BBC's turn now...

look.its.luke said:
Yer wan from Northern Ireland, or the iconic newsreader or the worst one from top gear...I don't think anyone knows for sure yet.
The longer it goes on, the more people with their own biases lean on one person or the other.

You'd think the BBC after Saville would try and get ahead of the story and avoid multiple presenters being dragged through the rumour mill by saying...allegations have been made against X, while we await the outcome of an investigation he will be suspended without prejudice.
Click to expand...
Could they then be liable to be sued if untrue. Look at what happened with Cliff Richard.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
The BBC are right not to name them until proven, the baying mob being hungry for blood means nothing as the baying mob are ** idiots.
Click to expand...
I don’t want blood for sure, but I can’t deny I’m curious, like most. Its BBC headline news so it’s bound to be on most people’s radar.

As for the Sun dictating the news agenda, if the BBC had acted when they should have the Sun would probably not be involved.

Glad it’s not Rylan though, don’t get the haters as he seems a genuinely decent guy from reading his autobiography.
 
So legal age of consent is 16 and for explicit photos online is 18.
Surely there is much more to it. They can nab him for the latter.
Anyone can download nude photos online for free!
 
GrahamwantshisOates said:
So legal age of consent is 16 and for explicit photos online is 18.
Surely there is much more to it. They can nab him for the latter.
Anyone can download nude photos online for free!
Click to expand...
I think that technically the 17 year old also commits an offence if they take, possess or share sexualised images of someone under the age of 18 - even of themselves - although the courts tend to be more lenient with youngsters.

It’s also illegal for a person to permit anyone to take an explicit photo of a child. Parents would be included in that obviously.
 
Makes me laugh that the Mum is decrying this celebrity, yet is fine with their child having an Only Fans account.
 
Wizaard said:
Makes me laugh that the Mum is decrying this celebrity, yet is fine with their child having an Only Fans account.
Click to expand...
Have they given out that detail? That it was an Only Fans account? If so, has the BBC personality committed a crime?
He/she would have an expectation of legality if that’s true, surely?
And IF that’s the case, is it anyones business?
 
Really uncomfortable about the whole narrative around this. Reported to the BBC but would not answer follow ups for the evidence to take action. Culture secretary calls up Beeb brass, star suspended ( nothing further evidence wise). All over the media, the hate list of BBC presenters having to deny that it is them. Massive massive anti BBC hoohah driven by the SUN.

Now, don't for one millisecond think that I am minimising whatever has happened. There needs to be a full, preferably police, investigation ( I don't trust any organisation to investigate its own stars themselves) and due process.

However, I cannot recall any Twitter frenzy at the allegations of rape, which I would suggest are at least as dreadful as this, against a Tory MP. Said MP has now been remanded on police bail 4 times. It appears that anonymity for the MP, even to the point they could stand again for election, is good, yet a BBC star must be relentlessly hunted down.

Like I say, very uncomfortable about all this, looks to me like an element of distraction from the Tax free Murdoch Empire against their bitter enemy.
 
The presenter has now been suspended announced today and the BBC have
gone to the police today regarding the accusations.

So that‘s now surely assuming there are some legality issues regarding the accusations 🧐
 
Johnno said:
Have they given out that detail? That it was an Only Fans account? If so, has the BBC personality committed a crime?
He/she would have an expectation of legality if that’s true, surely?
And IF that’s the case, is it anyones business?
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard anything about an Only Fans account either. Legally, hosting anything sexually explicit involving someone under 18 would be a criminal offence. Only Fans, the account holder and anyone who possesses or shares the pictures or permits the pictures to be taken would be in the frame.

Quick check online. OF require account holders to be over 18 and say they don’t allow content that includes minors although how rigorously that’s enforced is anyone’s guess.

IF he has an OF account it’s possible that’s been opened since he turned 18 and anything shared before then was a private arrangement.

Criminal offences would probably only be relevant for anything that was taken or shared before he was 18. As for the identity of the presenter then, like all people caught up in a criminal investigation, they should usually expect anonymity until they’ve been charged (assuming they are).
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Really uncomfortable about the whole narrative around this. Reported to the BBC but would not answer follow ups for the evidence to take action. Culture secretary calls up Beeb brass, star suspended ( nothing further evidence wise). All over the media, the hate list of BBC presenters having to deny that it is them. Massive massive anti BBC hoohah driven by the SUN.

Now, don't for one millisecond think that I am minimising whatever has happened. There needs to be a full, preferably police, investigation ( I don't trust any organisation to investigate its own stars themselves) and due process.

However, I cannot recall any Twitter frenzy at the allegations of rape, which I would suggest are at least as dreadful as this, against a Tory MP. Said MP has now been remanded on police bail 4 times. It appears that anonymity for the MP, even to the point they could stand again for election, is good, yet a BBC star must be relentlessly hunted down.

Like I say, very uncomfortable about all this, looks to me like an element of distraction from the Tax free Murdoch Empire against their bitter enemy.
Click to expand...
That’s certainly a plausible interpretation although obviously it doesn’t exonerate the presenter either morally or legally.

I think I’ve said before that this may be one of those situations where nobody comes out with much credit.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Really uncomfortable about the whole narrative around this. Reported to the BBC but would not answer follow ups for the evidence to take action. Culture secretary calls up Beeb brass, star suspended ( nothing further evidence wise). All over the media, the hate list of BBC presenters having to deny that it is them. Massive massive anti BBC hoohah driven by the SUN.

Now, don't for one millisecond think that I am minimising whatever has happened. There needs to be a full, preferably police, investigation ( I don't trust any organisation to investigate its own stars themselves) and due process.

However, I cannot recall any Twitter frenzy at the allegations of rape, which I would suggest are at least as dreadful as this, against a Tory MP. Said MP has now been remanded on police bail 4 times. It appears that anonymity for the MP, even to the point they could stand again for election, is good, yet a BBC star must be relentlessly hunted down.

Like I say, very uncomfortable about all this, looks to me like an element of distraction from the Tax free Murdoch Empire against their bitter enemy.
Click to expand...
I think part of the answer to that Mossy is that rightly or wrongly there is a lot more interest among the general public, in celebrities, than there is in politicians.

Avftt has quite a high level of political interest. Possibly due to age and other stuff.

There are loads of people out there who couldn’t name 5 politicians believe it or not. Hence more Twitter interest in a celeb.
 
Can you actually name someone and acuse them of doing something criminal and not be prosecuted for anything if you put "Allegedly!" before it??????
 
Just read all the points above, don’t do Twitter or other social media platforms, really want to know now who they are. Wonder if the name will ever be released
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I haven’t heard anything about an Only Fans account either. Legally, hosting anything sexually explicit involving someone under 18 would be a criminal offence. Only Fans, the account holder and anyone who possesses or shares the pictures or permits the pictures to be taken would be in the frame.

Quick check online. OF require account holders to be over 18 and say they don’t allow content that includes minors although how rigorously that’s enforced is anyone’s guess.

IF he has an OF account it’s possible that’s been opened since he turned 18 and anything shared before then was a private arrangement.

Criminal offences would probably only be relevant for anything that was taken or shared before he was 18. As for the identity of the presenter then, like all people caught up in a criminal investigation, they should usually expect anonymity until they’ve been charged (assuming they are).
Click to expand...
I’d have some sympathy for the personality though, if he’s registered for OF and didn’t know the lad was 17.
Not saying that’s the case, just thinking we really know sweet FA tbh.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
You mean like middle aged men drooling over 16 year old Samantha Fox on page 3 of the Sun.

“Cor mate!!! Take a look at that!!! Phoar!!!!!”

Hardly creepy at all really.
Click to expand...
I think this is a bit different mate, the Sun probably costs pennies and is in the public domain, this guy is paying £35k allegedly to watch a young girl/guy performing. Pretty weird and disgusting imo.
 
Matesrates said:
I think this is a bit different mate, the Sun probably costs pennies and is in the public domain, this guy is paying £35k allegedly to watch a young girl/guy performing. Pretty weird and disgusting imo.
Click to expand...
The teenager is a boy according to the mother‘s statement.

The name of the presenter cannot be revealed unless he is charged due to privacy laws.
If the allegations are true it’s a maximum 10 year sentence for under 18 pics etc so it’s a very very sensitive and serious issue that needs to be handled accordingly.

As Mex said previously, there are no winners in this situation whatever the outcome really.
 
Matesrates said:
I think this is a bit different mate, the Sun probably costs pennies and is in the public domain, this guy is paying £35k allegedly to watch a young girl/guy performing. Pretty weird and disgusting imo.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure the price has anything to do with it.

Are you saying because the old creeps drooling over 16 year old Sam Fox didn’t pay very much that’s ok?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m not sure the price has anything to do with it.

Are you saying because the old creeps drooling over 16 year old Sam Fox didn’t pay very much that’s ok?
Click to expand...
Most blokes if they’d honest will look, but they won’t then take it further and offer money to perform privately.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m not sure the price has anything to do with it.

Are you saying because the old creeps drooling over 16 year old Sam Fox didn’t pay very much that’s ok?
Click to expand...
I’m not comfortable with the Sam Fox thing at 16 either. But it wasn’t illegal at the time.
The law has changed to 18 now though, thankfully.
 
Lala said:
I’m not comfortable with the Sam Fox thing at 16 either. But it wasn’t illegal at the time.
The law has changed to 18 now though, thankfully.
Click to expand...
True but I wasn’t really talking about what was legal then and what’s not legal now.

It had more to do with men of a certain age suddenly discovering a moral compass late in life. Which happily coincides with memory loss about their younger years.

And I’m not condoning whatever it was that happened between the youth and the BBC man.

And I’m not claiming to be whiter than white and irreproachable.

I’m just ruminating about hypocrisy and those old sayings about “casting the first stone” and “motes and planks in eyes”.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
True but I wasn’t really talking about what was legal then and what’s not legal now.

It had more to do with men of a certain age suddenly discovering a moral compass late in life. Which happily coincides with memory loss about their younger years.

And I’m not condoning whatever it was that happened between the youth and the BBC man.

And I’m not claiming to be whiter than white and irreproachable.

I’m just ruminating about hypocrisy and those old sayings about “casting the first stone” and “motes and planks in eyes”.
Click to expand...
Argh ok. I can’t be called out as a hypocrite on this one.
I know I would never be happy with middle aged men ogling over my topless daughter at 16, as that is, and always was, still a child to me.

But neither would I be happy with my 17 year old son, if I had one, performing a sexual action on film for a middle aged man, especially for money.

All seems a bit off for my moral compass, but maybe that’s where men and women differ, a lot.
 
Johnno said:
Have they given out that detail? That it was an Only Fans account? If so, has the BBC personality committed a crime?
He/she would have an expectation of legality if that’s true, surely?
And IF that’s the case, is it anyones business?
Click to expand...
That's how the money was transferred over 3 years
 
www.thesun.co.uk

Top BBC star ‘who paid for sex pics called youngster twice to stop probe’

THE BBC star accused of paying a teenager for sex images made two panicked calls to them after we revealed the bombshell claims. The presenter, who was suspended today, allegedly rang last week ask…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk

I think this is why the BBC are under intense scrutiny now for not acting sooner. It does reek of lessons not being learnt. The article tomorrow states that the BBC have now admitted they are receiving other calls from the public about the behaviour of the accused.

Most of us still don’t know who it is so it seems that those who may have had ‘bad’ or inappropriate experiences with the accused are coming out of the woodwork very quickly, and are probably genuine, as the name isn’t out there yet.

A body of evidence has also been given to the Sun which is probably why they felt confident in going public with the allegations.

Seems the accused also had the kids number, so more than just only fans contact, if there was any only fans contact.
 
The underlying agenda of the story is to attack the BBC. This is unsurprising from the Murdoch owned Sun.
Has an offence been committed here?
It's unclear, and if, like in the Schofield case no offence has been committed then is there really a story here?
A TV star has done something sleazy and immoral - if that person wasn't famous (or worked for the BBC) the Sun wouldn't be all over it.
If an offence has been committed then leave the police to do their job.
What a circus and the Sun, as ever, are talking many people for a walk around the block.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The underlying agenda of the story is to attack the BBC. This is unsurprising from the Murdoch owned Sun.
Has an offence been committed here?
It's unclear, and if, like in the Schofield case no offence has been committed then is there really a story here?
A TV star has done something sleazy and immoral - if that person wasn't famous (or worked for the BBC) the Sun wouldn't be all over it.
If an offence has been committed then leave the police to do their job.
What a circus and the Sun, as ever, are talking many people for a walk around the block.
Click to expand...
You are making assumptions yourself here.
The police are involved. The Sun has a raft of evidence. If the reported facts are correct it’s a massive crime if the lad was under 18.
The BBC basically ignored the first complaint so they are in the firing line for sure. They now admit, the BBC that is, not the Sun, that other complainants are coming forward about this person. So not acting in May is neglectful in the least.
You could be taking yourself on a walk around the block.
 
Lala said:
You are making assumptions yourself here.
The police are involved. The Sun has a raft of evidence. If the reported facts are correct it’s a massive crime if the lad was under 18.
The BBC basically ignored the first complaint so they are in the firing line for sure. They now admit, the BBC that is, not the Sun, that other complainants are coming forward about this person. So not acting in May is neglectful in the least.
You could be taking yourself on a walk around the block.
Click to expand...
Like in the Schofield case, the person involved will no longer have a career in the media when this is all over, that is certain.
The police are investigating, I don't think that we need to speculate further than that.
The Sun are doing what they do, in following their anti-BBC agenda and selling their vile newspaper.
The interesting thing about this case (in my understanding) is that it would not have been illegal for the persons involved to have sexual relations, but it is illegal (as stated here) to take and transmit sexual images. Should the law be changed?
 
Lala said:
That’s where the odds are at the moment. News at 10 tonight may be revealing, either way.
Click to expand...

Actually come to think of it he does get creepy towards the end of News at Ten.
That bit where he gets out of his seat and starts prowling around the studio like a caged animal telling us how it’s all kicking off over on Newsnight.
Menacing or what!
 
Last edited:
I can’t help but question why the individual concerned has been so careless… Careless to the point of incriminating himself.

According to reports he has sent pictures of himself and confirmed who he is … Why would you do that? I mean there’s literally loads of images / sites online that you could access discreetly, without the need to take such wild and unnecessary risks….

Doesn’t make any sense to me and doesn’t quite smell right.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Like in the Schofield case, the person involved will no longer have a career in the media when this is all over, that is certain.
The police are investigating, I don't think that we need to speculate further than that.
The Sun are doing what they do, in following their anti-BBC agenda and selling their vile newspaper.
The interesting thing about this case (in my understanding) is that it would not have been illegal for the persons involved to have sexual relations, but it is illegal (as stated here) to take and transmit sexual images. Should the law be changed?
Click to expand...
The Mirror and all media outlets are going in on the bbc also.

Regarding your final line, it’s an interesting question. I think the law re explicit images for under 18 is to protect the youths from exploitation. I get your point that they could also be exploited sexually in other ways where the law is 16. I think the latter tends to involve more mutual relationships though where the former is noticeably more for titillation and self-gratification purposes.

I can’t debate that last point though as I see certain hypocrisies myself.

That said the law is under 18 for pics and that makes this a crime if the reported facts are true.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can’t help but question why the individual concerned has been so careless… Careless to the point of incriminating himself.

According to reports he has sent pictures of himself and confirmed who he is … Why would you do that? I mean there’s literally loads of images / sites online that you could access discreetly, without the need to take such wild and unnecessary risks….

Doesn’t make any sense to me and doesn’t quite smell right.
Click to expand...
I thought that too, but sometimes these folk think they are untouchable.

I have wondered if some of the latter payments became blackmail payments, and maybe he stopped playing ball.

But if this is all true then the celeb involved is stupid or deluded, or both, as well as being morally and legally questionable.
 
Lala said:
I thought that too, but sometimes these folk think they are untouchable.

I have wondered if some of the latter payments became blackmail payments, and maybe he stopped playing ball.

But if this is all true then the celeb involved is stupid or deluded, or both, as well as being morally and legally questionable.
Click to expand...
If it’s to believed that there are others involved, then it takes an amazing level of narcissism / arrogance to think that you aren’t going to get caught out at some point.

I dunno, maybe the thrill of getting caught is part of the whole perversion as there’s simply no need to take those kinds of risks surely.

At the back of my mind (assuming there’s been no physical meet ups) I can’t help but wonder if this might be someone ‘posing as’ the individual (with a manufactured internet persona).

I mean it’s the equivalent of committing a murder and leaving your business card next to the body.
 
I have to agree with BFC * 3 it would be an incredibly stupid thing for somebody to do with all the free images available, which makes me

suspect that they have a problem with either alcohol or drugs or both which obviously makes people take risks. It could be identity theft, but

why would anyone spend so much money to do this?

If it is someone with such a level of narcissism or arrogance that they don't see the risk, then we may well be dealing with the next Saville as it

will be very unlikely that this is just a one-off event, and when their identity becomes known I suspect other people will come forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top