The Nawty BBC Presenter

[monmouth]

For anyone interested in the actual laws.

I would tend to amend a couple of the posts above if I were the poster or a mod. Better to be safe.

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

 

[monmouth]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560

Someone is lying.

Lets hope the Sun (the paper that banged out topless photos of 16 year old Sam Fox, of course) is slaughtered for this then. They'll run away, pleading innocence, as usual.

 

[waynekerr55]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560

Someone is lying.

Hopefully this is the end of the Sun. Absolute shît rag

 

[Darran]

Lets hope the Sun (the paper that banged out topless photos of 16 year old Sam Fox, of course) is slaughtered for this then. They'll run away, pleading innocence, as usual.

The only thing illegal in this is probably the person receiving the money not paying tax on it :lol:

 

[TheLoneRanger]

Perhaps if the Met asked to see this young person's bank details going back to 2020 - then they could see who was telling porkies, the mother or their son.

She did state money was transferred over that period of time.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Perhaps if the Met asked to see this young person's bank details going back to 2020 - then they could see who was telling porkies, the mother or their son.

She did state money was transferred over that period of time.

The Met have said there is no investigation required I believe which indicates they don’t believe an offence has taken place. Now the Met saying anything isn’t necessarily enough to imagine it hasn’t but in this case it may be worth wondering who seemed to gain by selling a story to the Sun and who did not.

If this whole thing is nonsense, it’s an incredible shame that someone may have had their life trashed for something which on the face of it is a matter for them, the young man (it’s not a kid, the young man is now 20 apparently) and their families and no one else.

A couple of things in the past few days should make us all think. This all happens when the Covid WhatsApps are due in unredacted form and the incorrect Just Stop Oil story would, I imagine, significantly change what appears if you were to Google George Osborne’s wedding compared to doing so on Friday.

Curious isn’t it…

 

[exiledclaseboy]

This all just got even more messy.

 

[sainthelens]

Wasn't me that suggested there is a pay off situation.

 

[monmouth]

The Met have said there is no investigation required I believe which indicates they don’t believe an offence has taken place. Now the Met saying anything isn’t necessarily enough to imagine it hasn’t but in this case it may be worth wondering who seemed to gain by selling a story to the Sun and who did not.

If this whole thing is nonsense, it’s an incredible shame that someone may have had their life trashed for something which on the face of it is a matter for them, the young man (it’s not a kid, the young man is now 20 apparently) and their families and no one else.

A couple of things in the past few days should make us all think. This all happens when the Covid WhatsApps are due in unredacted form and the incorrect Just Stop Oil story would, I imagine, significantly change what appears if you were to Google George Osborne’s wedding compared to doing so on Friday.

Curious isn’t it…

Normally I’d be all over a (metaphorical!) dead cat, but not really sold on this one. If there is any truth in a story alleged in the email of the rape of a 16 year old, that isn’t going away because of this. That said, absolutely nothing would surprise me at all.

The legal element for the bbc presenter lies in whether the pictures, if there were pictures, were solicited or not, as a 17 year old cannot give consent, so the only defence is they were sent out of the blue…and any money changing hands would presumably negate that. The met will do whatever they think is in their own best interest no doubt. If the amount of money is true, then there are some other potentially unsavoury implications. Personally, I’d prefer anything like this to be kept private. I just don’t see the public interest. If true, the mother should have gone straight to the police, but with a 17 year old adult (he could have legally had a sexual relationship with the presenter) it would take a laser like knowledge of the law of images. All seems very fishy.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

The Met have said there is no investigation required I believe which indicates they don’t believe an offence has taken place. Now the Met saying anything isn’t necessarily enough to imagine it hasn’t but in this case it may be worth wondering who seemed to gain by selling a story to the Sun and who did not.

If this whole thing is nonsense, it’s an incredible shame that someone may have had their life trashed for something which on the face of it is a matter for them, the young man (it’s not a kid, the young man is now 20 apparently) and their families and no one else.

A couple of things in the past few days should make us all think. This all happens when the Covid WhatsApps are due in unredacted form and the incorrect Just Stop Oil story would, I imagine, significantly change what appears if you were to Google George Osborne’s wedding compared to doing so on Friday.

Curious isn’t it…

The Met had said that they do not consider the threshold for a criminal investigation to have yet been reached ...

"but In a statement it made it clear the force would carry out further work, but falling short of a formal criminal investigation that would give officers powers of arrest and search. Detectives are trying to work out what, if any, criminal offence may have been committed by the suspended presenter.

A police spokesperson said: “They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further inquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed. There is no investigation at this time.”

The statement suggests the police are still at the “scoping” stage of the inquiry, where they do not commit to a particular course of action, but leave open the option of launching a full investigation.

So the Met police specialist crime command has not walked away.


I totally agree with you that this young man's life has been trashed - either by his mother telling lies and selling to the Sun, or by someone allegedly from the BBC.

The truth or the lies are in the young man's bank account.

 

[monmouth]

Normally I’d be all over a (metaphorical!) dead cat, but not really sold on this one. If there is any truth in a story alleged in the email of the rape of a 16 year old, that isn’t going away because of this. That said, absolutely nothing would surprise me at all.

The legal element for the bbc presenter lies in whether the pictures, if there were pictures, were solicited or not, as a 17 year old cannot give consent, so the only defence is they were sent out of the blue…and any money changing hands would presumably negate that. The met will do whatever they think is in their own best interest no doubt. If the amount of money is true, then there are some other potentially unsavoury implications. Personally, I’d prefer anything like this to be kept private. I just don’t see the public interest. If true, the mother should have gone straight to the police, but with a 17 year old adult (he could have legally had a sexual relationship with the presenter) it would take a laser like knowledge of the law of images. All seems very fishy.

Then again…

News > UK > UK Politics Boris Iohnson fails to hand over mobile with
crucial Covid WhatsApps before
inquiry deadline Device containing Covid-era messages up until
Mav 2021 remains in former PM's possession

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Normally I’d be all over a (metaphorical!) dead cat, but not really sold on this one. If there is any truth in a story alleged in the email of the rape of a 16 year old, that isn’t going away because of this. That said, absolutely nothing would surprise me at all.

The legal element for the bbc presenter lies in whether the pictures, if there were pictures, were solicited or not, as a 17 year old cannot give consent, so the only defence is they were sent out of the blue…and any money changing hands would presumably negate that. The met will do whatever they think is in their own best interest no doubt. If the amount of money is true, then there are some other potentially unsavoury implications. Personally, I’d prefer anything like this to be kept private. I just don’t see the public interest. If true, the mother should have gone straight to the police, but with a 17 year old adult (he could have legally had a sexual relationship with the presenter) it would take a laser like knowledge of the law of images. All seems very fishy.

If the presenter committed an illegal act (and there is an anomaly in the law here where two people can legally have sex if both are over 16 whereas one then sending a picture to the other is illegal unless both over 18) then they should be prosecuted.
Who knows. But I’m always reminded of a teacher (in my school) who committed suicide after one of these newspaper exposes when I was a kid and his daughter (who was in school with me) having to live with that. Zero public interest. And yet a family utterly destroyed. It’s nobody’s bloody business unless a crime has been committed and even then, a prosecution and sacking is appropriate rather than what has happened over the past few days where a gleeful pile on seems to have been largely based on homophobia.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

The Met had said that they do not consider the threshold for a criminal investigation to have yet been reached ...

"but In a statement it made it clear the force would carry out further work, but falling short of a formal criminal investigation that would give officers powers of arrest and search. Detectives are trying to work out what, if any, criminal offence may have been committed by the suspended presenter.

A police spokesperson said: “They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further inquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed. There is no investigation at this time.”

The statement suggests the police are still at the “scoping” stage of the inquiry, where they do not commit to a particular course of action, but leave open the option of launching a full investigation.

So the Met police specialist crime command has not walked away.


I totally agree with you that this young man's life has been trashed - either by his mother telling lies and selling to the Sun, or by someone allegedly from the BBC.

The truth or the lies are in the young man's bank account.

A payment is not necessarily proof of a crime. Lots of people are, it seems, paid to provide photos. And it’s not criminal. And also some are ‘kept’. Again, no crime.

To clarify, in my view it’s all seedy and rather pathetic whether criminal or not.But there is a lot of what I would think deeply seedy behaviour that carries on all day every day. If a crime has been committed then I hope a prosecution occurs. If not, then, seedy or not, I’m unsure why there is any public interest.

 

[Allergic2Hoof]

Who is paying for the very expensive lawyers?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Who is paying for the very expensive lawyers?

How do we know they’re expensive?

In these sorts of very high profile situations many lawyers do the work for nothing.

Even if they are expensive, unless something illegal has occurred, which is being questioned, it’s none of our business surely?

In the meantime, has Johnson provided his WhatsApps yet? Haven’t heard anything about that as first story on all major news bulletins. It’s almost as though we are all being played.