O/T:- Just Stop Boil

[upthemaggies]

That's the key question isn't it. Vulnerable young adult with drug issues engages top lawyers. It's an everyday event...not.

Somebody suggested this could effectively have been a blackmail case with both parties - the accused and the youth - now coming together to work out an exit strategy.

[keldsyke]

Somebody suggested this could effectively have been a blackmail case with both parties - the accused and the youth - now coming together to work out an exit strategy.

You would have thought it would have made the Ten O Clock news!?

[Newish Pie]

I really hope that nothing illegal or inappropriate has happened... that no-one's been groomed or exploited or abused. I don't think there's any way of knowing what's gone on at this stage on the basis of what's publicly available.

This whole situation is really difficult. On the one hand, we all know about celebrities who've used their fame to exploit and abuse, and to cover up and silence victims and witnesses. On the other, we know about false allegations and false memories and mistaken identities and rumours that have dragged reputations through the mud. The current situation where there's all this social media speculation about the identity of this person is deeply damaging and unfair to everyone involved.

We know we go wrong if we don't listen to victims, but we also know that we go wrong if we believe everything uncritically without corroborating evidence. Or just decide that just because someone's a bit of an oddball, they're a wrong 'un. Or that because someone's famous, they can't be. If suspects are named (formally or informally), that can be bad... if they're not, the rumour mill runs rife, and that's bad too. All this is just really difficult to get right.

There's something deeply suspect about the S*n and the reporting on this... any excuse for the Murdoch press to attack and smear the BBC and they'll take it. And it's particularly unedifying watching politicians (mainly Tories) piling in on this, as if Parliament hasn't been a hotbed of harassment for years.

But on the other hand, everything the S*n has said and done and written in the past doesn't automatically mean they're wrong this time. I mean, it calls their credibility and reporting and motivations into serious doubt. But I don't think that whether you're instinctively pro or anti BBC or pro or anti S*n should lead to taking sides on this one. We just don't know yet.

[Magpies1959]

If the story turns out to be true it proves the BBC are paying way too much to their employees if they have enough to spend £35,000 on a few dodgy photos. All at our expense.

[upthemaggies]

Another young person has come forward with allegations against the same presenter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

[jackal2]

I don't think that whether you're instinctively pro or anti BBC or pro or anti S*n should lead to taking sides on this one. We just don't know yet.

I agree.

As we've seen with the Philip Schofield allegations previously, and other scandal stories that have "developed" around various celebrities and politicians, the media/press pack has never seemed to be more aggressive than they are now. The way these 'new allegations' in this instance keep emerging - conveniently just after the original allegations were quite significantly undermined by the 'victim' - has a distinctly orchestrated feeling about it, as if keeping the story going and bringing the target down is more important than being sure about the validity of the allegations.

It got a real 'media frenzy' feeling about it, whether they're deliberately dripping out information they've held for a while, or whether they're just taking advantage of new accusers coming forward who may be authentic, but could equally be attention-seekers or opportunists sniffing a compensation opportunity. Some of the allegations today seem to be really straining to contrive something sinister out of actions that could just as easily be interpreted as a celebrity being a bit gushingly friendly, as performers sometimes are.

Like you say, we just don't know yet, and we don't have enough information to be condemning anyone. It's for the Police/CPS to determine if there's any criminality involved, not for the media to put people on trial. I rarely side with the BBC but I can see their problem here, in that they're being asked to expose said celebrity or treat them like a criminal before any wrongdoing has actually been proven.

[cher1]

For me, the issue isn't about the BBC naming the presenter (everyone knows who it is anyway). The issue is that serious allegations were made to the BBC in May about an employee by the family of a vulnerable young adult. It was only when The Sun contacted them in July that the presenter was suspended.

It would have been prudent to suspend the employee on full pay in May whilst a thorough investigation took place. The name of the suspended person shouldn't have been released, that wouldn't happen in other publicly owned organisations, but a proper investigation should have taken place. Even if you believe the BBC version of what happened, the investigation didn't take place. That's unfair on the complainant, AND on the presenter.

I've had experience of making a complaint to the BBC Complaints Unit and they, at best, misrepresented the truth in a subsequent statement.

[keldsyke]

For me, the issue isn't about the BBC naming the presenter (everyone knows who it is anyway). The issue is that serious allegations were made to the BBC in May about an employee by the family of a vulnerable young adult. It was only when The Sun contacted them in July that the presenter was suspended.

It would have been prudent to suspend the employee on full pay in May whilst a thorough investigation took place. The name of the suspended person shouldn't have been released, that wouldn't happen in other publicly owned organisations, but a proper investigation should have taken place. Even if you believe the BBC version of what happened, the investigation didn't take place. That's unfair on the complainant, AND on the presenter.

I've had experience of making a complaint to the BBC Complaints Unit and they, at best, misrepresented the truth in a subsequent statement.

Did I read somewhere now it was actually April when it was first raised?

[cher1]

Did I read somewhere now it was actually April when it was first raised?

Yep, the family went to the police in April.

[bule1]

Does everyone know who the presenter is Cher1? Mus have missed something