BBC's turn now...

look.its.luke

look.its.luke

Well-known member
Front page of The Sun today, senior presenter suspended for giving a 17 year old money to buy crack in exchange for explicit images.

www.thesun.co.uk

Top BBC star taken off air after 'paying teenager for sexual pictures'

A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 1…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
Jesus Christ ! If this turns out to be true and they are a top BBC presenter then they will never work again.
If they are suspend pending enquiries it won’t take long to notice who’s gone awol from our screens 🧐
 
I'm not sure how the presenter is responsible for how the cash was reportedly spent.
 
look.its.luke said:
The family seem to be implying the presenter knew where the money was going and how vulnerable the teen was.

To be honest though, even if he thought it was going to a Junior ISA, it's not a great look to give £35k to a 17 year old for explicit photos, is it?
Click to expand...
You're right, fair enough, just trying to deal with the facts. If we are going to stray from what is known - eg how does a 17yr old get to the point where they are selling nudey picks and taking crack? - I'd put my house on this kid's mother not being parent of the year. For some people, it's never their fault.
 
It doesn’t say if the teenager is male or female 🧐 Not that it matters, but it may help with our guessing if we knew.
 
The same 2-3 names popping up on Reddit and Twitter, but even if it turns out to be 1 of them, it's not the other 2...so I don't want to write names. Like Lala said, it'll soon be pretty obvious just by virtue of their absence.

The BBC are now reporting it too, which suggests it isn't entirely bollocks. The age of 17 is relevant not because it's gross...but because although age of consent in the UK is 16...explicit content of an u18, even when made by the minor, with consent is child porn.

He could be in a lot more trouble than just a suspension.
 
look.its.luke said:
The same 2-3 names pop up on another forum and twitter, but even if it turns out to be 1 of them, it's not the other 2...so I don't want to write names. Like Lala said, it'll soon be pretty obvious just by virtue of their absence.

The BBC are now reporting it themselves, which suggests it isn't entirely bollocks. The age of 17 is relevant not because it's gross...but because although age of consent in the UK is 16...explicit content of an u18, even when made by the minor, with consent is child porn.

He could be in a lot more trouble than just a suspension.
Click to expand...
Or her, we’re assuming it’s a man, and it probably is, but you never know.
 
look.its.luke said:
The same 2-3 names popping up on Reddit and Twitter, but even if it turns out to be 1 of them, it's not the other 2...so I don't want to write names. Like Lala said, it'll soon be pretty obvious just by virtue of their absence.

The BBC are now reporting it too, which suggests it isn't entirely bollocks. The age of 17 is relevant not because it's gross...but because although age of consent in the UK is 16...explicit content of an u18, even when made by the minor, with consent is child porn.

He could be in a lot more trouble than just a suspension.
Click to expand...
Also falls under the blanket of Child Sexual Exploitation.
 
The irony is that the Sun is leading the investigation when they were responsible for showing the 16-year-old naked Sam Fox to their

readers.

I suppose a lot will depend on where he or she meet the teenager, if it was online through the onlyfans site the teenager may have

used fake id and become a member to raise cash. I am not sure why anyone in the public eye would want to join such a site and risk being

outed and the potential damage/end to their careers, but I suppose it is the modern version of a jazz mag for teenagers.

Of course, it may be a lot more sinister such as Rolf Harris who groomed friends of his children, or Saville who meet his victims at

work.
 
Memphisboy said:
You tease 😀
Click to expand...
Certain people are making a noise about a presenter who recently left a popular TV program and has someone sitting in for his radio show this afternoon. This could be someone putting two and two together and making 7 so I'm saying no more. Edit to add he says it isn't him.
 
Last edited:
bill40 said:
Certain people are making a noise about a presenter who recently left a popular TV program and has someone sitting in for his radio show this afternoon. This could be someone putting two and two together and making 7 so I'm saying no more. Edit to add he says it isn't him.
Click to expand...
Please, Please...even though it's not true....Lets just pretend.....so we never have to see him ever again.....
 
rockontommy said:
You're right, fair enough, just trying to deal with the facts. If we are going to stray from what is known - eg how does a 17yr old get to the point where they are selling nudey picks and taking crack? - I'd put my house on this kid's mother not being parent of the year. For some people, it's never their fault.
Click to expand...
Which would make the kid vulnerable, and if any truth in the claims, this presenter has preyed on that vulnerability which in my mind makes it even worse.
 
The BBC has confirmed the presenter is male. They aren’t scheduled to be on air in the coming days but they have been on air at some points since the 19th May.
 
traffordtang said:
Which would make the kid vulnerable, and if any truth in the claims, this presenter has preyed on that vulnerability which in my mind makes it even worse.
Click to expand...
You don't know any of the detail - that the presenter knew about this addiction, or the age for that matter... is my point. As a minimum the parents want shooting. I can say that clearly without knowing anything else.
 
rockontommy said:
You don't know any of the detail - that the presenter knew about this addiction, or the age for that matter... is my point. As a minimum the parents want shooting. I can say that clearly without knowing anything else.
Click to expand...
The BBC response was slightly odd. It said they’d try to contact the people who made the complaint as part of the investigation. If they didn’t respond that would hamper the investigation but it wouldn’t mean they (the BBC) wouldn’t press ahead with it.

That suggests to me that the family have been contacted but aren’t engaging with the BBC since making the complaint. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the advice they’d received from the Sun.

Not saying that the story isn’t true and that’ll come down to the bank statements showing payments and any text/email exchanges with incriminating photos.

But if the above is correct it doesn’t paint the family in a very attractive light I agree.
 
rockontommy said:
You don't know any of the detail - that the presenter knew about this addiction, or the age for that matter... is my point. As a minimum the parents want shooting. I can say that clearly without knowing anything else.
Click to expand...
You’re right none of us know the details, including those of his/her upbringing Or the parents. But it does seem that as soon as they knew they tried to do something about it and were ignored by the BBC, hence turning to the Sun. I’ve also read that they did not request any payment for the story. But even if they did turn out to be less than adequate parents it does not in any way exonerate the presenter.
 
traffordtang said:
You’re right none of us know the details, including those of his/her upbringing Or the parents. But it does seem that as soon as they knew they tried to do something about it and were ignored by the BBC, hence turning to the Sun. I’ve also read that they did not request any payment for the story. But even if they did turn out to be less than adequate parents it does not in any way exonerate the presenter.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

Although I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be one of those “No one comes out of this with any credit” type scenarios.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
The BBC response was slightly odd. It said they’d try to contact the people who made the complaint as part of the investigation. If they didn’t respond that would hamper the investigation but it wouldn’t mean they (the BBC) wouldn’t press ahead with it.

That suggests to me that the family have been contacted but aren’t engaging with the BBC since making the complaint. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the advice they’d received from the Sun.

Not saying that the story isn’t true and that’ll come down to the bank statements showing payments and any text/email exchanges with incriminating photos.

But if the above is correct it doesn’t paint the family in a very attractive light I agree.
Click to expand...
I think that meant that the BBC were trying to imply they may have contacted the family when they first made the allegation on 19th May. Maybe it was just one weak phone call attempt. It then says the family went to the Sun as the presenter was still on air and they were angry. And also that no payment from the Sun has been requested by the parents.

Looks a bit like the BBC made more attempt to sweep it under the carpet than actually persue it.

But that’s just our different interpretations of what’s been put out there I guess.

They seem to be taking notice now.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
I think that meant that the BBC were trying to imply they may have contacted the family when they first made the allegation on 19th May. Maybe it was just one weak phone call attempt. It then says the family went to the Sun as the presenter was still on air and they were angry. And also that no payment from the Sun have been requested from the parents.

Looks a bit like the BBC made more attempt to sweep it under the carpet than actually persue it.

But that’s just our different interpretations of what’s been put out there I guess.

They seem to be taking notice now.
Click to expand...
That’s my interpretation, they made the complaint, he remained on air/screen, so they’ve gone to the Sun and don’t want any money. The BBC are indicating they tried to contact the family, but did they? It seems odd that they made a complaint and then ignored attempts by the BBC to speak to them.
 
Matesrates said:
That’s my interpretation, they made the complaint, he remained on air/screen, so they’ve gone to the Sun and don’t want any money. The BBC are indicating they tried to contact the family, but did they? It seems odd that they made a complaint and then ignored attempts by the BBC to speak to them.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that if they receive any complaint about a presenter the BBC should automatically and immediately suspend him or her? Without having any idea about the merits of the complaint? And only then start their investigation?

And yes it does seem to be very odd that anyone would make a complaint but then refuse to engage with the BBC when they were contacted. But that seems to be the implication of the BBC statement. Incidentally that bit of the statement (about them not engaging) seems to have been missed out of the Sun report.

But as said, none of this would exonerate the presenter and I assume the Sun will have evidence to stand up their story. Bank statements and incriminating messages or emails.
 
Danny Ocean said:
The irony is that the Sun is leading the investigation when they were responsible for showing the 16-year-old naked Sam Fox to their

readers.

I suppose a lot will depend on where he or she meet the teenager, if it was online through the onlyfans site the teenager may have

used fake id and become a member to raise cash. I am not sure why anyone in the public eye would want to join such a site and risk being

outed and the potential damage/end to their careers, but I suppose it is the modern version of a jazz mag for teenagers.

Of course, it may be a lot more sinister such as Rolf Harris who groomed friends of his children, or Saville who meet his victims at

work.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to page 3 ? 🤣
 
Mexboroseasider said:
So are you saying that if they receive any complaint about a presenter the BBC should automatically and immediately suspend him or her? Without having any idea about the merits of the complaint? And only then start their investigation?

And yes it does seem to be very odd that anyone would make a complaint but then refuse to engage with the BBC when they were contacted. But that seems to be the implication of the BBC statement. Incidentally that bit of the statement (about them not engaging) seems to have been missed out of the Sun report.

But as said, none of this would exonerate the presenter and I assume the Sun will have evidence to stand up their story. Bank statements and incriminating messages or emails.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting he should have been suspended immediately, just that they should surely have had a conversation with him and then decided whether to take it further. Maybe they did try to contact the mother, and as they couldn’t, decided it was a non event. In light of the Schofield incident, you’d think they might have continued.
 
traffordtang said:
You’re right none of us know the details, including those of his/her upbringing Or the parents. But it does seem that as soon as they knew they tried to do something about it and were ignored by the BBC, hence turning to the Sun. I’ve also read that they did not request any payment for the story. But even if they did turn out to be less than adequate parents it does not in any way exonerate the presenter.
Click to expand...
If they were bang to rights, they'd already be arrested and charged, no? It's obviously more nuanced (as things stand) than you're trying to make out - eg "preyed on that vulnerability".

Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate, as I said, it is sordid. As scandals go, I've currently got it above the colour scheme in the immigration processing centre but below an MP looking at pictures of sexy tractors in the Commons.
 
I agree it’s hard to really know what’s what at all from what we know.
It could have been a vulnerable teenager, or it may have been a regular teenager and his journey into drugs is largely irrelevant as regards the complaint.

I do doubt that the Sun would persue this without some form of evidence though.

Sedondly there aren’t many high profile gay BBC male presenters. So it’s either a really big one that we know of, or one that maybe lives a straight life publicly, a la Schofield.
I’ve seen mention of it being a Radio 2 presenter who also has a Channel 5 talk show, and married. That would be a shocker if it’s him, but the list of male BBC presenters isn’t that long to be honest.
It may also fade to nothing as a non story.
 
Same weekend as George Osborne gets his wedding ruined with a letter sent to his guests and journalists with similar (worse) allegations. We really are spoiled for choice for scandal among our 'elites'.
pastebin.com

From: To Tell The Truth <totellthetruth0719@gmail.com>Date: Thursday, 6 July 2 - Pastebin.com

Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
pastebin.com pastebin.com

Edit:

I guess we can post names once they post a denial. Jeremy Vine:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1677678598621151233
 
Last edited:
look.its.luke said:
Same weekend as George Osborne gets his wedding ruined with a letter sent to his guests and journalists with similar (worse) allegations. We really are spoiled for choice for scandal among our 'elites'.
pastebin.com

From: To Tell The Truth <totellthetruth0719@gmail.com>Date: Thursday, 6 July 2 - Pastebin.com

Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
pastebin.com pastebin.com

Edit:

I guess we can post names once they post a denial. Jeremy Vine:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1677678598621151233
Click to expand...
Jesus if that’s true what an utter slime.

Either way George has one hell of an enemy.
 
It is interesting this is happening as the same time as the George Osborne e-mail which is circulating around media and political circles. Apparently the allegations are so hairaising that even Popbitch describe them as 'unprintable'.
 
CompleteControl said:
It is interesting this is happening as the same time as the George Osborne e-mail which is circulating around media and political circles. Apparently the allegations are so hairaising that even Popbitch describe them as 'unprintable'.
Click to expand...
The link to the Osbourne on has been posted by Luke above !
 
Matesrates said:
I wasn’t suggesting he should have been suspended immediately, just that they should surely have had a conversation with him and then decided whether to take it further. Maybe they did try to contact the mother, and as they couldn’t, decided it was a non event. In light of the Schofield incident, you’d think they might have continued.
Click to expand...
Well you said “they made the complaint, he remained on air/screen” which seems that you were suggesting he should immediately have been taken off air/screen.

As far as I can tell the timeline is:

1. They made the complaint.
2. The BBC tried to contact them presumably for further details.
3. For some reason they refused to engage with the BBC.
4. The Sun published its article.

I imagine they would have asked the presenter about the complaint but if he said “it’s all bollux” and the family weren’t producing any evidence to back up what they were saying, then there wasn’t much more the BBC could do is there?
 
Ok I’m on holiday and have no idea who has been taken off air, anybody got any clues as to who it might be.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well you said “they made the complaint, he remained on air/screen” which seems that you were suggesting he should immediately have been taken off air/screen.

As far as I can tell the timeline is:

1. They made the complaint.
2. The BBC tried to contact them presumably for further details.
3. For some reason they refused to engage with the BBC.
4. The Sun published its article.

I imagine they would have asked the presenter about the complaint but if he said “it’s all bollux” and the family weren’t producing any evidence to back up what they were saying, then there wasn’t much more the BBC could do is there?
Click to expand...
I’m sure we’ll find out if they refused to engage with the BBC, we’ve only got their word for that, although even that wasn’t entirely clear. None of us know anything at the moment, but we have all formed some sort of opinion.
 
CompleteControl said:
It is interesting this is happening as the same time as the George Osborne e-mail which is circulating around media and political circles. Apparently the allegations are so hairaising that even Popbitch describe them as 'unprintable'.
Click to expand...
Oooh. I’ve been to the Chiltern Firehouse.

Didn’t get a shag though. Public or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top