BBC presenter allegations.

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.

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.

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

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

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?...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Before anyone accuses me of ‘rumour, speculation etc etc’
I have just been reporting what the BBC have been broadcasting, the very folk who are at the thick of it.

But if you do want to accuse me of ‘rumour, speculation etc’; I had a hunch that something was going on a few years ago 😉

Doodledog

*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.

I agree with much of what you say, but I come back to your last sentence Doodledog. We don’t yet know what exactly the original allegation was, and whether the BBC did act on it, and if so whether that action was appropriate or inappropriate. That’s a good example of what I was trying to say - there’s so much assumption. People do look for somebody to blame, we’re all guilty of it - but when it’s peoples lives we’re talking about and we only have a few facts we should hold our fire.

Exactly GrannyGravy.

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.

Well I didn’t know we’d been asked, but I would take it directly to the police. I can’t think of any logical reason to involve the person’s employer either.

But then I’ve had good experiences with the police and don’t judge the whole British force by the actions of scumbag Wayne Couzens and his ilk, or even by the standards of the Met. No more than I would refuse to go for medical help because of the actions of Harold Shipman, Beverley Allitt, David Fuller, etc, etc, etc.

I said earlier today - the police, definitely not the Sun, since the family told the Sun about the telephone calls I regret I do question the motives

I have a question I ask myself at difficult times and have asked others when they feel a real lack of agency. It is "What outcome do you want?" Sometimes the outcome is impossible and you have to work backwards to the possible.

In this case the parent seemed to want the return to health of her child. That may not have been possible, and was almost certainly not possible immediately.

What you can see is that the Sun did not set out to bring this outcome about. Splashing it all over the front of a tabloid was never going to make things better. We can only hope that, regardless of the legal outcomes, they do get help.

IF and I emphasise IF, it transpires that a famous person has been paying a young person to do what has been alleged, assuming nothing illegal has taken place, who on here would be happy to continue to see them on our screens? I'm just interested. Just a hypothetical question.

DaisyAnne good post 17.23.51

Kate1949

IF and I emphasise IF, it transpires that a famous person has been paying a young person to do what has been alleged, assuming nothing illegal has taken place, who on here would be happy to continue to see them on our screens? I'm just interested. Just a hypothetical question.

The BBC is funded by us, not sure I would want to see them on screen, but then again there is an off button and I have the option to turn them off…

Yes thats true.

If I didn't want to see them I'd turn off or turnover Kate.

If they were under 18 and it was photos it's illegal.
For those who say people wouldnt worry if it wasnt someone famous, the owner of a local restaurant in my area was arrested and found guilty for making videos of an under 18.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I've reported the fool above.

Kate1949

IF and I emphasise IF, it transpires that a famous person has been paying a young person to do what has been alleged, assuming nothing illegal has taken place, who on here would be happy to continue to see them on our screens? I'm just interested. Just a hypothetical question.

It’s a good question. I suspect the truth is that there are many thousands of people, both in the public eye and others we know, who we would probably never expect, including children and grandchildren, on sites like Only Fans who are doing just that. There must be, it’s a British site with 210 million subscribers. There are other sites too.
It’s a terrifying thought.