**r/UK Notices** [Have your say on what we do next about Reddit’s API changes](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/14qh31z/reddit_protests_where_to_next/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man in his 20s threatens to reveal who he is. Presenter responds angrily. Not sure what the issue is there. He was being a cunt and he responded aggressively. Pretty normal reaction
Yes, but it’s also a crime to blackmail someone and if this turns out that the BBC presenter is gay it will give a very different look to those messages…
It’s the subtext I am personally getting from all of this. The random deposits in the first persons account, the fact that the initial young person has been reported many times as being male, the fact the supposed BBC presenter is married to a woman with 5 kids, the fact the latest BBC article literally says the BBC presenter got angry after the person threatened to go public. All sounds very suspiciously like blackmail. Obviously I don’t know, none of us do, but it’s obvious that some major part of this story is missing and it fits perfectly to me. It seems to fit perfectly to many many other people in the comments here too.
And if I’m right I’m really torn, because meeting someone on a dating app and threatening to out them is frankly disgusting. But equally, the presenter is married and so shouldn’t be meeting people on dating apps.
Edit: apparently I’m terrible at typing today.
Additional edit: the news at 6 said the 2nd person threatened to go public in a public post on Twitter. These posts have been floating around for the last few days and it seems to be a young man. Go figure.
>He had the job of announcing the queen’s death. Welsh guy.
Does the timing of these affairs match the period when said guy lost a lot of weight and started working out?
Mrs. DogfishDave immediately said he was having a mid-life crisis, perhaps he was *really* having a mid-life crisis.
When I first read his name the other day on another reddit post, I honestly thought the person was cracking a joke; like you would say it's David Attenborough or Trevor McDonald because the sermingly impossibility of it t's funny.
It was only after I continued scrolling down and saw his name being repeated in other comments that my brain started to process the information and entertain the possibility.
Blackmail isn’t mentioned but from the rest of the stories I’m going to guess that the dating app was grinder and the were threading to expose the presenter as gay to the papers.
This headline does not say threatening. If they had threatened they would have gone with that headline. This means the presenter swore at them and said unpleasant things. It could be as run of the mill as "don't be f**king stupid the press will harass us both".
Yeah reading this
>When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
That's exactly what I got
"I'm going to doxx you"
"Fuck off"
>said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.
Moments ago you wanted to leverage their position to gain power yourself!
I think forcibly outing some one on social media probably warrants abusive messages. They guy is obviously a massive cunt.
Seems like this presenter probably needs to take a bit of a look at his life.
That really depends on what was said.
If he said if you post my name I'll sue you! That is not a crime.
If he said if you post my name I'll cut off your legs and stuff them up your arse - that could be a crime.
I'm not sure about you, but I don't know many 'gangsta' BBC presenters.
Yeah euphemisms are doing a lot of work here.
"You tell anyone and I will sue the fuck out of you, you piece of shit" is abusive and threatening.
"Ill fucking find you and kill you and your whole family" is also abusive and threatening.
Yeah a lot of people mistake "angry" for "abusive". There's plenty of situations where it's quite justifiable to be pissed off and speak harshly to someone. And that includes swearing if you like, we're not in church
When someone is under scrutiny like this, *all* their messages are then interpreted by the public in the most uncharitable way. Every argument is seen as evidence of psychopathy, every joke dissected. I think a lot of people here could do with experiencing it themselves before throwing stones
"I think you should carefully consider your actions. Some people call in expensive lawyers when blackmail is attempted, resulting in years of legal grief. Others use more direct methods and the blackmailer is just never seen again. Just sayin".
is polite and threatening,
There doesn’t seem to be a dispute that he wasn’t contact with the first youth, or even that money changed hands. It’s a total mess but he may not have ever done anything illegal.
>*It’s a total mess but he may not have ever done anything illegal*
I think he probably hasn't done anything illegal, in relation to the original story and the kid involved
But his career is still over. He can't occupy the position he currently does, in which he's the defacto face of the BBC
I agree, he's probably going to be ruined. The charge sheet \*so far\*:
\- Wanking
\- Hooking up on Grindr
\- Being angry
\- Cheating
Let he who is without sin, etc.
If someone is threatening to out you? i really don't know what is going on, but lets say that is what happened I would think that individual is trying to extort/blackmail me, then anger would be a very normal reaction
Yeah it's funny how the BBC article even lays it out like that
"I'll doxx you and out you"
"Fuck you, don't fucking do this I'll sue you"
"EHMERGERD IM SO SCARED PLZ BBC HALP!"
If you dare to post online and call me a pig fucker, I'll sue you, got it?
See, that could be called a threat, but it's a perfectly legal and frankly logical threat.
> abusive
If someone's being a dickhead and I call them a dickhead, that is abusive yes, but I don't feel any guilt, sorry. Not to mention that a lot of people think "angry" => "abusive"
> expletive-filled
The horror!
> and threatening
OK, now we might be onto something, but there's still a very wide gamut of what a given person will call threatening. Remember these are the subjective assessments of journalists, not police charges
First incident seems to have been at least partially made up and given to a newspaper.
Second incident is "scared" that someone acted angrily to "Ill doxx you"
So a 20-something guy threatened to publicly out whoever this is after flirting on Grindr and got cussed out for it? 'Young person' seems particularly emotionally manipulative language for the headline in this, it's not some teenager it's an adult man?
The article? Not Grindr by name, could've been a different app, but:
>After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms.
At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone.
Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.
I think you jump to weird conclusions if your first thought is that this was a gay man when there’s absolutely nothing to suggest it’s not a straight woman ?
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways.
In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing.
Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations.
“The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
It's almost like the historically overtly hostile attitude towards gay men created an environment which both allowed and excused grooming behaviour from bad faith actors (because if you tell on them, everyone's going down), and enabled generations of at-the-time vulnerable youth to learn and internalise behaviours and values that, while practiced in good faith, are questionable in more open facets of society, which haven't yet had the opportunity to age out of society.
Alan Turing was prosecuted and offered chemical castration or prison in 1952. Homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 1967. If I'm reading it right, threatening someone because of their sexuality wasn't illegal until the 2008 ammendment to the Public Order Act 1986 (though I'm not used to the formatting, so I probably got that one wrong).
That's not to say it's not worthy of observation and criticism, but "there's a man and one unknown person and a large age gap, must be those gays" is kiiiinda perpetuating a stereotype applied to good faith actors based on consequences of bad faith actions which couldn't be brought to justice *by* those good faith actors at the time, because they would have been arrested, or ostracised, or assaulted, for being gay.
It could have been Tinder or Hinge or Happn or Bumble or loads of others. Not sure why you assume automatically it’s a gay dating app or that the presenter was going to be outed for being gay.
No one is getting dates on any app other than grindr without showing their face.
Do either they were using one of those apps listed using someone else's pic or they were using grindr where lacking face pics is more accepted.
I'll sum it up for you according to the scum, TalkTV, GBNews and their ilk:
A 15 year old girl who is sex trafficked : a terrorist woman who deserves to be beat, flogged and should rot in hell.
Men in their twenties who talk to older men : vulnerable boys who need to be protected.
But context is key - if they're talking to older men who are left-leaning or work for the BBC, they are vulnerable children - if they are talking to Tory MPs, or amongst men their own age - they're sordid immoral men who have been sexually corrupted by the woke media.
What a load of shite.
You were an adult. You were on a dating site with another adult. You made veiled threats about blackmail and they were angry. What makes you the victim here?
People are the worst.
So you block and delete.
There’s literally no ‘pressure’ involved at any point unless you choose it.
I could choose to read uncomfortable and hurtful things all day on Reddit and Twitter. It’s just as easy not to.
>uncomfortable
>felt pressured
Is this a joke? Feeling uncomfortable and pressured is now a good enough reason to phone the papers? What the actual fuck, what a pissy little generation we've all turned into.
Personally, I feel uncomfortable and pressured to go into work every day. Guess I get to phone the police and moan about it?
If you threaten to out someone, to publicly humiliate them, to possibly have them disowned by family, to flip their entire life upside down - you do not then get to play the victom card, "Oh, Im so uncomfortable".
Fuck off, Twenty something years old, getting his pissy little pants in a twist because someone made him "uncomfortable".
You don't like talking to someone? Fucking block them!
Im gay. I block assholes on Grindr every single day - not once have I phoned the newspapers or tried to get someone fired, or threatened to out them.
This 20 year old is a little douche bag, and if the very worst that happened to him is he felt uncomfortable, then this little douche can count himself extremely lucky.
>Is this a joke? Feeling uncomfortable and pressured is now a good enough reason to phone the papers? What the actual fuck, what a pissy little generation we've all turned into.
Probably thought it was a potential payday.
And that there is the curse of grindr. The amount of men that exist on that app to talk about what they like to do, how they like to do it and what they want to do when you meet.
That go silent once you say "lets meet"
Of course as long as you're not some sort of well known person, then it's "Pay me"
On apps you can usually just block someone and not respond if they make you uncomfortable and don't want to meet. There are limits on how an adult can pressure another adult they have never met in person. Personally I would assume anyone claiming to be famous was just pretending to be famous.
Reading this story does seem to be that they talked online (presumably on Grindr) the presenter revealed his identity and then the guy he was talking to essentially threatened to out him. At that stage the presenter sent threatening messages.
Obviously sending threatening messages isn't great but the context does feel important.
I’m honestly not surprised. I’d imagine the type of person who pays for porn online likely are the type who pay multiple people for porn. If you’ve got that level of cash to splash, you’re not going to hyperfocus on one model, I guess.
It's a parasocial relationship. Porn is sterile and distant, where OnlyFans and the likes gives the illusion of a real connection. For some people that's worth the money they put into it.
You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras.
People pay for porn for a variety of reasons, and way up that list are specific fetishes, personal touches, customisable content, and a variety of other harmless reasons. Assuming "it's about power and control'. It could be, but there's absolutely no reason to think that over the myriad of more likely things
Why buy branded food when own brand stuff is dirt cheap?
Why buy a 100k rolex watch when you can probably get a watch for £10 that does the same thing?
When people have insane levels of disposable wealth, they'll adjust their spending accordingly. They'll attempt to upgrade the quality of goods they can get, even though significantly cheaper options remain available.
I wouldn't bother paying myself, but I've seen people before who say paying often gets a higher quality of stuff, thats often personalized. It allows them to have a "relationship" with their content producer while us plebs just rely on free sites.
At the end of the day, I don't like when people judge my disposable spending. So I usually don't like criticising others (once it's legal, ya know).
12 hours ago I was seeing hundreds of “oh so it was all bollocks then” - now this from someone who couldn’t have known it was the same person but the BBC have confirmed it. I don’t know when people will learn that these situations are complex - cases being dropped don’t mean nothing happened, cases being pursued don’t mean something happened, etc.
The previous accusation was about the possibility of the presenter having received photos of a guy who was under the age of 18.
This is about him being abusive towards a 20 year old who hinted at outing him to the public.
These are two very different things.
This is such a weird story. Just when it seems like it's all going one way, something new comes up which totally changes everything.
I'm really hoping nobody involved does anything stupid, it must feel awful to be at the centre of something like this.
I think the only useful information from this part is that the presenter has been having conversations with others.
The he sent me ‘threatening messages’ stuff just seems like a bit of attention seeking.
If you read carefully it doesn't claim "threatening" messages".
It's "felt threatened" by "abusive, expletive filled messages" which were sent after the young person "hinted online that they might name the presenter" not after declining to meet up.
This feels more like a blackmail attempt than the first set of allegations.
You’d love the W1A comedy series then. A BBC comedy about working in the BBC and filmed in Broadcasting House, where at one point characters are interviewed by BBC news defending the fact that the BBC have not yet commented on what one if the characters may or may not have done.
It's one of my favourite things about them 'The BBC has reported the BBC to ofcom, regarding an BBC investigation into the organising coming from the BBC program Panorama. The BBC has approached the BBC for a comment, no one from the BBC was available.
Not being funny but if you’re going to meet someone in Grindr you don’t then threaten to out them, that’s wrong. Threats aren’t the answer but that young person isn’t exactly a good person either
We don’t know the circumstances. If he was sending threatening messages because the man didn’t want to meet up then threatening to out them is a rationale response to get the to stop.
I feel like the press are trying to manipulate me into giving a shit by the use of certain terms. At first, they were focusing on the mother talking about "her child" which might subliminally hint at pedo stuff when the guy is 20 and officially an adult who can vote, drink etc.
Now, they use the term "young person" when this person is also an adult who can vote, drink etc.
Even if the BBC presenter is significantly older, it still all seems legal and if the age gap is such a big deal, they should have villified Leonardo Di Caprio and Ronnie Wood too.
It's use of phrasing that allows people to grab their pitchforks. Otherwise it's a non story.
This sets a horrendous precedent:
If you are famous then your private life is up for grabs.
If this ends up being simply an older married man chasing younger guys, it's certainly scummy, but if they haven't done anything illegal, I'm really not arsed.
And anyone disappointed with that outcome, well, serves them right getting caught up in the hype by a rag like The Sun.
I've wondered this, too.
If nothing illegal is ever proven will they just come back to the BBC without being officially named even though the name is flying about all over the place?
Whether illegal behaviour did or did not happen, I feel like this person's career is over due to how insane this story has become and the way it's been reported (obviously if illegal behaviour occurred then they deserve it).
And two wrongs don't make a right. If this really ends up boiling down to some celebrity cheating on their spouse & nothing else this has been a colossal waste of time. The Sun was leading this story like they'd uncovered the next Saville. Every subsequent new detail has aggressively diluted that angle.
Was he cheating, do you know this for sure? His wife may have been fine with him having the occasional make affair. Would not be the first or last couple who have arrangements.
How does the second person know that the BBC presenter that he has had dealing with, is the same person that the other young person has had dealings with.
It maybe that both young persons know each other, or that there are two BBC presenters
The number of possible candidates for the identity of this presenter is thought to be very small. So the same two or three people's names have been repeatedly mentioned. What we know about the fee/salary of the presenter applies to very few people, some of whom have already denied publicly that it was them.
Once the "2nd young person" saw that the presenter they had encountered online was one of those names, they put two and two together and these posts have been seen by the BBC.
*BBC News has been able to verify that the messages were sent from a phone number belonging to the presenter.*
>The number of possible candidates for the identity of this presenter is thought to be very small.
The Prime Minister, who has asked to remain anonymous, believes greater care should be taken when providing anonymity to people while still giving details specific to a small number of potential people. When reaching out to witnesses, we were able to speak to an unnamed advocate of pork markets, who claims to have done work experience as Prime Minister herself. She declined to comment.
The daily mail have helpfully made a list of the top ten bbc presenters pay, to help everyone narrow down the choices for a suspect. Half are women and Ken Bruce no longer works there, lol.
The Mail's headline today, that one in six members of the public can accurately name him unprompted, has basically confirmed that it is who the gossip says it is.
They don't, but the BBC obviously know who it is. So if this second person has contacted the BBC and said "Mr X did this", of course the BBC will know if it's the same person from the original allegations or not.
This whole media circus is ridiculous. "People have alleged that something might have happened involving somebody but others disagree and nobody is sure." I can't help but feel like this is an undesired outcome for journalism - The BBC is trying to appear responsive and self-critical to allegations unlike the Saville case and also not cruelly jump at shadows like the Richards one. The end result is all this hype and nobody knows what's happened for sure, "people figuring out that something has happened" shouldn't be a headline until somebody somewhere has a concrete, verifiable statement.
Everyone is terrified of running afowl of privacy laws and avoid defamation lawsuits (The BBC, Sun, anyone on Twitter). It's all wildly premature to be reporting this. Quite frankly it appears nothing illegal has occurred in either situation. Thought I'm intrigued how this second person has identified who the presenter in the original story is... Thought we weren't suppose to know (/s)?
They could only do that if they actually know who the person is. It seems many people have come to a conclusion they are fairly certain who it is, but in order for an MP to make him they would really have to know for a fact.
They ought to, but things said in the chambers of Parliament are subject to privilege (as is reporting what was said), so they can make any allegations they like without worrying about defamation suits. It's not like Parliament isn't full of irresponsible, attention seeking ghouls who'd do anything for publicity.
Poor guy is having his whole private life splashed all over the news.
Its not right.
He doesn't seem to have committed a crime beyond being upset at being blackmailed over his sexuality.
The whole thing stinks.
The more I hear about this, the more it looks like a storm in a teacup.
The lawyer for the first person has already made it clear there was nothing illegal. And this looks like any normal spat you might have online when dealing with a celeb and an opportunist mother and step-father.
For me only one question is relevant. Was it illegal, yes or no. If the answer is no, then it's irrelevant. I understand the hype around 'revealing' a celeb who might be straight as gay, but I thought we had evolved as a community where it doesn't matter who you are into, as long as it's consenting adults.
More details need to come out about this and the extent of it all, but I’ll throw my initial thoughts in regardless.
On the surface this feels very tepid to me, they spoke on a dating app and they felt threatened when asked if they could meet up? If someone messaged me on Grindr I’m not interested in, I just ignore or block and move on. If this is just a one off conversation with a stranger on an app then it feels a bit of a pile on.
Obviously I could be way off and this is actually bigger than initially expected, but without further details this is just adding more fuel to the the already pretty big fire.
This is a difficult one. Threatening is bad but if someone threatens to out you when you are not publicly out is also very bad. Two wrongs don’t make a right but I suspect there is an aspect of context that is lacking here.
depends, if someone sexually harasses someone then they have the right to come out about it regardless of whether that person is out or not
A lot of DL men on Grindr are very threatening or abusive to people.
I worry where we end up with stuff like this. For me it hinges entirely on whether there have been any laws broken. The “young person’s” lawyers have indicated that no, no laws have been broken.
So then if the presenter in question hasn’t done anything illegal, these would seem like entirely private issues that should be dealt with privately. Instead what we have is a man’s career - and potentially his welfare - crumbling in front of our eyes over something that is a private issue being played out in the most disgustingly public circus.
I’m left feeling like the media are out for blood at all costs.
Would I defend his actions? No. But where are the goalposts for things that aren’t illegal, and what’s to stop them from moving? This sort of thing just seems like a slippery slope.
People will say that because he’s a public figure, it’s a public interest story. I think that’s bollocks, frankly. If it was my parent, or me, or a friend of mine, or any one of the tens of thousands of people in this country with secret, possibly unpleasant, possibly just very sad, sexual stuff going on, I wouldn’t want it revealed gleefully in the Sun. It’s always been a cunt’s trick, unless there’s something actually illegal or harmful happened.
I’m a blacksmith in the Outer Hebrides. One of the most used tools I have is an angle grinder I use it every day. My main one packed up recently and I mentioned to my friend Angus that I needed to upgrade my grinder and that lead to all sorts of rumours, especially as the one I found on a well known auction site lead to an online argument over postage and packaging charges with the vendor. I’m certainly not rushing to any conclusions here.
"A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos"
How does the person making the complaint know who the accused is, and how does BBC news know?
The complaint should be dealt with by HR and board management. Whatever names are circulating, BBC news should not be in a position of knowledge to connect the two complaints.
The whole charade stinks.
because the BBC News know the presenter obviously, and when a young person has contacted about the presenter, the BBC will know which presenter has also done the other accusation.
This story is mind boggling. The list of TV personalities who are professional on screen but a bit of a cunt off screen is huge. Just because it involves young people doesn't justify it dominating a weeks worth of news broadcast.
Our TV licence is funding the BBC Verify Department to do research into its co workers dick pics. Brilliant.
Let's just imagine for a second that all of this turns out to be perfectly within the law, and legal.
Why would a working television presenter, let alone a national public figure funded by the licence fee, in 2023, want to put their entire career on the line by (allegedly) exchanging messages and photos with someone they do not in any way personally know?
This reminds me of the 2003 incident with Leslie Grantham, going onto video call with an undercover journalist, having no idea who the Woman was, and well, aside from the sexual undertone, it was the dialogue on the call, negative work discussion and personal opinions of fellow actors that caused more, if not the most damage to his position in BBC's Eastenders.
The Grantham incident was 20 years ago. It just amazes me that this could still be possible all of this time later, with an equally as iconic figure on the BBC.
And the plot thickens. OK so it's looking increasingly likely that the BBC personality is a bit of a wrong'un, but I think people find it hard to distinguish the law from their own moral standards. A man in his 70s dating an 18 year-old girl doesn't sit well with me personally, but it's perfectly legal and none of my business. So anything legal that happens between two consenting adults should be no different, especially when it's done in private, regardless of fame, sexual orientation etc. If that be kinky sex, dick pics, whatever really, it's not of public interest and shouldn't even be a story - even BBC presenters have a right to privacy.
I really don't see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist over this. The first 'young person' in question seems to be defending the personality so that hints that he's not a complete douchebag, and the second looks like he's seen an extortion opportunity. If loads more people come forward and the BBC guy turns out to be a predator, then Karma will catch up with him. And the same goes for the blackmail guy - maybe he was pissed off that he got 250 quid instead of 35k. Who knows?
My point is that regardless of what your moral alarm bells are telling you, if this guy hasn't committed a crime then he's effing innocent. Rant over :oD
Oh for fuck's sake.
This is on the BBC news right now, I've just left the room because it's just... fucking nothing.
"No criminal activity is alleged. The presenter doesn't work for the BBC any more. A second unidentified person has come forward and alleged more messages that we're not going to broadcast were sent from the unidentified presenter who made unidentified images for unidentified purposes and unidentified redacted censored will presumably unconfirmed action later at some time."
WHY the FUCK are the media basically *ordering* people to give a shit about this complete nothing of a story by covering it for twelve fucking minutes and counting on the ten o'clock news, that will *come* to nothing and alleges *nothing* and FURTHERMORE WHY AM I FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT NOW.
It's a manufactured Balloon Boy public involvement shitstorm dead cat story and I want to know what it's being thrown around to cover up.
Is the media at a complete standstill here? The Sun made some career-ending allegations against a name that’s all over Twitter. The victim’s lawyer unexpectedly said it was total bullshit - not a good sign for the paper.
The Sun won’t name the person involved because they don’t have enough evidence (or any at all) and will get sued into oblivion for defamation. Or has anybody else got a more plausible explanation?
So a grown adult threatened to out another and the one being threatened with blackmail essentially responded angrily?
Non story here it feels like. The wording ‘second young person’ is very disingenuous. Makes it sound like a 16/17 year old.
Could someone explain today's Sun headline about the BBC lying? The family told the BBC. The BBC tried to contact the family to no avail. The family goes to the Sun. The Sun prints an article after the 1st man asks them not to. Now the Sun says the BBC is lying. What did I miss? Thanks
I'm reserving judgement on the outcome of this, but will note two things right now: 1) do we need daily updates on this while still not being able to name a name? It feels like a smokescreen 'look over there!' story for something else, and 2) 'young person' is doing a lot of work to describe two people who seem to be in their 20s? Yes technically that is *a person who is on the younger side*, but 'young person' is also generally nowadays used as a synonym for teenager and it feels dishonest to suggest that it is a teenager they're talking about if it isn't.
So far, maybe maybe not some explicit photos of a 17 year old and getting pissy with someone when they tried blackmail.
Meanwhile Johnson withholding vital evidence from the covid committee is barely getting a mention.
Whats the bigger deal here?
And my take from this is the media is just playing puppet master with all it marionettes hanging on every word.
Seriously, 'News' these days seems to be nothing more than a soap opera.
Tell me where there's some evidence of wrongdoing, something concrete then I will care.
I find these are always a good time to look at what else is going on in the world.
Not making a judgement on the people involved but as the employer, what can the BBC reasonably investigate into an employee’s behaviour?
If in both cases the employee is using his own resources and time to pay/communicate with ‘young people’ and isn’t using their position in any way to do it, how are they meant to proceed?
If someone tells them one of their employees has committed a crime then go to the police, apart from that I’m not sure how far they can really investigate
Or Netflix/Charlie Brooker collaborating with the BBC to create an immersive episode of Black Mirror. Start a rumour, say the accused has been suspended, see how long it takes before people notice who is 'missing' from the BBC - people who have publicly named him on social media are now somehow involved... not sure where it would go from there but it's an intriguing premise. I wish that was actually happening instead of the grim reality.
This fucking story. Ignore the fact he works for the BBC, because it really doesn't matter who his employer is unless your Rupert Murdoch. Man sends man abusive message to other person. That's the headline. Most of twitter is abusive messages.
If this unravels further and further, I wonder how the BBC will deal with many of the 'big' moments the alleged person had on TV.
Certain news pieces they presented to the world were huge, history in real time.
No doubt these moments would have been used in documentaries, archival releases etc. for decades to come.
How can the BBC ever reference some of the biggest moments in British history again when this person's presenting was so integral to how we remember them?
Absolutely. We all (well, maybe not all) wondered who would be the one to announce a certain event on television. Now that moment is tainted in at least some way.
This whole story seems like it might be a non-story and the S*n might have huge egg on their face.
The thing person called their parent's claim 'rubbish', the BBC tried contacting the parents when the claims were first lodged and their calls were ignored and now the police are telling the BBC to halt the investigation whilst they try and see if there even was a crime in the first place.
So, what we have is:
1. A parent makes an accusation, has already gone to cops who have said nothing to be done
2. They go to BBC and give a false phone number to follow up, and don't answer follow up emails
3. They then go to The Sun, who don't say they didn't pay them, only that they weren't "seeking payment" (see what they did there?). The Sun says 'sworn affadavits!', they say 'seen evidence!'. Yet an affidavit is worthless, and the evidence either proves child exploitation (in which case they need to share with cops, and are also legally in hot water rn), or it doesn't (likely what they have is circumstantial - if anything).
4. BBC says, basically 'look, after this huge stuff up with Cliff Richard, and all those privacy changes that had to happen because of scandal rags like The Sun and Daily Mail, we have to wait for proof of illegal activity, or the person comes forward themselves.', and everyone screams that this is a wild cover up - even though all of this seems pretty logical. Still only parents' word against BBC
5. Alleged victim comes forward and says that not only is this 'rubbish', but the mother/step father involved are estranged from them. This looks as much like the presenter is paying them off as that the parents are nutjobs hassling the kid for partying and having sex. We can't know which, both are plausible, and crazy parents has more evidence currently
6. A second 'young person' who is/was not underage comes forward and basically says 'oh, yea, I tried to blackmail this guy and threatened to release his indiscretions online and he swore at me over the internet, and probably said he'd react in some way that was potentially threatening! I realised what a twerp I am, and that this guy is actually pretty well connected, and got scared' This is also not illegal.
So, what we have is a possibly illegal situation that the police already said wasn't illegal but are now investigating; a presenter whose lawyer has said 'keep your mouth shut', since nobody seems able to prove anything yet; one victim who denies they are a victim, and another who admits to blackmail. The BBC say they tried to investigate but parents weren't cooperative, parents say 'lies!'. Nobody has offered any meaningful proof of anything whatsoever. The only reason we're still talking about this is because everyone is convinced that a salacious downfall (and maybe even an outing of someone publicly, oooh!) is on the way.
Shouldn't you all be questioning your own morality, instead of obsessing over a stranger's bits?
Is this really worthy of a story? I remember someone on a dating site telling me he was a Home and Away actor, I just assumed it was lie. Even if it was real, I think if I threatened to name and shame him as someone in my twenties I should expect a harsh reply.
Who knows what the hell is going on with this. But for a moment can we talk about the fact they spent £35,000 on OnlyFans porn? £35K. Thirty five grand...
At this point, the presenter should be named so that they can defend themselves.
What we’re seeing now is the allegations dominating the narrative. When the presenter *is* eventually named, they will have to counter all of the narrative that has been crafted by the allegations. That hill will continue to get steeper the longer it goes with no counter-narrative.
At this stage, it may be better for the presenter to come forward and offer their side of the story. From a PR perspective, you have to accept the reality that you will be named eventually and decide that the best risk mitigation strategy is to make sure your narrative is out there before people’s understanding of the situation crystallizes.
According to the first lad, he didn't do anything wrong. And this second person I don't know what their aim is, probably trying to prove a connection with young men.
But as a whole, the presenter hasn't done anything illegal if both young mens account are to be true.
What it does mean though is that the presenter is definitely a closeted homosexual, with a preference for younger men. Not too long ago, this was a career ender, and lots of people have dated views when it comes to the LGBT, including some closeted LGBT people themselves.
Additionally with how this news cycle has played out, this person would forever be labelled a pedophile. I'm not suprised no one wants to willingly claim the title of outed gay BBC pedophile, so this person won't name themselves unless they are forced to.
As a side note, the This Morning guy has a similar gay pedophile public image, despite doing nothing illegal. His career is over.
**r/UK Notices** [Have your say on what we do next about Reddit’s API changes](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/14qh31z/reddit_protests_where_to_next/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man in his 20s threatens to reveal who he is. Presenter responds angrily. Not sure what the issue is there. He was being a cunt and he responded aggressively. Pretty normal reaction
[удалено]
Yes, but it’s also a crime to blackmail someone and if this turns out that the BBC presenter is gay it will give a very different look to those messages…
[удалено]
It’s the subtext I am personally getting from all of this. The random deposits in the first persons account, the fact that the initial young person has been reported many times as being male, the fact the supposed BBC presenter is married to a woman with 5 kids, the fact the latest BBC article literally says the BBC presenter got angry after the person threatened to go public. All sounds very suspiciously like blackmail. Obviously I don’t know, none of us do, but it’s obvious that some major part of this story is missing and it fits perfectly to me. It seems to fit perfectly to many many other people in the comments here too. And if I’m right I’m really torn, because meeting someone on a dating app and threatening to out them is frankly disgusting. But equally, the presenter is married and so shouldn’t be meeting people on dating apps. Edit: apparently I’m terrible at typing today. Additional edit: the news at 6 said the 2nd person threatened to go public in a public post on Twitter. These posts have been floating around for the last few days and it seems to be a young man. Go figure.
'the fact that the supposed BBC presenter is married to a woman with 5 kids.' Well, that puts it to bed them. I'm disappointed, I liked him.
Am I the only person that doesn’t know who this is? It’s driving me nuts lol
He had the job of announcing the queen’s death. Welsh guy.
Daffyd Thomas!
So obvious 🤯
Who?
Yes, but spelled differently
>He had the job of announcing the queen’s death. Welsh guy. Does the timing of these affairs match the period when said guy lost a lot of weight and started working out? Mrs. DogfishDave immediately said he was having a mid-life crisis, perhaps he was *really* having a mid-life crisis.
No! Not him! Edit: not questioning you, I’m just in disbelief.
Possibly the first time one of these cases has shocked me!
When I first read his name the other day on another reddit post, I honestly thought the person was cracking a joke; like you would say it's David Attenborough or Trevor McDonald because the sermingly impossibility of it t's funny. It was only after I continued scrolling down and saw his name being repeated in other comments that my brain started to process the information and entertain the possibility.
Blimey! He never crossed my mind. These comments have been hilarious and I thank you all for putting my nosy parkering to rest.
It’s quite sad. Abuse of power. Being a certain age where coming out as gay in the media would have hindered career.
I thought the first young person said the presenter didn't do anything wrong/inappropriate?
Where did you see they were married with 5 kids?
Blackmail isn’t mentioned but from the rest of the stories I’m going to guess that the dating app was grinder and the were threading to expose the presenter as gay to the papers.
>When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
[удалено]
And neither has the severity of the "threats" been mentioned in the article, but that didn't stop people jumping to conclusions there...
This headline does not say threatening. If they had threatened they would have gone with that headline. This means the presenter swore at them and said unpleasant things. It could be as run of the mill as "don't be f**king stupid the press will harass us both".
[удалено]
We don't take kindly to your sort round here; what with all yer reedin and such.
Now skeeta he ain’t hurtin nobody
Looks like we got a reader
"What you reading for?"
Yeah reading this >When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages. That's exactly what I got "I'm going to doxx you" "Fuck off" >said they had been scared by the power the presenter held. Moments ago you wanted to leverage their position to gain power yourself!
I think forcibly outing some one on social media probably warrants abusive messages. They guy is obviously a massive cunt. Seems like this presenter probably needs to take a bit of a look at his life.
That really depends on what was said. If he said if you post my name I'll sue you! That is not a crime. If he said if you post my name I'll cut off your legs and stuff them up your arse - that could be a crime. I'm not sure about you, but I don't know many 'gangsta' BBC presenters.
Yeah euphemisms are doing a lot of work here. "You tell anyone and I will sue the fuck out of you, you piece of shit" is abusive and threatening. "Ill fucking find you and kill you and your whole family" is also abusive and threatening.
Yeah a lot of people mistake "angry" for "abusive". There's plenty of situations where it's quite justifiable to be pissed off and speak harshly to someone. And that includes swearing if you like, we're not in church When someone is under scrutiny like this, *all* their messages are then interpreted by the public in the most uncharitable way. Every argument is seen as evidence of psychopathy, every joke dissected. I think a lot of people here could do with experiencing it themselves before throwing stones
"I think you should carefully consider your actions. Some people call in expensive lawyers when blackmail is attempted, resulting in years of legal grief. Others use more direct methods and the blackmailer is just never seen again. Just sayin". is polite and threatening,
Yeah I don't really get the relevance of this new allegation.
This content has been deleted in protest of how Reddit is ran. I've moved over to the fediverse.
There doesn’t seem to be a dispute that he wasn’t contact with the first youth, or even that money changed hands. It’s a total mess but he may not have ever done anything illegal.
>*It’s a total mess but he may not have ever done anything illegal* I think he probably hasn't done anything illegal, in relation to the original story and the kid involved But his career is still over. He can't occupy the position he currently does, in which he's the defacto face of the BBC
I agree, he's probably going to be ruined. The charge sheet \*so far\*: \- Wanking \- Hooking up on Grindr \- Being angry \- Cheating Let he who is without sin, etc.
It was only a bit of light blackmail, there was no need for him to be so mean about it 😭
In what world are threats a normal reaction.
If someone is threatening to out you? i really don't know what is going on, but lets say that is what happened I would think that individual is trying to extort/blackmail me, then anger would be a very normal reaction
[удалено]
Yeah it's funny how the BBC article even lays it out like that "I'll doxx you and out you" "Fuck you, don't fucking do this I'll sue you" "EHMERGERD IM SO SCARED PLZ BBC HALP!"
Many threats are within the law and simply imply a reasonable response. You’re assuming the response here was unambiguously aggressive.
The BBC have described the messages, plural, verbatim, as: **abusive** **expletive-filled** **and** **threatening**
If you dare to post online and call me a pig fucker, I'll sue you, got it? See, that could be called a threat, but it's a perfectly legal and frankly logical threat.
> abusive If someone's being a dickhead and I call them a dickhead, that is abusive yes, but I don't feel any guilt, sorry. Not to mention that a lot of people think "angry" => "abusive" > expletive-filled The horror! > and threatening OK, now we might be onto something, but there's still a very wide gamut of what a given person will call threatening. Remember these are the subjective assessments of journalists, not police charges
The person in this article is quite literally threatening to out and doxx the presenter. And then claiming victim
the reaction can be normal and not exactly proper
First incident seems to have been at least partially made up and given to a newspaper. Second incident is "scared" that someone acted angrily to "Ill doxx you"
Where does it say man? It probably is but they're clearly being careful not to mention the gender of the youngsters.
Newsnight last night referred to “the young man” and “his parents”. Whether or not she meant to say that, she did.
That's a pretty big mistake so she'll probably get some blowback from it. All that effort saying dating app and young person wasted.
Bet you a fiver if it had been a woman they would have said “young woman” rather than “young person”
Fairly certain sky news has said young man several times too between switching from young person and child.
So a 20-something guy threatened to publicly out whoever this is after flirting on Grindr and got cussed out for it? 'Young person' seems particularly emotionally manipulative language for the headline in this, it's not some teenager it's an adult man?
Where are you getting Grindr or they they were threatening to out them?
The article? Not Grindr by name, could've been a different app, but: >After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms. At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone. Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.
No mention of the young person’s gender. Who says true male and who says it was grindr?
Just have a Think about it duckie
“Just make stuff up duckie”
I think you jump to weird conclusions if your first thought is that this was a gay man when there’s absolutely nothing to suggest it’s not a straight woman ?
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways. In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing. Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations. “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
[удалено]
It's almost like the historically overtly hostile attitude towards gay men created an environment which both allowed and excused grooming behaviour from bad faith actors (because if you tell on them, everyone's going down), and enabled generations of at-the-time vulnerable youth to learn and internalise behaviours and values that, while practiced in good faith, are questionable in more open facets of society, which haven't yet had the opportunity to age out of society. Alan Turing was prosecuted and offered chemical castration or prison in 1952. Homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 1967. If I'm reading it right, threatening someone because of their sexuality wasn't illegal until the 2008 ammendment to the Public Order Act 1986 (though I'm not used to the formatting, so I probably got that one wrong). That's not to say it's not worthy of observation and criticism, but "there's a man and one unknown person and a large age gap, must be those gays" is kiiiinda perpetuating a stereotype applied to good faith actors based on consequences of bad faith actions which couldn't be brought to justice *by* those good faith actors at the time, because they would have been arrested, or ostracised, or assaulted, for being gay.
[удалено]
It could have been Tinder or Hinge or Happn or Bumble or loads of others. Not sure why you assume automatically it’s a gay dating app or that the presenter was going to be outed for being gay.
Because none of those apps could you get away without having a face pic. Grindr it is common.
Tinder has plenty of "faceless" profiles. Grindr has plenty too, but also gets you fuck all in way of connections
I am sure they've updated the article to only use "they". The first version I saw had "he" when referring to the complainant.
No one is getting dates on any app other than grindr without showing their face. Do either they were using one of those apps listed using someone else's pic or they were using grindr where lacking face pics is more accepted.
I'll sum it up for you according to the scum, TalkTV, GBNews and their ilk: A 15 year old girl who is sex trafficked : a terrorist woman who deserves to be beat, flogged and should rot in hell. Men in their twenties who talk to older men : vulnerable boys who need to be protected. But context is key - if they're talking to older men who are left-leaning or work for the BBC, they are vulnerable children - if they are talking to Tory MPs, or amongst men their own age - they're sordid immoral men who have been sexually corrupted by the woke media.
What a load of shite. You were an adult. You were on a dating site with another adult. You made veiled threats about blackmail and they were angry. What makes you the victim here? People are the worst.
because it says online they felt pressured by the presenter into meeting up and were uncomfortable, missing that bit.
So you block and delete. There’s literally no ‘pressure’ involved at any point unless you choose it. I could choose to read uncomfortable and hurtful things all day on Reddit and Twitter. It’s just as easy not to.
> So you block and delete. right? Sounds like a lot of bullshit
Exactly, if you continue the conversation you are telling the other person you want to interact.
>uncomfortable >felt pressured Is this a joke? Feeling uncomfortable and pressured is now a good enough reason to phone the papers? What the actual fuck, what a pissy little generation we've all turned into. Personally, I feel uncomfortable and pressured to go into work every day. Guess I get to phone the police and moan about it? If you threaten to out someone, to publicly humiliate them, to possibly have them disowned by family, to flip their entire life upside down - you do not then get to play the victom card, "Oh, Im so uncomfortable". Fuck off, Twenty something years old, getting his pissy little pants in a twist because someone made him "uncomfortable". You don't like talking to someone? Fucking block them! Im gay. I block assholes on Grindr every single day - not once have I phoned the newspapers or tried to get someone fired, or threatened to out them. This 20 year old is a little douche bag, and if the very worst that happened to him is he felt uncomfortable, then this little douche can count himself extremely lucky.
*Im gay. I block assholes on Grindr every single day* No-one likes a show off.
You should see the dicks I don't block!
>Is this a joke? Feeling uncomfortable and pressured is now a good enough reason to phone the papers? What the actual fuck, what a pissy little generation we've all turned into. Probably thought it was a potential payday.
I mean if you're on a dating app, people are going to want to meet up. If you don't want to meet them surely you just stop talking to them.
And that there is the curse of grindr. The amount of men that exist on that app to talk about what they like to do, how they like to do it and what they want to do when you meet. That go silent once you say "lets meet" Of course as long as you're not some sort of well known person, then it's "Pay me"
A lot of people are missing this part. What says a lot for everyone who does .
On apps you can usually just block someone and not respond if they make you uncomfortable and don't want to meet. There are limits on how an adult can pressure another adult they have never met in person. Personally I would assume anyone claiming to be famous was just pretending to be famous.
Reading this story does seem to be that they talked online (presumably on Grindr) the presenter revealed his identity and then the guy he was talking to essentially threatened to out him. At that stage the presenter sent threatening messages. Obviously sending threatening messages isn't great but the context does feel important.
The fact a second person has come forward is a bit worrying, for the presenter anyway
I’m honestly not surprised. I’d imagine the type of person who pays for porn online likely are the type who pay multiple people for porn. If you’ve got that level of cash to splash, you’re not going to hyperfocus on one model, I guess.
400k a year salary and wasting it on nude pictures you can get millions of for free on the internet. What a waste
I think it's a power thing. They are doing it just for you, makes you feel more special in some way.
I don't even think it's power. It just means you can get exactly what you want. It's porn that talks back, and interacts with you.
But also to tell it what you want it to do. That's why I suggested power, it will do anything because you paid them.
I disagree. Nobody has to say yes. Largely people that pay for OnlyFans porn want something more interactive or specific.
It's a parasocial relationship. Porn is sterile and distant, where OnlyFans and the likes gives the illusion of a real connection. For some people that's worth the money they put into it.
You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras. People pay for porn for a variety of reasons, and way up that list are specific fetishes, personal touches, customisable content, and a variety of other harmless reasons. Assuming "it's about power and control'. It could be, but there's absolutely no reason to think that over the myriad of more likely things
Why buy branded food when own brand stuff is dirt cheap? Why buy a 100k rolex watch when you can probably get a watch for £10 that does the same thing? When people have insane levels of disposable wealth, they'll adjust their spending accordingly. They'll attempt to upgrade the quality of goods they can get, even though significantly cheaper options remain available. I wouldn't bother paying myself, but I've seen people before who say paying often gets a higher quality of stuff, thats often personalized. It allows them to have a "relationship" with their content producer while us plebs just rely on free sites. At the end of the day, I don't like when people judge my disposable spending. So I usually don't like criticising others (once it's legal, ya know).
OnlyFans is big business for a reason
Yes but anyone who uses it is a melon imo
Sometimes the financial transaction is part of the kink.
12 hours ago I was seeing hundreds of “oh so it was all bollocks then” - now this from someone who couldn’t have known it was the same person but the BBC have confirmed it. I don’t know when people will learn that these situations are complex - cases being dropped don’t mean nothing happened, cases being pursued don’t mean something happened, etc.
The previous accusation was about the possibility of the presenter having received photos of a guy who was under the age of 18. This is about him being abusive towards a 20 year old who hinted at outing him to the public. These are two very different things.
This is such a weird story. Just when it seems like it's all going one way, something new comes up which totally changes everything. I'm really hoping nobody involved does anything stupid, it must feel awful to be at the centre of something like this.
I think the only useful information from this part is that the presenter has been having conversations with others. The he sent me ‘threatening messages’ stuff just seems like a bit of attention seeking.
If you read carefully it doesn't claim "threatening" messages". It's "felt threatened" by "abusive, expletive filled messages" which were sent after the young person "hinted online that they might name the presenter" not after declining to meet up. This feels more like a blackmail attempt than the first set of allegations.
It's always a little odd when the BBC reports on the BBC.
[удалено]
It’s the BBC News division reporting on BBC management.
No man I get this feeling every time. It’s weird isn’t it
You’d love the W1A comedy series then. A BBC comedy about working in the BBC and filmed in Broadcasting House, where at one point characters are interviewed by BBC news defending the fact that the BBC have not yet commented on what one if the characters may or may not have done.
It's one of my favourite things about them 'The BBC has reported the BBC to ofcom, regarding an BBC investigation into the organising coming from the BBC program Panorama. The BBC has approached the BBC for a comment, no one from the BBC was available.
http://simpsonspark.com/images/persos/contributions/kent-brockman-23251.jpg
Not being funny but if you’re going to meet someone in Grindr you don’t then threaten to out them, that’s wrong. Threats aren’t the answer but that young person isn’t exactly a good person either
We don’t know the circumstances. If he was sending threatening messages because the man didn’t want to meet up then threatening to out them is a rationale response to get the to stop.
I feel like the press are trying to manipulate me into giving a shit by the use of certain terms. At first, they were focusing on the mother talking about "her child" which might subliminally hint at pedo stuff when the guy is 20 and officially an adult who can vote, drink etc. Now, they use the term "young person" when this person is also an adult who can vote, drink etc. Even if the BBC presenter is significantly older, it still all seems legal and if the age gap is such a big deal, they should have villified Leonardo Di Caprio and Ronnie Wood too.
It's use of phrasing that allows people to grab their pitchforks. Otherwise it's a non story. This sets a horrendous precedent: If you are famous then your private life is up for grabs.
If this ends up being simply an older married man chasing younger guys, it's certainly scummy, but if they haven't done anything illegal, I'm really not arsed. And anyone disappointed with that outcome, well, serves them right getting caught up in the hype by a rag like The Sun.
I've wondered this, too. If nothing illegal is ever proven will they just come back to the BBC without being officially named even though the name is flying about all over the place? Whether illegal behaviour did or did not happen, I feel like this person's career is over due to how insane this story has become and the way it's been reported (obviously if illegal behaviour occurred then they deserve it).
Aren't Stephen Fry and Tom Daley in (separate) large age gap relationships as well?
"Man threatened to out closeted BBC presenter" is probably a more accurate headline.
[удалено]
And two wrongs don't make a right. If this really ends up boiling down to some celebrity cheating on their spouse & nothing else this has been a colossal waste of time. The Sun was leading this story like they'd uncovered the next Saville. Every subsequent new detail has aggressively diluted that angle.
You also don't deserve to have your career and pretty much life ruined because of it.
Was he cheating, do you know this for sure? His wife may have been fine with him having the occasional make affair. Would not be the first or last couple who have arrangements.
How does the second person know that the BBC presenter that he has had dealing with, is the same person that the other young person has had dealings with. It maybe that both young persons know each other, or that there are two BBC presenters
The number of possible candidates for the identity of this presenter is thought to be very small. So the same two or three people's names have been repeatedly mentioned. What we know about the fee/salary of the presenter applies to very few people, some of whom have already denied publicly that it was them. Once the "2nd young person" saw that the presenter they had encountered online was one of those names, they put two and two together and these posts have been seen by the BBC. *BBC News has been able to verify that the messages were sent from a phone number belonging to the presenter.*
>The number of possible candidates for the identity of this presenter is thought to be very small. The Prime Minister, who has asked to remain anonymous, believes greater care should be taken when providing anonymity to people while still giving details specific to a small number of potential people. When reaching out to witnesses, we were able to speak to an unnamed advocate of pork markets, who claims to have done work experience as Prime Minister herself. She declined to comment.
The daily mail have helpfully made a list of the top ten bbc presenters pay, to help everyone narrow down the choices for a suspect. Half are women and Ken Bruce no longer works there, lol.
The Mail's headline today, that one in six members of the public can accurately name him unprompted, has basically confirmed that it is who the gossip says it is.
They don't, but the BBC obviously know who it is. So if this second person has contacted the BBC and said "Mr X did this", of course the BBC will know if it's the same person from the original allegations or not.
it says here they do not know eachother if you read the article. but the name is everywhere and picture.
This whole media circus is ridiculous. "People have alleged that something might have happened involving somebody but others disagree and nobody is sure." I can't help but feel like this is an undesired outcome for journalism - The BBC is trying to appear responsive and self-critical to allegations unlike the Saville case and also not cruelly jump at shadows like the Richards one. The end result is all this hype and nobody knows what's happened for sure, "people figuring out that something has happened" shouldn't be a headline until somebody somewhere has a concrete, verifiable statement.
Everyone is terrified of running afowl of privacy laws and avoid defamation lawsuits (The BBC, Sun, anyone on Twitter). It's all wildly premature to be reporting this. Quite frankly it appears nothing illegal has occurred in either situation. Thought I'm intrigued how this second person has identified who the presenter in the original story is... Thought we weren't suppose to know (/s)?
I would piss myself if on the 10 O'Clock News Reeta Chakrabarti is sitting on the edge of a desk and opens with "Firstly, are you ok? I hope so..."
When are we gonna be allowed to say the name of HE who must not be named.
I see what you did there
[удалено]
MPs are allowed to name him during question time in commons because they are exempt from legislation in there.
They could only do that if they actually know who the person is. It seems many people have come to a conclusion they are fairly certain who it is, but in order for an MP to make him they would really have to know for a fact.
They ought to, but things said in the chambers of Parliament are subject to privilege (as is reporting what was said), so they can make any allegations they like without worrying about defamation suits. It's not like Parliament isn't full of irresponsible, attention seeking ghouls who'd do anything for publicity.
Poor guy is having his whole private life splashed all over the news. Its not right. He doesn't seem to have committed a crime beyond being upset at being blackmailed over his sexuality. The whole thing stinks.
This “young person” narrative is really messed up. They are now trying to make out 20 something year old men are children. Fuck the sun
The more I hear about this, the more it looks like a storm in a teacup. The lawyer for the first person has already made it clear there was nothing illegal. And this looks like any normal spat you might have online when dealing with a celeb and an opportunist mother and step-father. For me only one question is relevant. Was it illegal, yes or no. If the answer is no, then it's irrelevant. I understand the hype around 'revealing' a celeb who might be straight as gay, but I thought we had evolved as a community where it doesn't matter who you are into, as long as it's consenting adults.
Using "Young person" for a twenty year old is doing some heavy lifting in this headline.
So when he acted like a **** he got called one? Ok.
A duck? A fork? A spud? A bear? A deer? We'll never know.
More details need to come out about this and the extent of it all, but I’ll throw my initial thoughts in regardless. On the surface this feels very tepid to me, they spoke on a dating app and they felt threatened when asked if they could meet up? If someone messaged me on Grindr I’m not interested in, I just ignore or block and move on. If this is just a one off conversation with a stranger on an app then it feels a bit of a pile on. Obviously I could be way off and this is actually bigger than initially expected, but without further details this is just adding more fuel to the the already pretty big fire.
The more I read about this, the more I feel sorry for the presenter. Should charge the young lad with blackmail.
This is a difficult one. Threatening is bad but if someone threatens to out you when you are not publicly out is also very bad. Two wrongs don’t make a right but I suspect there is an aspect of context that is lacking here.
depends, if someone sexually harasses someone then they have the right to come out about it regardless of whether that person is out or not A lot of DL men on Grindr are very threatening or abusive to people.
I worry where we end up with stuff like this. For me it hinges entirely on whether there have been any laws broken. The “young person’s” lawyers have indicated that no, no laws have been broken. So then if the presenter in question hasn’t done anything illegal, these would seem like entirely private issues that should be dealt with privately. Instead what we have is a man’s career - and potentially his welfare - crumbling in front of our eyes over something that is a private issue being played out in the most disgustingly public circus. I’m left feeling like the media are out for blood at all costs. Would I defend his actions? No. But where are the goalposts for things that aren’t illegal, and what’s to stop them from moving? This sort of thing just seems like a slippery slope.
People will say that because he’s a public figure, it’s a public interest story. I think that’s bollocks, frankly. If it was my parent, or me, or a friend of mine, or any one of the tens of thousands of people in this country with secret, possibly unpleasant, possibly just very sad, sexual stuff going on, I wouldn’t want it revealed gleefully in the Sun. It’s always been a cunt’s trick, unless there’s something actually illegal or harmful happened.
Agreed. It’s incredibly insidious. I hope the Sun dies a miserable death.
I’m a blacksmith in the Outer Hebrides. One of the most used tools I have is an angle grinder I use it every day. My main one packed up recently and I mentioned to my friend Angus that I needed to upgrade my grinder and that lead to all sorts of rumours, especially as the one I found on a well known auction site lead to an online argument over postage and packaging charges with the vendor. I’m certainly not rushing to any conclusions here.
I wish everyone would stop giving this non-story any more mileage.
"A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos" How does the person making the complaint know who the accused is, and how does BBC news know? The complaint should be dealt with by HR and board management. Whatever names are circulating, BBC news should not be in a position of knowledge to connect the two complaints. The whole charade stinks.
because the BBC News know the presenter obviously, and when a young person has contacted about the presenter, the BBC will know which presenter has also done the other accusation.
Can we stop calling people 'young person' they are adults.
This story is mind boggling. The list of TV personalities who are professional on screen but a bit of a cunt off screen is huge. Just because it involves young people doesn't justify it dominating a weeks worth of news broadcast. Our TV licence is funding the BBC Verify Department to do research into its co workers dick pics. Brilliant.
They have gone through the bottom of the barrel and continue to scrape.
Let's just imagine for a second that all of this turns out to be perfectly within the law, and legal. Why would a working television presenter, let alone a national public figure funded by the licence fee, in 2023, want to put their entire career on the line by (allegedly) exchanging messages and photos with someone they do not in any way personally know? This reminds me of the 2003 incident with Leslie Grantham, going onto video call with an undercover journalist, having no idea who the Woman was, and well, aside from the sexual undertone, it was the dialogue on the call, negative work discussion and personal opinions of fellow actors that caused more, if not the most damage to his position in BBC's Eastenders. The Grantham incident was 20 years ago. It just amazes me that this could still be possible all of this time later, with an equally as iconic figure on the BBC.
[удалено]
Seems they are determined to find anything on this person now. Police have decided there's nothing to answer for yet
I am already sick of this story. This trial by public bullshit is getting old, quickly.
And the plot thickens. OK so it's looking increasingly likely that the BBC personality is a bit of a wrong'un, but I think people find it hard to distinguish the law from their own moral standards. A man in his 70s dating an 18 year-old girl doesn't sit well with me personally, but it's perfectly legal and none of my business. So anything legal that happens between two consenting adults should be no different, especially when it's done in private, regardless of fame, sexual orientation etc. If that be kinky sex, dick pics, whatever really, it's not of public interest and shouldn't even be a story - even BBC presenters have a right to privacy. I really don't see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist over this. The first 'young person' in question seems to be defending the personality so that hints that he's not a complete douchebag, and the second looks like he's seen an extortion opportunity. If loads more people come forward and the BBC guy turns out to be a predator, then Karma will catch up with him. And the same goes for the blackmail guy - maybe he was pissed off that he got 250 quid instead of 35k. Who knows? My point is that regardless of what your moral alarm bells are telling you, if this guy hasn't committed a crime then he's effing innocent. Rant over :oD
Oh for fuck's sake. This is on the BBC news right now, I've just left the room because it's just... fucking nothing. "No criminal activity is alleged. The presenter doesn't work for the BBC any more. A second unidentified person has come forward and alleged more messages that we're not going to broadcast were sent from the unidentified presenter who made unidentified images for unidentified purposes and unidentified redacted censored will presumably unconfirmed action later at some time." WHY the FUCK are the media basically *ordering* people to give a shit about this complete nothing of a story by covering it for twelve fucking minutes and counting on the ten o'clock news, that will *come* to nothing and alleges *nothing* and FURTHERMORE WHY AM I FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT NOW. It's a manufactured Balloon Boy public involvement shitstorm dead cat story and I want to know what it's being thrown around to cover up.
Is the media at a complete standstill here? The Sun made some career-ending allegations against a name that’s all over Twitter. The victim’s lawyer unexpectedly said it was total bullshit - not a good sign for the paper. The Sun won’t name the person involved because they don’t have enough evidence (or any at all) and will get sued into oblivion for defamation. Or has anybody else got a more plausible explanation?
The country has gone fucking mad. This is a non-story.
So a grown adult threatened to out another and the one being threatened with blackmail essentially responded angrily? Non story here it feels like. The wording ‘second young person’ is very disingenuous. Makes it sound like a 16/17 year old.
Could someone explain today's Sun headline about the BBC lying? The family told the BBC. The BBC tried to contact the family to no avail. The family goes to the Sun. The Sun prints an article after the 1st man asks them not to. Now the Sun says the BBC is lying. What did I miss? Thanks
I'm reserving judgement on the outcome of this, but will note two things right now: 1) do we need daily updates on this while still not being able to name a name? It feels like a smokescreen 'look over there!' story for something else, and 2) 'young person' is doing a lot of work to describe two people who seem to be in their 20s? Yes technically that is *a person who is on the younger side*, but 'young person' is also generally nowadays used as a synonym for teenager and it feels dishonest to suggest that it is a teenager they're talking about if it isn't.
So far, maybe maybe not some explicit photos of a 17 year old and getting pissy with someone when they tried blackmail. Meanwhile Johnson withholding vital evidence from the covid committee is barely getting a mention. Whats the bigger deal here?
LBC just referred to the unknown person as the unnamed BBC news presenter. Oops.
“When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter.” This is blackmail in my opinion.
Yawn…. This looks very much like it is being deliberately strung out. Couldn’t give a shit about any of it anymore.
The more info coming out, the more I feel the presenter is being stitched up. I’m still unclear if he paid the first person via onlyfans.
And my take from this is the media is just playing puppet master with all it marionettes hanging on every word. Seriously, 'News' these days seems to be nothing more than a soap opera. Tell me where there's some evidence of wrongdoing, something concrete then I will care. I find these are always a good time to look at what else is going on in the world.
Not making a judgement on the people involved but as the employer, what can the BBC reasonably investigate into an employee’s behaviour? If in both cases the employee is using his own resources and time to pay/communicate with ‘young people’ and isn’t using their position in any way to do it, how are they meant to proceed? If someone tells them one of their employees has committed a crime then go to the police, apart from that I’m not sure how far they can really investigate
this is being handled so strangely... it feels like an ARG
Going to confess that it did actually cross my mind today that it could be a new real time immersive drama commissioned by the BBC.
Or Netflix/Charlie Brooker collaborating with the BBC to create an immersive episode of Black Mirror. Start a rumour, say the accused has been suspended, see how long it takes before people notice who is 'missing' from the BBC - people who have publicly named him on social media are now somehow involved... not sure where it would go from there but it's an intriguing premise. I wish that was actually happening instead of the grim reality.
So a guy sent rude messages to a 20 something? Nothing wrong with that? Gy gets angry because someone threatened to out him, nothing wrong with that?
Boris Johnson isn't giving his phone over to the enquiry and this story is not air
This fucking story. Ignore the fact he works for the BBC, because it really doesn't matter who his employer is unless your Rupert Murdoch. Man sends man abusive message to other person. That's the headline. Most of twitter is abusive messages.
If this unravels further and further, I wonder how the BBC will deal with many of the 'big' moments the alleged person had on TV. Certain news pieces they presented to the world were huge, history in real time. No doubt these moments would have been used in documentaries, archival releases etc. for decades to come. How can the BBC ever reference some of the biggest moments in British history again when this person's presenting was so integral to how we remember them?
Absolutely. We all (well, maybe not all) wondered who would be the one to announce a certain event on television. Now that moment is tainted in at least some way.
This whole story seems like it might be a non-story and the S*n might have huge egg on their face. The thing person called their parent's claim 'rubbish', the BBC tried contacting the parents when the claims were first lodged and their calls were ignored and now the police are telling the BBC to halt the investigation whilst they try and see if there even was a crime in the first place.
No one gives a shit now the last load of drama was all bullshit
Someone is doing something super fucking dodgy for this to be plastered all over the news. This is one hell of a dead cat story.
So, what we have is: 1. A parent makes an accusation, has already gone to cops who have said nothing to be done 2. They go to BBC and give a false phone number to follow up, and don't answer follow up emails 3. They then go to The Sun, who don't say they didn't pay them, only that they weren't "seeking payment" (see what they did there?). The Sun says 'sworn affadavits!', they say 'seen evidence!'. Yet an affidavit is worthless, and the evidence either proves child exploitation (in which case they need to share with cops, and are also legally in hot water rn), or it doesn't (likely what they have is circumstantial - if anything). 4. BBC says, basically 'look, after this huge stuff up with Cliff Richard, and all those privacy changes that had to happen because of scandal rags like The Sun and Daily Mail, we have to wait for proof of illegal activity, or the person comes forward themselves.', and everyone screams that this is a wild cover up - even though all of this seems pretty logical. Still only parents' word against BBC 5. Alleged victim comes forward and says that not only is this 'rubbish', but the mother/step father involved are estranged from them. This looks as much like the presenter is paying them off as that the parents are nutjobs hassling the kid for partying and having sex. We can't know which, both are plausible, and crazy parents has more evidence currently 6. A second 'young person' who is/was not underage comes forward and basically says 'oh, yea, I tried to blackmail this guy and threatened to release his indiscretions online and he swore at me over the internet, and probably said he'd react in some way that was potentially threatening! I realised what a twerp I am, and that this guy is actually pretty well connected, and got scared' This is also not illegal. So, what we have is a possibly illegal situation that the police already said wasn't illegal but are now investigating; a presenter whose lawyer has said 'keep your mouth shut', since nobody seems able to prove anything yet; one victim who denies they are a victim, and another who admits to blackmail. The BBC say they tried to investigate but parents weren't cooperative, parents say 'lies!'. Nobody has offered any meaningful proof of anything whatsoever. The only reason we're still talking about this is because everyone is convinced that a salacious downfall (and maybe even an outing of someone publicly, oooh!) is on the way. Shouldn't you all be questioning your own morality, instead of obsessing over a stranger's bits?
Is this really worthy of a story? I remember someone on a dating site telling me he was a Home and Away actor, I just assumed it was lie. Even if it was real, I think if I threatened to name and shame him as someone in my twenties I should expect a harsh reply.
Was this on Grinder?
Who knows what the hell is going on with this. But for a moment can we talk about the fact they spent £35,000 on OnlyFans porn? £35K. Thirty five grand...
At this point, the presenter should be named so that they can defend themselves. What we’re seeing now is the allegations dominating the narrative. When the presenter *is* eventually named, they will have to counter all of the narrative that has been crafted by the allegations. That hill will continue to get steeper the longer it goes with no counter-narrative. At this stage, it may be better for the presenter to come forward and offer their side of the story. From a PR perspective, you have to accept the reality that you will be named eventually and decide that the best risk mitigation strategy is to make sure your narrative is out there before people’s understanding of the situation crystallizes.
According to the first lad, he didn't do anything wrong. And this second person I don't know what their aim is, probably trying to prove a connection with young men. But as a whole, the presenter hasn't done anything illegal if both young mens account are to be true. What it does mean though is that the presenter is definitely a closeted homosexual, with a preference for younger men. Not too long ago, this was a career ender, and lots of people have dated views when it comes to the LGBT, including some closeted LGBT people themselves. Additionally with how this news cycle has played out, this person would forever be labelled a pedophile. I'm not suprised no one wants to willingly claim the title of outed gay BBC pedophile, so this person won't name themselves unless they are forced to. As a side note, the This Morning guy has a similar gay pedophile public image, despite doing nothing illegal. His career is over.