Latest BBC pervy presenter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickd1961

You’re joking aren’t you?

The BBC were told about this by the mother nearly two months ago and they’ve done nothing about it.

In desperation she contacted The Sun to get help and requested no fee for the story.

Since she reported this to the BBC on the 19th of May this presenter has continued to front programmes and has been pictured Hobnobbing at a party of BBC employees and dancing with the management this was reported to?

To be honest AL………I wouldn’t want you running the HR department at a company where my child was involved in a scandal like this.

You don’t think 8 weeks is enough time to get to the bottom of this?

Would you not have put the accused on gardening leave whilst this was investigated?

I can’t get my head around your stance on this, if it was your youngest being targeted in a couple of years time, I know you well enough to know you’d have driven up to the BBC and got the management by the throat.

HR and “due process” etc…..do me a favour mate!

---

The post was a wind up and yes you are right - I would have driven like a rocket to the BBC!

In all seriousness - companies like the BBC are there to protect their own and sweep things under the carpet. If a person has been suspended then they should name him and the police should take over.

PS - HR departments are usually a joke and put procedures in front of discretion and plain common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggieal

The post was a wind up and yes you are right - I would have driven like a rocket to the BBC!

In all seriousness - companies like the BBC are there to protect their own and sweep things under the carpet. If a person has been suspended then they should name him and the police should take over.

PS - HR departments are usually a joke and put procedures in front of discretion and plain common sense.

---

Thank god for that! 🫣🤣🤣

What a FUBAR world we now live in.
One key legal issue is whether the young person sent the BBC presenter any pictures when they were 17, which could amount to possession of child abuse images, a serious criminal charge that incurs a minimum of six months’ prison. If explicit photos were exchanged only after they turned 18, it is possible that no law was broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dubbag

What a FUBAR world we now live in.
One key legal issue is whether the young person sent the BBC presenter any pictures when they were 17, which could amount to possession of child abuse images, a serious criminal charge that incurs a minimum of six months’ prison. If explicit photos were exchanged only after they turned 18, it is possible that no law was broken.

---

Correct Dubs. Courts come down heavily on any sharing of photos/videos to any other parties regardless of age! Know a guy who came back and caught his girlfriend entertaining another guy and pushed her around - the pushing around was not such the issue but pressing send to her contact list of intimate s ex photos of the two of them. He got six months in Hull prison and had no previous. Courts hate that sort of thing and so they should. Seems to me there could be something like this going on!

Tbh, I don't understand why the parents just didn't go to the Police in the first place. Maybe they too didn't realise that whilst the age of consent in this country is 16, anyone under 18 is considered vulnerable to grooming /***ual manipulation under the law? Even so, seems strange that they chose not to and went to the Sun instead.

As the BBC have now reported the matter to the Police themselves the evidence must be pretty damming -unless they are just covering their backs given the whole fallout from Operation Yewtree and the recent Scholfield thing. Sure we will find out who it is soon enough.

I’d like to see someone like Piers Morgan come out and name them…….

He doesn’t usually give a fk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickd1961

I’d like to see someone like Piers Morgan come out and name them…….

He doesn’t usually give a fk.

---

He might not know Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting is responsible, and for the purpose of legal proceedings I haven't got a clue Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting it is either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albionic68

He might not know Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting is responsible, and for the purpose of legal proceedings I haven't got a clue Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting it is either.

---

Not the nine o’clock news was always my favourite TV comedy.

I’m not 100% sure I know what huw mean 68 but it appears it’s now Not The Ten O’Clock News or The 6 O’Clock News either!

Taps watch and wonders what news an appearance might be made on and in what context…….it’s never good when huw become the news rather than the presenter of the news.

Not for one minute am I suggesting that huw, me or uncle Tom Cobbly know huw is responsible though and I would expect any thoughts that the main news anchor has become the main news w anchor is completely without foundation and a tissue box of lies.

My assumption is that any absence is pure coincidence and that this holiday was planned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albionic68

He might not know Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting is responsible, and for the purpose of legal proceedings I haven't got a clue Huw the rumour mongers are suggesting it is either.

---

Very well done 68......O:)

The problem is that by not naming people have made conclusions without having any knowledge of the facts. Of course the process of investigation has to take place prior to naming an individual. This leaves any business/corporation in a difficult position. It is most likely they took advice through solicitors before they made any comments and decisions.

I just think it is unfair to comment on individuals until we know who it is, and are in possession of all the facts.

Nicky Campbell is seeking legal advice. (See link)

Hope no one mentioned him on here.

https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-prese...ivacy-12917955