BBC presenter

[scawsby steve]

I wonder who it is.

Sounds a dirty b*st*rd. Let's hope he gets what's coming to him.

[normal rules]

I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.

[Filo]

I would advise anyone thinking of throwing a name out there to refrain from doing so, until the person has officially been named to avoid the risk of litigation

[ncRover]

Let’s see who’s presenting the news at 10 tonight…

[Glyn_Wigley]

I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.

Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?

[ravenrover]

I can't for the life of me understand why this is headline news
Just seen a comment from a Minister saying it's very serious and needs urgent investigation, pity this type of thing isn't taken as seriously when MPs are involved

[Filo]

I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.

Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?

Although the age of consent is 16, it is a crime to posses these kind of images of anyone under 18

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.

Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?

Although the age of consent is 16, it is a crime to posses these kind of images of anyone under 18

Which is a bit odd really that they're different you'd think they should be the same.

I can't really get my head around why the bloke whoever it is has done it, people are just bizarre.

[TonySoprano]

The name I've been given, by someone who claims to be in the know, has shocked me

[Colin C No.3]

This is a clearly a very ‘sick’ man.

It seems the higher up the ‘money ladder’ they are & the more ‘famous’ they become, all sense & decency goes out of the window.

Jimmy Saville was ‘untouchable’ when alive & abusing young girls.

Clearly the same sickening behaviour prevails today.

‘They’ truly must believe their ‘status’ will protect them.

Unbelievable.

[normal rules]

I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.

Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?

Whilst the age of consent for she is 16, the sending and distribution of Indecent images of children ( and for this it’s under 18) is currently against the law. And it would be aggravated if the adult subject encouraged/ instigated this.

[tommy toes]

Careful.
'Anyone speculating today on social media about the identity of the presenter should think very, very carefully about the consequences. They could be sued for the harm they cause and financially ruined.'

[normal rules]

And now the Met are “waiting” to establish if a crime has been committed. Bloody hell, I know I would not be allowed this much discretion.
If the lad was 17 at the time of the requested pics/clips, then that’s that. It’s that simple.
Of course, the lads family went to the bbc first and not the police. Which is interesting in itself. what they expected to achieve from this is anyone’s guess. Early indications is that it was not financially motivated. ?
Maybe the family don’t want to support a prosecution.?
Nevertheless, the reputational damage will be catastrophic for the subject concerned when this gets out. Which it will.
Money talks at the end of the day. This is about to go very, very public and get very, very messy. And we all know how that ends up.
The baying hounds of the media and their public are chomping at the bit.

[Donnywolf]

Met Police already issuing proceedings against people who have wrongly named " potential perpetrators" and been incorrect. I think they also issue proceedings even if someone named the person because it can lead to complications reducing chance of a fair trial


Filo did warn of this above

[Colin C No.3]

I’ll bring you a cake with a file inside it Nudga.

[Bristol Red Rover]

It's always worth remembering that whilst high profile cases like this deservedly get ultra attention and usually justice, less high profile cases tend to get less justice. Such is our system.

[Colin C No.3]

It's always worth remembering that whilst high profile cases like this deservedly get ultra attention and usually justice, less high profile cases tend to get less justice. Such is our system.

What justice was meted out to Boris Johnson?

You don’t get much more high profile than being a lying PM.

[MachoMadness]

The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.

Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!

[ncRover]

The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.

Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!

She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.

I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.

[normal rules]

£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)

[IDM]

The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.

Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!

She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.

I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.

Yet plenty of folks have..

[Branton Red]

£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)

He's 20 not 17.

Innocent till proven guilty.

The individual may be guilty of an offence or they may not be I've no idea. So I'm not going to speculate.

I'll condemn them if they're found guilty in a court of law. Not based on the wording of a newspaper article.

Trial by media is never healthy - ask Cliff Richard

[scawsby steve]

Sorry to be pedantic, guys, but it's not a "she", it's a "he".

[drfchound]

Sorry to be pedantic, guys, but it's not a "she", it's a "he".

You see, this is where things get mixed up.
Some saying she and others, including the tv saying he.
Some saying 17 years old and others saying 20.
I have seen people saying names suggested of who the bbc presenter might be,  which is a bit dodgy.

[rich1471]

We all know who the presenter in question is , He was 17 when the first photos were sent and now he is 20 and I will say the photos don't look photo look real ,but what I find admirable is they don't want to press charges,they just want the money to stop so there son cannot keep buying drugs ,they don't want money from this

[wilts rover]

Apparently The Sc*m were sent information from the alleged victim's lawyer on Friday saying the story they had was incorrect. They chose not to publish this or even make any reference to it.

When has a newspaper ever before refused to publish a statement by the actual person at the centre of a story? Very strange.

The young boy was 17 when the contact first began (via their Onlyfans apparently). They are now 20.

[RobTheRover]

A reminder. Do NOT post names up here until/if anything is confirmed.

Thanks.

[MachoMadness]

The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.

Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!

She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.

I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.

"The whole thing" in this case being all the illegal stuff. If this presenter is silly enough to pay £30,000 to an only fans model then that's not a newsworthy scandal.

Between this and the police declining to investigate for now there will be some squeaky sphincters at news corp HQ tonight.

[normal rules]

£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)

He's 20 not 17.

Innocent till proven guilty.

The individual may be guilty of an offence or they may not be I've no idea. So I'm not going to speculate.

I'll condemn them if they're found guilty in a court of law. Not based on the wording of a newspaper article.

Trial by media is never healthy - ask Cliff Richard

17 at the time of the alleged payments and contact

[ncRover]

He's not presenting the news at 10