New BBC Scandal

News Link The basics are another BBC presenter currently under scrutiny for soliciting pictures from a 17 year old, This is illegal in the uk. My main point is this seems to have been shushed as normal from this news/media entity that is the BBC and has taken 3 years for any sort of action to come to fruition. Again we are not pardon to a name even though the public should be made aware of potential predators with influence. so again a predator of 3 years is free to be a predator courtesy of the BBC's fine operational processes. A name would have been the least they could have done while covering the predators tracks for him. So ATS implore you to give me your opinions on the BBC as an entity or shed any light on this current event.

a reply to: Siris

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?

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: Siris

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

So do some States.

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

originally posted by: Siris
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

This makes a lot of sense……. In clown world.

a reply to: KKLOCO You are not wrong sir.

a reply to: KKLOCO
Its illegal in English law (digital images) of anyone under 18, but there is an exception for images only shared between the 17 year old, and their spouse/partner.

Assuming that the person who paid the money for the intimate pictures, is not their spouse, then I would suspect a crime has occurred, and the police/crown prosecution service should be involved now...NOT just the BBC's own Internal investigation staff!

a reply to: AdultMaleHuman73


reading that they have sat on this for 3 bloody years. Thats unforgivable.

a reply to: SprocketUK
You would think after Saville they'd learn not to cover for bad'uns, just reinforces perceptions that it's paedo's at the BBC from the top down.😡

a reply to: AdultMaleHuman73

The initials are H.E. In the upper echelons of the BBC 'it " has been compulsory for many decades. and most likely has also spread to other Commonwealth broadcasting systems. As the first broadcasting system gets copied around the world.

It's Kirsty Young.

She asked for some nudes and I obliged. Big deal!

If you want to see who it is go to pornhub and search for bbc

I suggest we use the airport security method of presuming guilt until proven otherwise with all BBC presenters.

Appears whoever is the presenter who asked for the photos has a super-injunction around their identity being revealed or alluded to from reporting so far and comments from the family.

Which BBC types to have hired Carter Ruck or Shillings in the last month?

Footballers are generally the type with enough money to afford such injunctions and it's not Lineker, Shearer and Keane seem the last people to be paedos.

Dick and Dom were meant to be that way but I thought they spent all their money on coke and would't be able to afford an injunction

a reply to: bastion
Well if it's the lead news guy, Welsh bloke, as is being heavily posted online, he could have many powerful mates into the same # who are stumping up the cash.
Same advantages any A lister predator could expect from their wrong'un powerful mates😡

a reply to: AdultMaleHuman73

I don't have a twitter account and can't read any of the speculation but it is usually the go-too place to find people in the know breaking such injunctions.

I know who you're alluding to but I can't really see them being the type (he's meant to be a genuinely nice guy off camera). I don't watch TV so can't comment about which presenter has recently been pulled from broadcast but it's widely reported the person was seen partying with BBC bosses at an awards ceremony after the allegations were made (May 19th) and that presenter doesn't strike me as the partying type.

It could be that the persons identity is being withheld to protect the identity of the then child victim but the BBC's statement amade no mention of that or right to fair trial but instead ran with ''By law, individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is making this situation more complex.' which makes me think a super-injunction has been sought on privacy grounds as otherwise public interest grounds would overrule it.

a reply to: bastion
The fact that cops were not called by the BBC management is most damning in my opinion.
Under safeguarding alone, there is no excuse for not knowing the law.
I remember when the law was introduced for intimate digital images, my son had just turned 18, he couldn't understand why he could shag a girl, but no longer look at her images, because she wasn't 18.
I explained it was to protect young people from old creeps, but legally, at 18 himself, looking at intimate images of a 16/17 yr old was now technically a sex criminal record...so stay safe and 18+ only!

Everyone in the UK must have known when that law changed... everyone except BBC management, who appear to have brushed a known crime under the rug.😡

Edit
If I discovered some dirty old #, working for me, had got a child to take nudes, I'd call the cops myself... probably after beating # into him.

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

There are laws against child abuse if under 18. There is a difference between sex between two consenting adults where one is 16, and an adult obtaining images from someone under 18. I could find the exact laws, but don't have time at the minute.

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

No, these are two different situations. Besides, it was never proven as it never got to court.

a reply to: paraphi

Although the age of consent for sexual activity in England and Wales is 16 years old, the law on indecent images treats all under-18s as children, he said: “The Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibits any production, possession, or distribution of images of a sexual nature of children – and that means under the age of 18.”

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Oh gosh, I'd assumed the law was new when it was updated with electronic/digital communication definitions.
How did 'The Sun' newspaper not get convicted for famously showing a topless model on her 16th birthday then?
That must have been before 1978 perhaps...all I know is I drummed it into my son when he was 18, to completely stay away (sexually) from 16/17 year olds once he reached 18, they might be legal but they are still legally children...not worth the risk.

Edit
And back on topic to the BBC presenter (and in the FIRST thread on ATS about this) I have to say that the creepy old # who paid for the nudes, absolutely deserves a beating, on top of his ruined career. He totally knew what he was doing, same as I hope, a predator in a #ty jail will know what he's doing when the BBC guy gets groomed with a broom handle.