BBC Presenter Scandal #3

[gossipgirlxxo]

Do we genuinely know she didn’t take any money though? They said she didn’t ‘ask’ for money, but it’s not the same as not taking it if it’s offered y’know?

And it’s weird she didn’t go to the police!

 

[jookey]

The deleted IG makes me wonder if he thought that it would delete evidence of him allegedly messaging other young people

Nah he probably didn’t want photos of his elderly mum saved and made into memes.

 

[Ramsay1985]

So why are we only hearing this now, conveniently just as the 6 o clock news is starting? I thought they went through a lawyer today? So many different contradictions my heads spinning! I thought the Alice Evans thread was a mindf**k!

Because it isn’t in The Sun’s interest to have this information in the public domain. The BBC would be far more legally responsible and only make information public on a need-to-know basis. That’s the difference between gutter journalism and responsible behaviour.

 

[Jwren]

sorry haven't caught up as it's literally impossible to, but as someone who's been SA'd has it not been considered that perhaps the young person involved just doesn't want all this to come out? like, i personally never involved the police as i didn't want to relive everything, and would probably brand my mum telling others my situation as 'rubbish' too if i didn't want it to get out

(sorry if i've got the wrong end of the stick as i've only skimmed through articles)

I wondered if perhaps he’d been warned by the lawyers he could also face charges if he’d blackmailed the presenter. But you‘ve made a very good point. You can understand why the young lad wouldn’t want to take it further with how some people are now going for his parents blood on this thread and SM.

And to those saying this guy is an adult he’s 20, in the scheme of things he’s still very young.

 

[ABiggerBoat]

I’ll be watching at 6pm too but I think we’re going to be really disappointed. He’s not going to be named unless he’s charged with something or he comes out and makes a statement himself. And he bloody well should.

At this point, his career is over anyway. Delaying things is only making it worse if you ask me.

 

[Don’tStart]

I need a nap.... At first glance I thought Sky were interviewing CLA

Still waiting on Paul Breach’s response to this whole saga.

 

[moldwarp]

So I reckon the Presenter pulled a Schofe and hired a lawyer for the young person to tell them what to say and do to represent them.

Got to say, the Presenter’s played a blinder! No flies on that geezer!

 

[Charjohno2020]

(apologies if you're not a girl)

Good luck with them trying to sue me I ain’t got anything to sue

 

[Timz]

It’s giving Holly on steroids

 

[Ramsay1985]

A lot of older people don’t realise their Twitter likes are public

I miss the old days when Instagram likes were public too… found out a lot about people because of that feature….

 

[RolandTB-303]

They had a media commentator on sky news about an hour ago and they seemed to slip up by saying ‘the allegation that it was via only fans‘ so I’m thinking if it was an OF thing, the young person doesn’t actually see a problem with their online sex work/lifestyle plus from the presenters POV there’s the whole reasonable expectation that the person was over 18.

Apparently, OF has a fairly stringent verification process to prevent people setting up accounts with pictures of someone else, or with AI imagery or, yes, with under 18s.

If it is OF, then the likelihood is that the young person was verified as over 18 at the time. This would explain the 'satisfied that nothing illegal has taken place' statement. It may also be that when the young person said that the story was 'rubbish' they meant the part about being 17 at the time. They may well have been selling images and the accused presenter may have been among those buying them.

If that is the case, then the thing about being 17 probably came from the parent, either mistakenly or deliberately, in an effort to make it the more scandalous and get more money. I'm not saying that it would have been smart to do so, but then going to the press was not smart either.

 

[moldwarp]

My boyfriend’s just been shouting at the telly ‘you know who it is just tell us!’

Nah, we’re just the Great Unwashed, we don’t deserve to know. Total infantilisation of the public. We’re just required to pay their salaries and keep our mouths shut. And if we don’t they’ll threaten to sue us

 

[tatler10k]

It's funny that people think they must have been paid off to get a lawyer.

Probably what happened is 1 of

- They put 'media lawyer' into Google and found a firm (perhaps they checked out who represented Colleen Rooney or some other high profile case) and then contacted them.
- The BBC got in contact for their investigation, their lawyers probably said 'we won't talk to you unless you have a lawyer, here's a list of firms you could ask to represent you

 

[Timz]

My money’s on The Scum with troothbombs tomorrow
Let them take down the BBC titan

 

[pixxyy]

I think i'm at the believing everyone stage, I feel the parents just wanted the payments to stop & fact they went to BBC first even they didnt think anything illegal went on.

 

[louisababe]

Keep up!

Lol sorry went for a wee

 

[anushorribilis]

To be honest, even if it’s not HE, I wouldn’t be showing my face. My anxiety would be through the roof, would I fuck be going to work!

 

[Merpedy]

Is it really that bad to hire someone a lawyer or point someone to a specific lawyer if both of you are innocent and the relationship is purely transactional and legal?

So little is known about this that everything is just hypotheticals

 

[SendReceive]

Just a thought: Theoretically, would deleting one’s Instagram anonymise any DMs that you had sent? Say, sexually explicit messages to young men? So the words would still be in messages but not linked to anyone’s username?

 

[explodeyourgoss]

Well said. Huw Edwards has literally been branded a paedophile by multiple people on tattle. With absolutely zero evidence. Shameful. They probably still believe it, too.

It is evident they still believe it. Despite an absence of any evidence beyond an age-gap. And that age-gap is filled with all sorts of assumptions and paranoias and outrage.