B.B.C.

[Minky]

3 hours ago, ditchman said:

JD is well known for attempting to auction off his "Y" fronts......so obviously moves in the right circles to obtain this sort of information  

Obviously.   All of this malarkey just don't sit right.   Why didnt the parents go directly to the police.?  Why haven't plod gone and had a word in this  individuals ear..? Whats it really got to do with the bbc.?  They should have said right from the start "what xy or z do out of work ain't nutting to do with us".  Then if this turns out to be illegal let plod deal with it.

This is a big problem with the bbc.  It's operated by weakling lefty, effeminate woke sorts.

[ditchman]

27 minutes ago, Minky said:

Obviously.   All of this malarkey just don't sit right.   Why didnt the parents go directly to the police.?  Why haven't plod gone and had a word in this  individuals ear..? Whats it really got to do with the bbc.?  They should have said right from the start "what xy or z do out of work ain't nutting to do with us".  Then if this turns out to be illegal let plod deal with it.

This is a big problem with the bbc.  It's operated by weakling lefty, effeminate woke sorts.

i think alot of it is due to money ....or lack of....and the need to aquire

[Rim Fire]

12 hours ago, strimmer_13 said:

Haven't people had the pics of a certain Welsh news reporter? 

i gave a clue on page two where i said watch the BBC news at 10 

The pic is doing the rounds on WhatsApp 

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Rim Fire said:

i gave a clue on page two where i said watch the BBC news at 10 

Pretty obvious when the once front figure is missing. But again. Innocent until proven guilty. 

 

[millrace]

The second accuser,,,found him ( tv person) on dating web site threatens to expose him then get angry msg back....and now runs to press to sell story....you couldn't make it up!!!!

[Penelope]

17 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Everyone who can see a payday, will be coming out the woodwork.

By all accounts the family of the first individual, are not asking for anything.

14 hours ago, scolopax said:

It was on their Facebook Page

Ah, I looked on their website. Huwge thanks.

10 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

If he tells you it’s raining then it’s raining, end of

Indeed, who would argue!

[Newbie to this]

13 minutes ago, Penelope said:

By all accounts the family of the first individual, are not asking for anything.

Ahh, but they are not the victim.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Ahh, but they are not the victim.

But he doesn’t consider himself a ‘victim’; he has stated nothing unlawful took place. 

[Newbie to this]

25 minutes ago, Scully said:

But he doesn’t consider himself a ‘victim’; he has stated nothing unlawful took place. 

Maybe he doesn't (maybe he has already had his payday to keep quiet 🤷‍♂️), but maybe the others that are coming out the woodwork, do. Who knows. Still think my original statement, about others looking for a payday stands.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Newbie to this

[ditchman]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe he doesn't (maybe he has already had his payday to keep quiet 🤷‍♂️), but maybe the others that are coming out the woodwork, do. Who knows. Still think my original statement, about others looking for a payday stands.

a 3rd person has come forward now........................a spondulics sniffer maybe ?

[Scully]

11 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe he doesn't (maybe he has already had his payday to keep quiet 🤷‍♂️), but maybe the others that are coming out the woodwork, do. Who knows. Still think my original statement, about others looking for a payday stands.

He has said through his lawyer that nothing illegal took place. JVine has said he knows the presenter and has spoken to him, and that he is very angry. IF he hasnt done anything illegal then he has every right to be angry. 
So far the only thing he is guilty of is being incredibly stupid to believe that he wouldn’t be ‘outed’ by someone he relied on for discretion. 🤷‍♂️

I’m not sure how anyone who frequents a dating site and receives money for services rendered can consider themselves a ‘victim’; they’re there by choice. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Scully

[Newbie to this]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

He has said through his lawyer that nothing illegal took place. JVine has said he knows the presenter and has spoken to him, and that he is very angry. IF he hasnt done anything illegal then he has every right to be angry. 
So far the only thing he is guilty of is being incredibly stupid to believe that he wouldn’t be ‘outed’ by someone he relied on for discretion. 🤷‍♂️

I’m not sure how anyone who frequents a dating site and receives money for services rendered can consider themselves a ‘victim’; they’re there by choice. 

None of which I disagree with, my original statement was

18 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Everyone who can see a payday, will be coming out the woodwork.

And I stand by it. Others are now coming out of the woodwork.

It was this that was then being questioned, saying the family are not asking for anything.

I just poited out that the family are not the perceived victim.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Newbie to this

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

a 3rd person has come forward now........................a spondulics sniffer maybe ?

update now................

a 4th person has now come forward.....

jeesus what a debarcle

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

None of which I disagree with, my original statement was

And I stand by it. Others are now coming out of the woodwork.

It was this that was then being questioned, saying the family are not asking for anything.

I just poited out that the family are not the perceived victim.

Yes, others are now coming out of the woodwork ( perhaps they’re sniffing a pay day ) but one has claimed the presenter broke covid rules to visit him to take photos, for crying out loud! Is that the best they can do? I mean, doesn’t that mean THEY themselves broke covid rules also! 
I don’t know anyone who didn’t break covid rules at some point! Jesus H! 
Regards your last paragraph, it is the family which has made the original complaint, rather than the young man involved, so just who is the perceived victim? 

[ditchman]

standing back from all this just for a bit.....what do we actually have..........a middle aged man sending pics of his bottom and willy to someone else.....and that is more or less it...big deal

but what we DO HAVE in this country...is alot of very unhappy people...who have virtually no control over their lives as the bloody politicle class treat us like scum.............and we have no redress..............(not even at election time..as they all bloody lie thro' their teeth)

the person acused is percieved as an establishment figure.....he has peared above the parapit and everyone is trying to shoot him down at any cost....they dont care about the families involved....it is the "establishment" they are after to try and get some payback for the carp and mismanagment we get from westminster.......they smell blood and they will cry havoc ..let lose the dogs of war...to be able to get back at the bloody establishment

thats what i rekon

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Yes, others are now coming out of the woodwork ( perhaps they’re sniffing a pay day ) but one has claimed the presenter broke covid rules to visit him to take photos, for crying out loud! Is that the best they can do? I mean, doesn’t that mean THEY themselves broke covid rules also! 
I don’t know anyone who didn’t break covid rules at some point! Jesus H! 
Regards your last paragraph, it is the family which has made the original complaint, rather than the young man involved, so just who is the perceived victim? 

There would be no problem with the 'what consenting adults get up to...' argument were it not for the fact that The BBC news organisation (of which this man is their most senior 'face'):

1)  spent months pontificating over cake/ignoring curry.

2) Lecturing us over these insane COVID rules

3) The people in question were barely consenting adults, and some were 'vulnerable' substance addicts

4)  He's been contacting them pleading not to take this forward

5) His actions have dragged the already majorly tarnished brand through the mud.

6) His (publicly disclosed) salary means he has sufficient funds to afford discrete high-class rent-boys if that was his thing.  'Grooming' crack addicts displays massively poor judgement.

No 4 alone should be grounds for instant dismissal.

Any alleged criminality is almost incidental to this, let the police work out if there's criminal case to answer or not. 

Yet still the BBC lets this drag on.  What the actual hell are they playing at?

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Yes, others are now coming out of the woodwork ( perhaps they’re sniffing a pay day ) but one has claimed the presenter broke covid rules to visit him to take photos, for crying out loud! Is that the best they can do? I mean, doesn’t that mean THEY themselves broke covid rules also! 
I don’t know anyone who didn’t break covid rules at some point! Jesus H! 
Regards your last paragraph, it is the family which has made the original complaint, rather than the young man involved, so just who is the perceived victim? 

I get your points although assuming the accused is guilty (and I'm not saying he is).

Soliciting someone under 18 to send explicit photos, regardless of whether that person wanted to send them or not, is not victimless, the whole point of having to be 18 to do so, I would imagine is to protect someone who is too young from making a decision that they later regret for the rest of their lives. The victim in this case may not feel like one now, but could do in 10 or 20 years time.

[Yellow Bear]

39 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

There would be no problem with the 'what consenting adults get up to...' argument were it not for the fact that The BBC news organisation (of which this man is their most senior 'face'):

1)  spent months pontificating over cake/ignoring curry.

2) Lecturing us over these insane COVID rules

3) The people in question were barely consenting adults, and some were 'vulnerable' substance addicts

4)  He's been contacting them pleading not to take this forward

5) His actions have dragged the already majorly tarnished brand through the mud.

6) His (publicly disclosed) salary means he has sufficient funds to afford discrete high-class rent-boys if that was his thing.  'Grooming' crack addicts displays massively poor judgement.

No 4 alone should be grounds for instant dismissal.

Any alleged criminality is almost incidental to this, let the police work out if there's criminal case to answer or not. 

Yet still the BBC lets this drag on.  What the actual hell are they playing at?

This pretty much sums it up, but their double standards are such that the name would have been in banner headlines had it been a tory MP or business leader.

[Rim Fire]

7 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

Pretty obvious when the once front figure is missing. But again. Innocent until proven guilty. 

 

That's why i didn't name him 

[shaun4860]

Can we please try not to identify him directly or through subtle hints.

Leave that to the media/press

Ta

[Scully]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

There would be no problem with the 'what consenting adults get up to...' argument were it not for the fact that The BBC news organisation (of which this man is their most senior 'face'):

1)  spent months pontificating over cake/ignoring curry.

2) Lecturing us over these insane COVID rules

3) The people in question were barely consenting adults, and some were 'vulnerable' substance addicts

4)  He's been contacting them pleading not to take this forward

5) His actions have dragged the already majorly tarnished brand through the mud.

6) His (publicly disclosed) salary means he has sufficient funds to afford discrete high-class rent-boys if that was his thing.  'Grooming' crack addicts displays massively poor judgement.

No 4 alone should be grounds for instant dismissal.

Any alleged criminality is almost incidental to this, let the police work out if there's criminal case to answer or not. 

Yet still the BBC lets this drag on.  What the actual hell are they playing at?

No one knows ( yet ) if he’s groomed anyone, and even though the entire farce displays excruciatingly poor judgement, that isn’t illegal either ( yet ) and I too wouldn’t be happy if those I had expected discretion from had decided to do the opposite. 
I’m not defending his actions at all, I just believe that until he’s actually charged with something definite and it all goes to court, none of us will actually know. 
If he’s guilty of something then by all means the police should throw the full weight of the law at him, but no one seems to know if any laws ( no matter which ones ) have indeed been broken! 

The thing that puzzles me is why it’s the BBC investigating and NOT the rozzers? What’s that all about? 
 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Scully

[Scully]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I get your points although assuming the accused is guilty (and I'm not saying he is).

Soliciting someone under 18 to send explicit photos, regardless of whether that person wanted to send them or not, is not victimless, the whole point of having to be 18 to do so, I would imagine is to protect someone who is too young from making a decision that they later regret for the rest of their lives. The victim in this case may not feel like one now, but could do in 10 or 20 years time.

But again, until charges are brought based on evidence, no one knows if there are victims, nor who they are.
It may transpire that the presenter himself is yet a victim, of blackmail. We just don’t know, nor will we until it’s all out in the open.

The initial complaint was brought forward by the lads parents, not the lad himself, who has stated through his lawyer that nothing illegal took place. 
There are many ‘victims’ who for reasons of their own, decide to make complaints 10 or 20 years after the event. 
One thing is certain, no matter how this all unravels, his career is finished. 


 

[London Best]

43 minutes ago, Scully said:

The thing that puzzles me is why it’s the BBC investigating and NOT the rozzers? What’s that all about? 
 

Not specifically in this case, but I get sick of hearing on BBC news the phrase, ‘A BBC investigation has learned.......’ 

The BBC should not be investigating anything and should stick to their job, which is broadcasting.

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, London Best said:

Not specifically in this case, but I get sick of hearing on BBC news the phrase, ‘A BBC investigation has learned.......’ 

The BBC should not be investigating anything and should stick to their job, which is broadcasting.

I suppose it’s because that when alls said and done, they're just journalists; that’s all they are. 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

No one knows ( yet ) if he’s groomed anyone, and even though the entire farce displays excruciatingly poor judgement, that isn’t illegal either ( yet ) 

As I said, the potential criminality is not the issue here, it is his personal conduct that falls far below the standard expected of someone in 'public life' whose (exceedingly generous) salary is picked up by the tax payer.

1 hour ago, Scully said:

The thing that puzzles me is why it’s the BBC investigating and NOT the rozzers? What’s that all about? 

They're only investigating the poor personal conduct of one of their employees who is currently trashing their brand, same as any other employer.

1 hour ago, Scully said:

One thing is certain, no matter how this all unravels, his career is finished. 

Absolutely, so as he hasn't had the good grace to fall on his sword, he should be out.

 

1 hour ago, shaun4860 said:

Can we please try not to identify him directly or through subtle hints.

Leave that to the media/press

Ta

Way, way, way too late for that, the name is all over the press.  But I will of course defer to the mods' wishes.