BBC presenter accused of paying teen for explicit photos - report

(Credit: Ian Youngs, BBC News)

A BBC presenter has been accused of paying a teenager for sexually explicit photographs, beginning when they were 17, according to The Sun.
The newspaper reported that the unnamed male presenter had paid the alleged victim tens of thousands of pounds.

It is understood that the BBC is looking into the allegations, and that the star is currently not scheduled to be on air in the coming days.

The Sun said the young person's family complained to the BBC on 19 May.

The family is reported to have become frustrated that the star remained on air and approached the newspaper, but said they wanted no payment for the story.

The mother told the paper that the anonymous individual, now aged 20, had used the money from the presenter to fund a crack cocaine habit.

She described to the paper how her child had gone from a "happy-go-lucky youngster to a ghost-like crack addict" in three years.

Broadcaster Rylan Clark tweeted on Saturday that he was not the presenter in question, saying "that ain't me babe" and adding that he is filming in Italy for a BBC programme.

Separately BBC Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine has also distanced himself from the Sun story, saying the allegations are not about him.

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker did not mention the allegations specifically, but writing on Twitter he said: "Hate to disappoint the haters but it's not me."

The corporation said the information would be "acted upon appropriately".

A BBC spokesperson said: "We treat any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to proactively deal with them.

"As part of that, if we receive information that requires further investigation or examination we will take steps to do this. That includes actively attempting to speak to those who have contacted us in order 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.

"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."

He tweeted: "Just to say I'm very much looking forward to hosting my radio show on Monday — whoever the 'BBC Presenter' in the news is, I have the same message for you as Rylan did earlier: it certainly ain't me."

BBC's culture editor Katie Razzall said many questions remain unanswered, including how the corporation has investigated the family's complaint and if it was appropriate for the presenter, who has not been named, to stay on air after a serious allegation was made.

The BBC's statement appears to suggest its initial investigation may have been hampered by a lack of response from the family, she said.

This allegation, if proven, would mean the career of a high-profile BBC presenter is likely to be over.

(Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356)

130322317_bbcpa2.jpg.jpeg
 
With BBC being effectively the government's media arm, it's yet another example of rules for thee but not for me on clear, public display.
The BBC is not the government's media arm. It has its own agenda that is more closely aligned to the US Democrat party than any British one. The government is terrified of it.
In my experience the gay presenting dudes actually get more short-term pussy than the most manly gigachads. It's an act and women fall for it every time. God knows why since they're either genuine and closeted gay, promiscuous to the point they don't know where they're sticking it or manipulative. Women are fucking stupid sometimes.
For every guy who camps up to dupe fag hags into sex, there's a women who lezzes out with her friends in the nightclub to attract men.
 
For the record - Michael Barrymore was widely reported in the papers to have gone to a gay bar and started singing "Start spreading the news, I'm gay today" in 1995 (presumably to the tune of New York, New York) and divorced his wife in 1997. The swimming pool death was in 2001.

The family of the man bummed to death in the swimming pool claim he was not gay. Maybe they should have one of those disclaimers - "Your bum may be at risk if you accept drugs from a homosexual."
“I’m gay today” doesn’t even scan. No true gay would fuck up a Liza Minnelli standard.
 
The BBC is not the government's media arm. It has its own agenda that is more closely aligned to the US Democrat party than any British one. The government is terrified of it.

For every guy who camps up to dupe fag hags into sex, there's a women who lezzes out with her friends in the nightclub to attract men.

I don't think dudes are attracted to the lezzers since men fear rejection more than anything, but there's definitely a female equivalent man-eater type that poses as a nympho in the hopes of netting a "high value male" (tm)
 
Just look at how hard they're fighting just to keep his name out of the papers,
While I'm sure there is some ass covering from some outlets (especially the BBC itself), I think there are a couple of other major factors influencing other outlets.
1)The Cliff Richard debacle and ensuing lawsuit
2)A ruling from the Supreme Court (ours not the yank one) in Bloomberg vs ZXC:
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. It holds that, in general, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation. Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens give the sole joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122.html (from the press summary since the judgement itself is typical overly boring legalese)
 
Interesting
While I'm sure there is some ass covering from some outlets (especially the BBC itself), I think there are a couple of other major factors influencing other outlets.
1)The Cliff Richard debacle and ensuing lawsuit
2)A ruling from the Supreme Court (ours not the yank one) in Bloomberg vs ZXC:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122.html (from the press summary since the judgement itself is typical overly boring legalese)

How convenient a ruling for scumbags in positions of power with sufficient money to pay for legal teams to protect them and colleagues to keep things hush-hush. Because keeping things quiet has worked out *so well* in the past. Just check out Saville for a good example! Well done Supreme Court, another win, eh?
 
There are a couple of potential charges under British law that I can think of:

Protection of Children Act 1978:

Criminal Justice Act 1988:

Serious Crime Act: 2007:
Well, I have been told, and triply. While I based on this I do think the CPS could make a case against him I'm sure everyone will agree with me when I say the chance of this is quite low, unless there's loads of public pressure or something liek that.
 
Well, I have been told, and triply. While I based on this I do think the CPS could make a case against him I'm sure everyone will agree with me when I say the chance of this is quite low, unless there's loads of public pressure or something liek that.
Considering the rumours that the elite rings also involve politicians and high ranking police, they'll handwave any amount of public pressure as crazies to avoid investigation.
 
I’m always confused that there are places where it’s legal to fuck 16-17 year olds but illegal to have rude pictures of them. What’s the rationale for the age difference there?
The age-related legislation in the UK doesn't make any fucking sense. It was arrived at at wildly different times for wildly different reasons with no co-ordination or joined-up thinking, as is typical for the way public life in the UK tends to work.

In the UK, a 17-year-old:

- Can have sex
- But can't take a picture of themselves and send it to the person they just had sex with (that's a CP charge even if you took a picture of yourself naked)
- Can't have a cigarette afterwards
- Can't watch other people having sex
- Can drive a car
- Can't buy alcohol, but can have a drink in a pub bought for them by an adult, but only if the pub also serves food (?!?)
- Can surgically castrate themselves
- Can have a job but the minimum wage is lower than for an 18-year-old

Don't ask me why, it's an illogical mess that nobody wants to touch because trying to change any of this would cause a shitstorm.
 
I’m always confused that there are places where it’s legal to fuck 16-17 year olds but illegal to have rude pictures of them. What’s the rationale for the age difference there?
In the states, one is Federal Law and one is State Law. Federal Law says 18. State Law says 17. You can't have nudes of anyone under 18, but that sure as fuck doesn't stop high schoolers from sending trashy nudes in their parents bathroom's. Romeo and Juliet laws are there to make exceptions for these scenarios. But the bottom line, is don't have nudes and encourage your children that nudes are bad and keep your kids away from cell phones as long as possible.
 
I’m always confused that there are places where it’s legal to fuck 16-17 year olds but illegal to have rude pictures of them. What’s the rationale for the age difference there?
I think it's an old old law that never got changed because government is full of pedos who would rather lower it than increase it
 
I think it’s likely Edwards for the scandal involving the “young person” and the payments, but the subject of the super injection involves allegations of assaults on women, which doesn’t fit. So I think that is a different person.

There’s been stories about Walliams’ “inappropriate” behaviour for years leaking out through blind items.
Walliams is a massive bender. It's known he pretends to be straight because if he publicly came out, his father would disown him as he's too old school. Apparently he tells his father the camp act is just for TV. In reality, he's a massive bummer and swallaws cum on the daily.
Walliums is the straight one
Straight up an arse maybe
Walliams may well be dodgy but I've never seen any stories of him actually dating men, only women (mostly much younger than him). Seems more likely to me that his fake camp persona and jokes about being a bit gay are a front to stop people suspecting his dodgy behaviour around young girls
You've heard of beards, surely? Simon Cowell is the same. Massive gay faggot who "dates" pretty women for about 5 minutes, just long enough to get his photo in the papers with them.
 
The age-related legislation in the UK doesn't make any fucking sense. It was arrived at at wildly different times for wildly different reasons with no co-ordination or joined-up thinking, as is typical for the way public life in the UK tends to work.

In the UK, a 17-year-old:

- Can have sex
- But can't take a picture of themselves and send it to the person they just had sex with (that's a CP charge even if you took a picture of yourself naked)
- Can't have a cigarette afterwards
- Can't watch other people having sex
- Can drive a car
- Can't buy alcohol, but can have a drink in a pub bought for them by an adult, but only if the pub also serves food (?!?)
- Can surgically castrate themselves
- Can have a job but the minimum wage is lower than for an 18-year-old

Don't ask me why, it's an illogical mess that nobody wants to touch because trying to change any of this would cause a shitstorm.
The AoC being 16 is because it's hard to stop kids fucking, but you still don't want them being exploited by pornographers (at least until they're 'adults'). The surgical castration thing is insane, of course, but that's very much a current year thing so doesn't really count.
 
While I based on this I do think the CPS could make a case against him I'm sure everyone will agree with me when I say the chance of this is quite low, unless there's loads of public pressure or something liek that.
Possibly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate anything, as there are theoretical cases where a regular person wouldn't be prosecuted for the same offence/circumstances either. It depends heavily on several factors which we don't know enough about right now:
1)The severity of the pictures. From the sounds of it it was "just" regular nudes, which would likely be Category B
2)The quantity of the pictures
3)Exactly how they came to be getting the pictures in the first place
4)The nature of the relationship between the two

It's also entirely possible, based on the fact that the most likely charges are either-way offences, and current sentincing guidelines, that it does get prosecuted, but the dude gets a slap on the wrist.
 
Romeo and Juliet laws are there to make exceptions for these scenarios.
I don’t want cops charging dumb teenagers sending each other rude pictures by consent or even fucking by consent. That’s a thing their parents should have dealt with. My comment was about this story, where it seems a very old man was involved with a 17 year old boy. From what I have read, if the old man fucked him, it’s legal, but if he paid the 17 year old boy to send him rude pictures of himself, then it’s a crime. I can’t understand why the first is okay and the second is a crime.
 
Walliams is a massive bender. It's known he pretends to be straight because if he publicly came out, his father would disown him as he's too old school. Apparently he tells his father the camp act is just for TV. In reality, he's a massive bummer and swallaws cum on the daily.

Straight up an arse maybe

You've heard of beards, surely? Simon Cowell is the same. Massive gay faggot who "dates" pretty women for about 5 minutes, just long enough to get his photo in the papers with them.
Very true re: Cowell.

He 'dated' Sinitta in the 1980s... the chick who had a hit with 'Toy Boy' written by Stock, Aitken and Waterman.

As you say, massive faggot and can't lie straight in bed.
 
It's also entirely possible, based on the fact that the most likely charges are either-way offences, and current sentincing guidelines, that it does get prosecuted, but the dude gets a slap on the wrist.
What would the maximum punishment for this even be under law? Being reasonable and assuming they stick to one charge, no priors, and so on.

My guess would is that even if he was charged and found guilty, the judge would just hand down a suspended sentence with a fine and some community service.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole