Who's the latest pervert at the BBC?

BBC presenter faces new allegations over explicit photos

An unnamed BBC presenter is facing fresh allegations by the Sun newspaper after it claimed he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos.

The star was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the paper.

It is unclear how old the young person was at the time, but the paper has claimed they were 17 when payments from the presenter started.

The BBC has said it takes any allegations very seriously.

The allegations, first reported by the Sun on Friday, are that the BBC presenter paid £35,000 for explicit photos over a three-year period.

The young person's mother told the paper her child, now aged 20, had used the money from the presenter to fund a crack cocaine habit.

She said if the alleged payments continued her child would "wind up dead", the paper reported on Saturday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66145747

It's not Rylan (tbh I'm not sure who he is but the youngsters will)



It's not St Gary.



And it isn't Jeremy Vine...



Obviously it is wrong to guess who we may think it is - indeed as per Jeremy's tweet above you can face legal action for doing so - SO DON'T.

The thing we can talk about is what actions did the BBC do - or didn't do?

Shades of ITV and the Phil Schofield scandal.

My first thoughts were why didn't the parents take this to the police?

Ok I can see them going to the BBC to stop it to their daughter/son - we don't actually know the sex of the teenager (17 when this started) - but how many others could the perv be doing this too as well?

I just can't get my head around why people would do this - I mean if the celeb has thousands to spend then surely they could sort out their kink in private (prostitute/rent boy or both!) rather than what seems to me to be a non secure online sex show - non secure as apparently there are photo's of the celeb in his undies!

What with the goings on with Putin and Wagner and global warming / Russia, India China not seeming to care and with first Schofield and now this, it seems to me the world is going somewhat surreal - a sort of mix between fact and fantasy!



Anyway - go Jeremy!!!

Could it be jug ears? hmm...

If Meta can prove that they're doing a better job of regulating the toxicity on Threads, the sooner Musk's Twitter will die. Twitter actively encourages hate and misinformation whereas Zuckerberg has an opportunity to control that right now. If he chooses to.

karlypants wrote:Could it be jug ears? hmm...

Nope… he tweeted too

BoltonTillIDie wrote:

karlypants wrote:Could it be jug ears? hmm...

Nope… he tweeted too

The thing is that all these people tweeting proclaiming their innocence could actually be the pervert!

Interesting article - well worth a read imo.

Why isn't BBC presenter being named by the media?

Two questions are burning today in relation to the allegations concerning a BBC star: do they amount to a crime and why isn't he being named by journalists?
Let's take each in turn.
Firstly, the question of a crime. The allegations are fairly straightforward.
The presenter is said to have paid a young person an awful lot of money for sexualised pictures. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17 - which is over the age of sexual consent.
But that's not the relevant law when it comes to allegedly indecent images.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share and possess indecent images of people under 18.
The maximum sentence is 10 years.
A person under the age of 18 cannot give their consent to the images being taken.
If the mother's account to the Sun is true, you don't need to be a lawyer to see the potential for a prosecution.
These laws have been tightened over the years to protect young people aged 16 and 17 from sexual exploitation.
There's a debate among sexual offences experts whether the law should criminalise some teenagers who are in a relationship - but that debate is entirely different to the allegation of a famous adult using their power over someone far younger.

Why is the media not naming the man?

This is a complicated newsroom equation that criss-crosses between editorial ethics and the law.
Here's the problem: As of Sunday, the BBC star story is more questions than answers.
The Sun's coverage is somewhat coy about specifics.
It is not clear whether it has seen proof of the payments or the alleged photograph of the star in underwear.
And this is where the law bites.
The courts have long recognised that it is in the public interest for journalists to unmask "the fraudulent and the scandalous", to quote one famous case, but if there is a lack of reportable evidence, the legal problems begin to build.
The first is the law of defamation which protects an individual's reputation from the massive harm caused by lies.
It protects everyone from a high-profile BBC presenter to an entirely private individual.
Anyone speculating today on social media about the identity of the presenter should think very, very carefully about the consequences. They could be sued for the harm they cause and financially ruined.
An innuendo can be just as catastrophic to reputation.
Ten years ago, Sally Bercow, wife of the then Speaker of the House of Commons, had to pay damages to the late Lord Robert McAlpine, a Conservative peer.
The High Court ruled that one of her tweets - which did not name the peer - had wrongly suggested he was a paedophile.
The risks don't end there, thanks to a 1986 case that leaves bona fide trained journalists with the shivers.
Back then, a newspaper reported an allegation that a detective in Banbury's CID unit had raped a woman.
It did not name the detective. But the unit only comprised of 12 officers. Members of that group successfully sued, saying enough people knew who they were to assume that they might be the guilty party.
So even if a news organisation chooses not to name the presenter, they could inadvertently implicate an entirely innocent colleague.
But that's not the only reason why the BBC presenter has so far not been named.

The privacy issue

One of the most complex areas of law journalists grapple with today is privacy.
A central question that has bounced around newsrooms this weekend is whether the person they want to point a finger at has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in relation to the facts of the story.
Since a major Supreme Court ruling in 2022, a right to privacy covers people who are under investigation by a law enforcement agency - meaning the stage before they have been formally charged with a crime and sent to the courts.
The rationale for that protection is that if the police drop the case, they would have suffered untold unjustifiable damage to their reputation by being identified in the media.
Not all claims made against people in the public eye lead to provable evidence of wrongdoing.
Sometimes a complainant has an ulterior motive or, sadly, is unwell.
That's not to suggest the allegations should be brushed to one side and not taken seriously.
On the contrary. It becomes all the more important to work out the truth.
But if journalists are short of actual facts, the legal risks they face in implicating someone in wrongdoing are huge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321

Below is a copy of the Metro's front page which talks about the 17 year old being male.

I thought it might be in the way that all this had been reported up to now, with no gender being mentioned - I think if it had been a girl we would have heard about it before now.

Not that it changes anything other than the celeb clearly prefers boys to girls.

Once again it shows how MSM try to protect their “star” performers whilst being perfectly happy to hound and vilify those they hate. As many have indicated previously, they had no problem naming and hanging out Cliff Richard to dry despite having not one shred of evidence for their accusations. Until those at the top are made to pay for their lack of action it will continue. I accept it can’t be easy dealing with the ego’s of some of these people who feel they’re above everyone else but the fact is they aren’t and if they either break the law or are seen to be acting below the levels expected, both looking likely in this case, then they need to be called out and dealt with. On the other hand you do have to ask why the parents went to the BBC and not the police in this matter if they were so disgusted with what had happened? Maybe they were looking for a pay out too, or am I just being a cynic?

Apart from the Cliff Richard situation the BBC never change. Just look at th e history of the Jimmy Saville nonce.

It's time the BBC was shut down in my opinion or at least those in charge at the top sacked!

It really is time that those involved were made an example of!

Whitesince63 wrote:Maybe they were looking for a pay out too, or am I just being a cynic?

The Sun has stated several times that the parents went to them out of despair to publicise what had happened (because the BBC had appeared to do nothing much to stop things up to that point) and specifically asked for NO payment from them for the story.

So you probably are being cynical against them in that respect as it would seem that money wasn't an issue to them and that it was all about stopping the ongoing grooming of their son.

Interesting point arising this morning in that the BBC appear to be saying that they didn't do much because the family didn't respond to them after the initial complaint - it then kicked off big time with the Sun story a few days back but this time the complaint was of "a different nature".

"The BBC first became aware of a complaint in May," it said. "New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature and in addition to our own enquiries we have also been in touch with external authorities, in line with our protocols."


BBC media editor Katie Razzall said the corporation's first statement appeared to suggest its initial investigation may have been hampered by a lack of response from the family.

In the statement, released on Friday, the BBC said it did "actively" attempt to speak to "those who have contacted" them "to seek further detail and understanding of the situation".

"If we get no reply to our attempts or receive no further contact that can limit our ability to progress things but it does not mean our enquiries stop," added the BBC.

"If, at any point, new information comes to light or is provided - including via newspapers - this will be acted upon appropriately, in line with internal processes."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66150845

Is it me or is life seemingly getting more and more bizarre???

Take for example why is Sharon and Luckock pouring in millions to our club that neither had any connection with previously - into their fourth year now and we still have no idea of who actually owns us, or what the business plan is, or even if there actually a business plan at all?

Wigan, one set of owners put £20m into the club - then walked away, the next set of owners put another £20m into it then had no money left and when it finally seemed they would go bust - BILLIONAIRE bought them!!!

Or the Wagner march on Moscow and Putin - one moment the Wagner boss was a hero, then he turned into a traitor and banished abroad and the most recent news is he's been having chinwag with Putin, in Moscow, with 25 of his Wagner generals whilst at the same time the Kremlin is making him out as an enemy of the people!

What's all this got to do with the perv at the BBC...?

Well apparently the 'groomed' youth says it's all fake news from his parents!!!

Wtf is going on in the world - it never used to be like this???

Claims about BBC presenter 'rubbish' - young person's lawyer

Claims made by the mother at the heart of the BBC presenter scandal are "rubbish", a lawyer representing the young person has said.

In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer says "nothing inappropriate" took place and the young person sent a denial to the Sun before it published the claims.

The Sun first reported allegations on Friday that a BBC presenter had paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos.

The paper says it has seen evidence to back the mother's claims.

In response to the lawyer on Monday, the Sun said: "We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child."

"Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC.

"We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It's now for the BBC to properly investigate."

In their letter sent on Monday to the BBC, the lawyer writes: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

It’s Huw Edwards according to Sky News (via his wife)

BoltonTillIDie wrote:It’s Huw Edwards according to Sky News (via his wife)

Beat me to it! apparently he’s in hospital with serious mental health issues according to his wife…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292255/Huw-Edwards-wife-Vicky-Flind-names-BBC-star-centre-35k-sex-pics-scandal.html

No evidence of a criminal offence - Met Police


Saga underscores importance of privacy law debate

Dominic Casciani

Legal correspondent

Anyone with an ounce of humanity would grasp the extraordinary outcome tonight of this story.

Huw Edwards identified as the presenter alleged by The Sun for days to have obtained sexually explicit images from a 17-year-old.

And, almost exactly at the same time, the Metropolitan Police says that the allegations amounts to nothing - there's no evidence of a criminal offence.

This week has been more than a drama - it has had a direct impact on the lives of real people. And that is why the debate around a law that protects each of our private lives is so important in the modern media digital age.

Tonight, campaigners who want a new law of anonymity before criminal charge say the police's confirmation of no suspicion of a crime proves their point. People caught in a storm should not have to rely alone on suing after the reporting of bogus allegations, like Sir Cliff Richard successfully did in 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469

I thought the treatment of Philip Schofield by the written press, in particular the Daily Mail was terrible. Every day there was a new story dishing as much dirt and scandal on him. He too committed no crime. Is Huw Edwards now going to get the same treatment? 
There are so many shitty people in the world and yet the press go after these two harmless people when to be honest their private life is none of our business.

Apparently this is out there - no idea if it is genuine or fake...

Well, that's my lemon mousse back in the fridge for at least another day.

I've just had a thought...

What if Edwards was looking on Tinder and ended up sending this picture - and got blackmailed!

Could explain how the 'boy' got £35k - because who would pay £35k for dick pics when you can see as many as you want for free on porn sites???

Sluffy wrote:I've just had a thought...

What if Edwards was looking on Tinder and ended up sending this picture - and got blackmailed!

Could explain how the 'boy' got £35k - because who would pay £35k for dick pics when you can see as many as you want for free on porn sites???

It's a sad situation.
No crime has been committed by all accounts, but his career as a serious journalist is surely over.
Schofield is in a similar position, but I reckon there's a way back for him, if he plays it right.