BBC presenter allegations.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Hmm….

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.

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.

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?

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.

What’s your problem with social media involvement?

You’re on SM now discussing it!

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

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.

Statement from police been issued

‘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."

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.

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

Spot on, Casdon.

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.