BBC presenter allegations.

anyone working for the BBc or ITV have to be beyond reproach in their public and private life. same as phillip schofield on itv.
you cannot sully the name of the company you work for!

that's why it matters. we will know in a few days and it is said that we will be shocked at who it is. because you see, all the journalists and persons colleagues know already but there lips are sealed.

Can’t quite make him out

There are multiple layers to this.

1) were there any illegal activities by the BBC employee

2) did the person claim to be 18 to be on one of these sites (only fans etc)

3) did the alleged activities take part during work hours

If it’s no to the first and third, and yes to the second, why is it anyone else’s business?

This should not be reported about until someone has been charged.

Provided there is no speculation on here about who the presenter might be, this thread should remain.

It’s astonishing that the BBC sat on this knowledge for two months, and we will never know how much longer it would have kept quiet had it not been for the Sun newspaper.

Very well put, NanaDana.

Ourkid
You ask why the presenter is presumed guilty: because his mother saw the video on her sons device.
She went to the sun because the bbc told her they would look into it. There was no more communication with her from the bbc.

Louella12

I don't know if the police could do anything though. The boy was 17.

It appears that the man in question is now identified by many online. No doubt the name will be made public sooner rather than later

The young person in question has only been referred to as they/their in the article I read.

It should not have been published, innocent until proven guilty!

If there is any truth in it and there is a subsequent trial it cannot be a fair trial with this level of information and speculation.

The Mother should have kept her mouth shut and only spoken to the Police.

eddiecat78

I do find it concerning that the mother felt it was more appropriate to speak to The Sun rather than the police. It is claimed that she hasn't taken any payment but she must be very naive if she thinks her child's identity will be protected now she has involved the tabloid press

The BBC has known since May, so maybe she went to the papers to expose the fact that nothing was being investigated.

Absolutely. I question her motives. If it were your child wouldn’t you want to get it stopped with the minimum of publicity?

Smileless2012

None of this should have been made public until someone's been charged.

Absolutely agree and if the mum had gone to the Police instead of the Sun, it may well still have been under wraps.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree eddiecat. I would be very surprised if she hadn't been paid for the story. Going to the police would have been more appropriate.

Me too. I'm also wondering why the general assumption seems to be that the un-named presenter is guilty. I'm wondering why on earth the mum went to the Sun, rather than the Police. I understand that making allegations of this nature to the Police can be traumatic, but surely not (especially for the young person) as seeing it plastered all over the Sun and now the internet.

the only names online are wrong cruel speculation.. some having no connection to bbc even! all thos working for the bbc know the name of course but it is illegal to speak his name at this stage.

I didn’t realise the young person was a boy until I read it above. Makes no difference though, criminal offence.

Sharing images with those under 18 is illegal.

Visgir1

Just been onto Mumsnet wow they really are going for it.. Reading between the lines bit obvious who they think it is..?

I’ve just had a look at Mumsnet and I’m none the wiser. 😂

I don't know if the police could do anything though. The boy was 17.

It appears that the man in question is now identified by many online. No doubt the name will be made public sooner rather than later

I agree eddiecat. I would be very surprised if she hadn't been paid for the story. Going to the police would have been more appropriate.

Just been onto Mumsnet wow they really are going for it.. Reading between the lines bit obvious who they think it is..?

I wouldnt speak to the police about a sexual assault against myself. I would have to about a child but can understand peoples reluctance. Also the behaviour of the family isnt the issue.

I do find it concerning that the mother felt it was more appropriate to speak to The Sun rather than the police. It is claimed that she hasn't taken any payment but she must be very naive if she thinks her child's identity will be protected now she has involved the tabloid press

The problem with threads like this, even though they're described as "an opportunity to discuss a major news item", is that "major" or not, there's actually very little in the way of "news" to discuss. All we actually know is that "someone" has been suspended, and that an investigation is ongoing. So what's to discuss? That's when the idle speculation begins, and threads are rightly taken down before some ill-considered implications or even accusations arise. I would much prefer that incidents such as this should not be placed in the public domain until someone has actually been charged with an offence. Pre-trial by media, including social media not only works against any subsequent fair trial in the courts, but in the recent past has also caused much pain for the likes of innocents such as Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jimmy Tarbuck, Matthew Kelly, Craig Charles et al, and with this latest incident, 5 BBC celebs have now been forced to go public to deny that it is them. That's all I have to say on this.

None of this should have been made public until someone's been charged.

Well, the man has been suspended so I guess his identity will become obvious even if it can’t be discussed.

Mumsnet have deleted several threads on this subject because people were speculating and naming names as suspects, which would invite legal action if the threads were allowed to stand.