no difference when it happened, I doubt any company would employ someone in that case. Until there is a conclusion to the case it is correct that the person involved should be suspended.

Saying that, none of us know any facts of this case.

*Keeleklogger that of course is ITV. when it is a BBC person in the news.