BBC suspend unnamed presenter

So every time a bloke appears on screen I’ll be like “so it’s not him then”

 

Is it a bloke....?

 

Yes

 

Yeah mate, they’ve said male presenter,

 

Definitely a bloke presenter, unknown if male or female teen.

 

Lineker and Rylan Clarke have come out to say it's not them. I'd say if a certain someone isn't fronting the 10pm news tomorrow evening then there's your man!

 

Let's have a sweepstake,

 

I’m confused by the whole thing. The Sun seemed to imply that initial messages were sent when the teen was 17, but only said photos were sent when they were 18 (immoral but not illegal). The BBC is saying the payments starting at 17 (presumably for photos so definitely illegal) but are quoting The Sun as their source, who didn’t say that. It’s a really important detail. The mum doesn’t seem to be implying any illegality, she is concerned about the money fuelling her child’s drug addiction, not that the pictures were sought or sent. In fact, she knew about the pictures for a long time and just wanted the payments to stop as she says she blames him for her child’s addiction. She said that is why she has gone public, to cut the money off.

I don’t know if the story is the presenter is a nonce and should be jailed or that he’s a perv, buying photos off a consenting adult who then spent the money irresponsibly. If it’s the latter, when the mum contacted him, you’d expect him to stop spending money but is it a crime and/or a sackable offence?

 

You are on to something.

 

It could be a trans identifying as a goat.
So don't just assume that it's a bloke bloke.

 

If it's the latter then it's no different to only fans is it? Something which many women are championing as being empowering

 

Was surprised this hadn't hit the BBS sooner!

 

The whole thing is weird. The mum has never once said a word against their child sending the pictures or the man wanting them, just that she wants him to stop sending her child money to spend on cocaine. If the person was under 18 at the time then there’s no excuses, the law is clear. The mum’s statements never mention any illegality on the presenter’s side which she surely would have otherwise? If the teen was 18, that may be why the investigation didn’t do anything, what could they do really other than advise the man to stop? Is it their business to decide what the man legally subscribes to, as sleazy as it is?

 

I’m surprised at the BBC inaccurately reporting it if the teen was 18, as that would be an illegal offence which makes the whole thing way more serious. I’m surprised at The Sun being very careful in their wording if the photos did start at 17 as they would surely have mentioned the illegal, paedo side of it, not just what the money was spent on and the mum wanting the money to stop.

 

Yep, the law says it illegal to send them too so both sender and receiver are punished.

 

I think the weirdest thing is that the BBC is heading the investigation and not the police. I think that's quite telling actually and like you said if it is the case then who has the right to tell someone what they are doing is wrong? When again there are thousands and thousands of 18 year olds making an absolute fortune from selling nude images on only fans and nobody would think of suspending everyone who purchases that (regardless of what people may or may not think)

 

It's not that puppet Gordon? Wouldn't surprise me after Schofield....

 

I heard it was Mr blobby.