rozzieoz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:17 am https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... s-teenager

They say they are taking it seriously, but not seriously enough to name or shame.
Or report the matter to the police.

Have they learnt anything since Jimmy Saville?

Apparently, the are "in touch" with the plod: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66147003

rozzieoz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:17 am https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... s-teenager

They say they are taking it seriously, but not seriously enough to name or shame.
Or report the matter to the police.

Have they learnt anything since Jimmy Saville?

Maybe one of things learnt, not just about Saville, is that getting the facts straight, correct, and corroborated, among others, is vitally important, before potentially rubbishing someone’s career based on what may be innuendo. The basic tenets of innocent until proven guilty should always be upheld. Even if in this day and age, the clamour for satisfying people’s curiosity is nearly overwhelming.

At the same time, if you name the alleged culprit, next you’ll have all the same vultures clamouring for the identification of the alleged victim. So, if this is a case of someone being exploited by one person for nefarious reasons, the next step will have them being exploited purely as entertainment for people who really should know better.

If there is a serious investigation going on, I’m sure that quite low on the list of priorities is a detailed press release to what’s ultimately an extended TikTok type audience.

This all seems a bit too familiar to the recent Phillip Schofield incident, where he had an 'affair' with a then 17yo boy. It wasn't alleged that any money changed hands, so as the boy was over 16, despite Schofield being in his 60s by now I think, no laws were broken, but it was highly immoral, especially that Schofield got him jobs working in the TV industry.

The problem with the Schofield saga was that while he made his name on the BBC, he has been working for ITV for 20 years or so, a private, independent TV company funded by advertising. So whilst people, mainly the press and Twitter, who love a good old sex scandal, made it into the huge story it became, they couldn't place the same morals on it as if it had happened at the BBC, which is publicly funded - not voluntarily, People can and do go to prison if they watch live TV in the UK without paying for a TV licence which directly funds the BBC (about $200 per year). As a result, there are many, many people in the UK who either want to abolish the BBC, or make fundamental changes to the way its funded, especially in this age of Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime etc., and especially removing the forced TV licence.

It feels as if this now very similar scandal at the BBC almost seems to have happened because someone somewhere decided that it wasn't fair that the Scofield saga happened somewhere other than the BBC, and that had that happened at the BBC, given the huge story it became, it may very well have been the catalyst for people to say 'enough is enough' and get on with abolishing the BBC.

So what do we have now? A very similar scandal, only worse, because this one involves the presenter paying money for sexual favours to someone under 18 (which is illegal - the age of consent in the UK is 16 but like most countries, you can't pay or reward someone for sex who's under 18) who then went on to use that money to become a drug addict. Not only that but the mother contacted the BBC for help, but they apparently did nothing, and it was only then when she was 'forced' to go to the papers.

Something about it doesn't seem right to me, and I think there's more going on than we're being led to believe. I'm not denying that what people say has happened hasn't happened. I'm saying that it seems very suspicious for this to all come out so soon off the back of the Schofield saga, which created such controversy, that this new BBC scandal will probably be the straw that finally breaks the BBC's back, and it looks likely to be the downfall of the BBC as we know it.

Which will please a great many people in the UK.

rozzieoz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:17 am https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... s-teenager

They say they are taking it seriously, but not seriously enough to name or shame.
Or report the matter to the police.

Have they learnt anything since Jimmy Saville?

its still alleged, so cant name or else he could sue
"The BBC said Sunday that it has suspended a leading presenter who is alleged to have paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos."

it was reported to the police

"Though the age of sexual consent in Britain is 16, it’s a crime to make or possess indecent images of anyone under 18"

i am NOT defending him if its true, but he can hardly be held responsible if she used the money to buy drugs

https://apnews.com/article/bbc-presente ... 3dbdfbade2

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:02 pm
i am NOT defending him if its true, but he can hardly be held responsible if she used the money to buy drugs

https://apnews.com/article/bbc-presente ... 3dbdfbade2

It was a boy.

Graham Norton is in the running I reckon

xandreu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:51 pm

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:02 pm
i am NOT defending him if its true, but he can hardly be held responsible if she used the money to buy drugs

https://apnews.com/article/bbc-presente ... 3dbdfbade2

It was a boy.

how do u know: i just looked thru various media reports online and every one says

Neither the star nor the youth was identified.

The young person, who was allegedly 17 years old when they began talking to the presenter, is said to have sent the BBC employee explicit images and performed on video calls.

The young person’s mother complained to the BBC in mid-May about the presenter’s alleged actions but he remained on air until she took her story to the Sun last week. She told the newspaper she had seen the presenter “stripped to his underpants for a video call” with her child, who is now 20 years old. “I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life,” she said. “Taking my child’s innocence and handing over the money for crack cocaine that could kill my child.”

The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.

The Sun newspaper reported allegations that the male presenter gave a youth 35,000 pounds ($45,000) starting in 2020 when the young person was 17.

One key legal issue is whether the young person sent the BBC presenter any pictures when they were 17, which could amount to possession of child sexual abuse images, a serious criminal charge that incurs a minimum of six months’ prison. If explicit photos were exchanged only after they turned 18, it is possible that no law was broken.

What does the young person think?
They have not been quoted in any of the Sun’s articles and it is unknown if they are taking part in any BBC investigation.

maybe i should not have said "she"..

As the alleged perp is a "leading presenter" who has been suspended, it shouldn't take more than a few days tops to figure out which one of their "leading presenters" is currently no longer presenting.

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 2:07 pm

xandreu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:51 pm

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:02 pm
i am NOT defending him if its true, but he can hardly be held responsible if she used the money to buy drugs

https://apnews.com/article/bbc-presente ... 3dbdfbade2

It was a boy.

how do u know: i just looked thru various media reports online and every one says

Neither the star nor the youth was identified.

The young person, who was allegedly 17 years old when they began talking to the presenter, is said to have sent the BBC employee explicit images and performed on video calls.

The young person’s mother complained to the BBC in mid-May about the presenter’s alleged actions but he remained on air until she took her story to the Sun last week. She told the newspaper she had seen the presenter “stripped to his underpants for a video call” with her child, who is now 20 years old. “I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life,” she said. “Taking my child’s innocence and handing over the money for crack cocaine that could kill my child.”

The BBC suspended one of its male presenters on Sunday after he was accused of spending £35,000 buying explicit images from a young person who spent the money on crack cocaine.

The Sun newspaper reported allegations that the male presenter gave a youth 35,000 pounds ($45,000) starting in 2020 when the young person was 17.

One key legal issue is whether the young person sent the BBC presenter any pictures when they were 17, which could amount to possession of child sexual abuse images, a serious criminal charge that incurs a minimum of six months’ prison. If explicit photos were exchanged only after they turned 18, it is possible that no law was broken.

What does the young person think?
They have not been quoted in any of the Sun’s articles and it is unknown if they are taking part in any BBC investigation.

maybe i should not have said "she"..

In the letter his mother wrote to the BBC, she referred to her child as 'he'. I don't have time to look for sources right now but trust me. It was a boy. I've seen several reports where it's been determined the victim was male.