Quite alarming how many people are jumping to conclusions around guilt, based on virtually no evidence. This is why identity absolutely has to be protected.
It said the ‘expletive filled messages’ were sent after the person in question said they were going to name them publicly. As this would have not only made their partner (if they have one) be aware of them cheating (although I have no sympathy for that - they shouldn’t cheat) and would also out them (if they are currently presenting as straight) then I’m not surprised they were angry at the person. The person doesn’t give any reason for why they were planning on naming them, just that the presenter got angry after they implied that they would. It all depends on what was said that made them feel ‘scared’ and whether actual threats were made.
What I find a bit weird is the use of the words "young person" to describe both people. I suppose it's more sensational than the word adult
There’s a timeline though, which potentially makes things blurry. If they’re referring to events when the person at the time was 17, for example, can they they be referred to as an adult?
On the first one I get that but they've used exactly the same wording to refer to the second person who was in a dating app so must have been at least 18 at the time
What needs to happen now is the person that everyone thinks it is should rock up on the news at ten doing jazz hands.
Now all I can see is this (if link works) https://gifdb.com/images/high/guilty-family-guy-celebrating-1eqyjsthuijyd3gd.gif
Anyone see Victoria Derbyshire's reveal "gaffe" last night, when stumbling over the line "Who knew, what, when?" Reminded me of her description of Jeremy Hunt It's got to be pre-planned.
So now we are told that another police force (presumably the parents local one) was contacted in April and no criminality was identified. So here's the timeline of events. April: estranged mother contacts police with claims. Police find no criminality. May: estranged mother contacts BBC with claims. BBC attempt to reach her via phone call and email, both go unanswered. July: estranged mother contacts the scum newspaper with claims that now include a criminal aspect. The alleged victim contacts the scum and tells them the claims are complete rubbish. The scum still runs the story but tellingly neglects to name the presenter involved. Rather than contacting the police, the scum instea informed the BBC of these new allegations who immediately suspend the presenter and contact the police. The police have so far found no criminality. And yet for some reason people are saying the BBC have acted poorly here. If you ask me they've acted really well and it's the sun and indeed the mother who have acted poorly.
I fully agree. I don’t know what else the BBC can do, they’re also reporting this like they would any other story too. Which must be hard for the presenters and producers who I presume are close mates with this colleague in question. I think the BBC have handled it well with the news we currently know. I’d also imagine that they have daily reports regarding their employees, especially of the days of camera phones and social media. Granted, I’d imagine and hope not as serious as sexual complaints like this potential one.
The Sun is now running with the news that he broke Covid restrictions. We're obviously dealing with a serious degenerate here. They're getting the most heinous crimes in first in this entirely proportionate character assassination. One can only imagine what else he's done. I've heard he once deliberately stood on a spider, and the spider wasn't even bothering him! The only reasonable course of action for us all from now on is to hound him until he takes his own life. I reckon we're well on our way.
Reporter on World Service yesterday referred to the person as ‘he’ then was immediately corrected on air to say ‘they’. May have been a completely innocent misstep like.
Strange you should say that. There’s a BBC presenter who who seems to look at me – and only me - ‘in a funny way’ when he’s on TV. I’ve contacted the Sun.
Apparently up to four young persons now, which is something given as he still hasn’t been named. Again nothing illegal just creepy