BBC suspend unnamed presenter

Reeta brought out to host. Thought it might have been Sophie.

 

To me more money has passed hands for someone to change their story.

 

The main moral of the story is to treat celebs like everybody else. If they get caught doing something potentially criminal, they should feel the full weight like we all would. A quiet word to the cops by the employer once they knew, warrant, seize his computers/phone etc. That's what would happen to us. BBC spent 2 months fudging it, frustrated parent leaked it to press . Two months to ditch any evidence, may be even cut a deal with the victim. Not doing anybody any favours as the stench will endure. The victim may not even feel like a victim but was under age and that's the law. An element behind the enforcement is to stop others becoming victims and today's starstruck, unrepentant teenager is tomorrow's adult who spends a lifetime living it down all for a celeb's depraved amusement.

 

Not surprised. He won't want the cash to stop coming his way.

 

And this is exactly why it should never have gone to the press and why the person should never be named/hinted at.

Because no matter what happens, people like you will never believe they're innocent.

 

Imagine if someone goes to @Bossman ’s gaffer and says he’s been taking dodgy pictures of squirrels. Bossman’s gaffer suspends him.
Does anyone think that’s reasonable?

if a crime has been committed then the first step was informing the police. Squirrel porn might be frowned upon, but pretty sure if no one has physically molested a squirrel, it’s no more than a weird fetish.

Imagine as a young adult your parent doesn’t approve of your life choices and goes to your employer to try and lose you your job. If there’s a criminal element (which I assume there isn’t as the police aren’t launching an investigation) then fair enough, but the fact someone may make money by taking provocative photos of themselves and selling them is hardly a new thing. Although if you PM me I can send you some links to where you can see similar things for free.

 

Whoa…you say dodgy…I call it provocative art

 

If the presenter was innocent of any misdoings I’m absolutely certain he would be helping the police get to the bottom of things. But it doesn’t seem to be this way. Which makes me wonder.
No smoke without fire.

 

Well given the alleged victim states there is no crime then that’s completely irrelevant. Hopefully the Sun will get sued out of existence. Though given they used to count down the days until 15 year old girls could get their kit off (while taking a break from hacking the phones of dead kids) it was always gonna be hard to portray them as the ‘good’ guys in any of this.

 

The more I hear about the way things are at the BBC

 

Bless.

 

Didn't you once say the press had blood on their hands for Caroline Flack's death?

 

The stupidest phrase in history.

 

Can't like this enough

 

The mother and Stepfather have rubbished the rubbish claim of the child.

Yet
The parents of the youngster at the centre of the BBC presenter scandal have said they spoke out to protect their child.

Well that's going to protect em. From the scandal going to The Sun.

I get they got no joy from the BBC hierarchy to investigate. Id have been knocking on doors not sending letters. Btw. But surely regardless of if legal/illegal. Going to the police would have been the next step. Not the Sun.

 

Absolutely correct. The right way to approach this was via the police. Going via the tabloid press, especially that rag, .....well it certainly wouldn't be my choice of redress.

 

I have no idea the truth of this story. However the young person (man?) claiming nothing dodgy happened is irrelevant. This is quite common in grooming cases where the victim is gaslit into believing they wanted the activity to happen. This is why many victims don’t come forward until years later when they finally realise that what happened to them was abuse. At the time they didn’t even realise it was.

 

What dodgy policy are the government trying to push through while you're all distracted by all this?

 

I have just one question How much have THE SCUM paid the "concerned parents" for the story. Because I would not want a paper like THE SCUM printing a story about my child.

 

They said their sole motive is to get the money to stop to stop the drug habit. A lack of money won’t cure an addiction, I hope they are getting their child help in another way too.