BBC hiding another Jimmy Saville

source

So it emerges that another high profile BBC presenter has been paying some young kid to send porn pics of himself...looks like quite a lot of money over a significant period has changed hands here.

According to one report I read the kid is now a drug addict and the mum brought this matter to the attention of the BBC ages ago and they did nothing, in fact the perpetrator has remained on telly and suchlike.

Now I have no media training and very little legal training but I can see that if someone makes credible accusations against someone like this, then it needs to be investigated and the police need to be called. So why do none of the BBC managers on their hundreds of thousands of pounds a year contract understand this simple thing?

Heads really need top roll over this. I am not interested in some smug idiot saying "Lessons need to be learned" or any of that old guff, People need sacking and putting in the dock.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Just to say there is a name all over Twitter but dont post it here as if it turns out to be wrong the site can get sued into oblivion

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: SprocketUK

Just to say there is a name all over Twitter but dont post it here as if it turns out to be wrong the site can get sued into oblivion

How about an anagram instead?

Fair's fair.

a reply to: nerbot
Probably best not to post anything that can be deciphered as the name of someone. We all love our ATS don't we? Lets just be sensible and, if you want to share names about do it in PMs

a reply to: SprocketUK

I posted this in another thread about this, but this one seems to be gaining more traction.

I’m confused. Doesn’t the UK have laws that state 16+ year olds are fair game?

Isn’t this the reason Prince Andrew got away with statutory rape against Virginia Giuffre?

a reply to: KKLOCO

I think the law states that if you are both 16 then its ok but if one of you is, like 50 odd theres a problem.

I just saw Siris' thread, so Mods if you want to close this one and point everyone to original thread that should be cool

a reply to: KKLOCO


For naked pictures its 18 in the uk my friend. you can have sex but not receive/send naked images until 18

While this isn’t right and obviously the BBC can’t be trusted to investigate itself any more than it’s fact checking or bias can be trusted, I think comparing this to Jimmy Saville is a bit sensationalist. I’m not defending it, but they’re quite different.

Saville committed some heinous assaults over decades (people in hospital beds ffs!), whereas as this is online interaction - todays front pages covered with the revelation that a celeb was online I his underpants...

I’d be more more concerned about what stories might be conveniently swept under the table while this one sucks up all the oxygen for days and days on end

This is a criminal offence..... so why isn't the Met investigating?
Which raises the question why hasn't the mother gone to the police?
As a mother myself the police is the first and only place I would have gone to, not the boss of the alleged perpetrator!
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: angelchemuel
This is a criminal offence..... so why isn't the Met investigating?
Which raises the question why hasn't the mother gone to the police?
As a mother myself the police is the first and only place I would have gone to, not the boss of the alleged perpetrator!
Rainbows
Jane

Indeed £££

Btw, being a nosey bugger I’ve searched for the name but can’t find it (just the usual suspects lists). Obvs no one should say a name here, as the OP says it could get the site in trouble. But if someone has a link to another site saying the name would that risk ATS? C’mon, who’s pants man?

a reply to: angelchemuel

A 17 year old is committing a crime when they share sexually explicit images of themselves.

a reply to: McGinty

whilst the number of victims and the exact nature of the crimes may be different here, I don't think it is wrong to draw comparisons, this seems exactly the way the BBC promised they wouldnt react after Saville.

I live in the UK, and to be honest, I haven't watched TV in years.
I typed the 'fair's fair' anagram into chatbot and came up with a number of, shall we say, 'culturally of the religion of peace' names.
However, I honestly don't recognise any of them.
I think I was hoping it would be Gary Lineker.

However, rumours are suggesting someone who sounds like Blue Hedfords'.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I agree, there are indeed superficial comparisons between this and Saville in terms of the BBC apparently keeping it under wraps. But what we know of the events put them wolds apart. And indeed that may be part of the reason the BBC misguidedly thought it appropriate to keep quiet; they didn't think it 'that bad' (that's not my opinion, just a guess at the opinion of the BBC brass)

But i imagine it was more about protecting their lucrative talent and assuming the they could control the teenager and their family with payoffs. Further to that i'd guess the family wanted more than the BBC were willing to pay. The BBC call their bluff and lose. Why do i think this? Has the Met not investigated this yet? If not that must mean the family didn't report it. Why might that be?

In short this whole affair smells very different to the Saville travesty. But as you say, it does ask questions of the BBCs handling of it

a reply to: McGinty

Why would a married man be paying for images of a 17 year old boy?

He will probably lose his wife and children over this.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: McGinty

Why would a married man be paying for images of a 17 year old boy?

He will probably lose his wife and children over this.

Wife and kids is probably a cover… he probably won’t lose sleep over it

a reply to: Kaiju666

His wife and children are real people... they will be devastated.
It's not all about him.

a reply to: McGinty

Agreed
Its all about protecting their talent and their revenue stream and their reputation. They care nothing for kids being exploited in this way.

Wonder huw it could be?

originally posted by: Jaaaaamazing
Wonder huw it could be?

It does not matter who it is, just the fact the BBullsh*trying Coronation is hiding yet another c*cksucker