Intrigue of unnamed BBC presenter

R

Rose65

Well-known Member
Location
United Kingdom
The current allegations are dreadful, it is naturally intriguing as to who it might be about. Yet we must wait for the police and BBC to do what is necessary and then announce who it is.

Very frightening is the way people are guessing out loud. It is very cruel and I feel so sorry for presenters who are having to defend themselves.

I kind of dread the name. We grow to think we trust and respect TV personalities as familiar faces in a way. Yet we can never know their true selves. Another thing that gets me is loads of people in the studios must know who it is, so it's amazing to have been secret for so long!
 

I think we'll find out tomorrow... I'm guessing it's a BBC radio presenter...but who knows... we won't until we do..
 

Alligatorob said:
Interesting, your system is different from ours. Little anonymity or protection here for those under investigation in the US, except maybe for minors.

Probably a good idea, no need to publicize unproveable accusations.
Click to expand...
No our system is just like yours except when it comes to the BBC... who are a force unto their own... and covering up for paedophiles has become a dirty habit...of theirs...right now the BBC are facing government questions as to why they're keeping this name under wraps even tho' they've suspended him from his job..
 
Rose65 said:
The current allegations are dreadful, it is naturally intriguing as to who it might be about. Yet we must wait for the police and BBC to do what is necessary and then announce who it is.

Very frightening is the way people are guessing out loud. It is very cruel and I feel so sorry for presenters who are having to defend themselves.

I kind of dread the name. We grow to think we trust and respect TV personalities as familiar faces in a way. Yet we can never know their true selves. Another thing that gets me is loads of people in the studios must know who it is, so it's amazing to have been secret for so long!
Click to expand...
What is this about?
 
RadishRose said:
Thanks Holly. I see the presenter has been taken off air, so you guys might soon know who he is.... when he doesn't show up.
Click to expand...
lol..if only it were that easy..the BBC covers hundreds of shows .. as well as almost as many Radio shows..... so for example if he's a radio presenter and has a Saturday show.. they could easily say he's on holiday next week.. if he's not revealed by then.... or he could be someone who presents a show which is daytime.. so hardly anyone watches. When they say ''well known'' he might be only well known to a certain demographic etc... and the majority not have a clue who he is...

However I have my own private guess at who it might be..no reason other than instinct... so we'll see..
 
It's legal reasons why media and BBC will not name the person. Guidelines must be followed and quite rightly. There is a chance allegations might be false, evidence might not be clear, a person's reputation would be damaged even if innocent.

A case to remember is that of Cliff Richard who was treated appallingly over some allegations. They searched his home without proper grounds, he rightly sued them. I was in tears reading his account of what happened, he suffered dreadfully over it all as he was totally innocent. That must never ever happen again. So yes the authorities must act according to law and all guidelines.

I must say how likely is someone to make large traceable electronic payments, leave video evidence and images of their alleged wrongdoing? Why would a high profile presenter put themselves at such risk? The police must confirm absolutely irrefutable evidence before any charges are made. This may not be at all what it looks like.
 
hollydolly said:
lol..if only it were that easy..the BBC covers hundreds of shows .. as well as almost as many Radio shows..... so for example if he's a radio presenter and has a Saturday show.. they could easily say he's on holiday next week.. if he's not revealed by then.... or he could be someone who presents a show which is daytime.. so hardly anyone watches. When they say ''well known'' he might be only well known to a certain demographic etc... and the majority not have a clue who he is...

However I have my own private guess at who it might be..no reason other than instinct... so we'll see..
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Rose65 said:
It's legal reasons why media and BBC will not name the person. Guidelines must be followed and quite rightly. There is a chance allegations might be false, evidence might not be clear, a person's reputation would be damaged even if innocent.

A case to remember is that of Cliff Richard who was treated appallingly over some allegations. They searched his home without proper grounds, he rightly sued them. I was in tears reading his account of what happened, he suffered dreadfully over it all as he was totally innocent. That must never ever happen again. So yes the authorities must act according to law and all guidelines.

I must say how likely is someone to make large traceable electronic payments, leave video evidence and images of their alleged wrongdoing? Why would a high profile presenter put themselves at such risk? The police must confirm absolutely irrefutable evidence before any charges are made. This may not be at all what it looks like.
Click to expand...
The allegations seem to be true. The mother alerted the BBC 2 months ago by producing evidence in the form of the videos where this presenter is seen sitting in his underwear making suggestions as to what he required the boy to do.. so they're under no illusions as to who it is..

You ask why would a high profile presenter put themselves at such risk... you need not look any further than Jimmy Saville.. and more recently Philip Schofield.. 2 of the highest profile presenters on TV
 
I think the most important thing here is the anonymity of the child and his family. If that means not releasing the presenter's name for now, then so be it.

The most important thing, as I see it, is the police securing evidence first, whether it be communications, photos, or anything else. Whether that is on a BBC computer, home computer, or other device somewhere else, or even printed photos.

The fact that it has been reported that £35,000 was paid is significant. An obvious question could be why so much money and whether photos were being passed on for money to a 'ring' of people. Is there evidence that is already insecure, in the hands of undesirable third parties?

I'm sure we can wait for the name of the presenter; it's of no importance at the time. What is important is the protection of children and the anonymity of the child and parents.

The other worrying thing is the time it took for anything significant to happen; it was reported to the BBC in mid May. Stinks of a 'ring' of people protecting him; or protecting themselves.
 
hollydolly said:
The allegations seem to be true. The mother alerted the BBC 2 months ago by producing evidence in the form of the videos where this presenter is seen sitting in his underwear making suggestions as to what he required the boy to do.. so they're under no illusions as to who it is..

You ask why would a high profile presenter put themselves at such risk... you need not look any further than Jimmy Saville.. and more recently Philip Schofield.. 2 of the highest profile presenters on TV
Click to expand...
Those two were not so stupid as to actually leave clear evidence - were they? I don't think.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I think the most important thing here is the anonymity of the child and his family. If that means not releasing the presenter's name for now, then so be it.

The most important thing, as I see it, is the police securing evidence first, whether it be communications, photos, or anything else. Whether that is on a BBC computer, home computer, or other device somewhere else, or even printed photos.

The fact that it has been reported that £35,000 was paid is significant. An obvious question could be why so much money and whether photos were being passed on for money to a 'ring' of people. Is there evidence that is already insecure, in the hands of undesirable third parties?

I'm sure we can wait for the name of the presenter; it's of no importance at the time. What is important is the protection of children and the anonymity of the child and parents.

The other worrying thing is the time it took for anything significant to happen; it was reported to the BBC in mid May. Stinks of a 'ring' of people protecting him; or protecting themselves.
Click to expand...
Was the young person a girl or boy? The wording has been so careful so far.
I get an impression it could be a young girl involved.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I think the most important thing here is the anonymity of the child and his family. If that means not releasing the presenter's name for now, then so be it.

The most important thing, as I see it, is the police securing evidence first, whether it be communications, photos, or anything else. Whether that is on a BBC computer, home computer, or other device somewhere else, or even printed photos.

The fact that it has been reported that £35,000 was paid is significant. An obvious question could be why so much money and whether photos were being passed on for money to a 'ring' of people. Is there evidence that is already insecure, in the hands of undesirable third parties?

I'm sure we can wait for the name of the presenter; it's of no importance at the time. What is important is the protection of children and the anonymity of the child and parents.

The other worrying thing is the time it took for anything significant to happen; it was reported to the BBC in mid May. Stinks of a 'ring' of people protecting him; or protecting themselves.
Click to expand...
I truly hope it was not so, involving others. That is just too awful to contemplate.
 
Rose65 said:
Those two were not so stupid as to actually leave clear evidence - were they? I don't think.
Click to expand...

Maybe this particular presenter now became extremely complacent. This being the end of a pattern. Complacent due to getting away with things in the past, and potentially previously being protected by some in corporate power?
 
Rose65 said:
Was the young person a girl or boy? The wording has been so careful so far.
I get an impression it could be a young girl involved.
Click to expand...
It may have been something I wrongly picked up on. For some reason, it was in the back of my mind that the child is a boy. But of cause that could be very wrong.
 
Rose65 said:
Those two were not so stupid as to actually leave clear evidence - were they? I don't think.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Saville left evidence all over the place..the BBC chose to ignore it.. he was extremely high profile.. he mixed with Royalty... Philip schofield left evidence in Full view among the staff at the studios.. who had watched his antics for several years and 2 had flagged it up to their managers..nothing was done..
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
It may have been something I wrongly picked up on. For some reason, it was in the back of my mind that the child is a boy. But of cause that could be very wrong.
Click to expand...
It is left very neutral for done reason. The mother referred to her child and carefully didn't even disclose if the alleged is male or female.
 
hollydolly said:
Jimmy Saville left evidence all over the place..the BBC chose to ignore it.. he was extremely high profile.. he mixed with Royalty... Philip schofield left evidence in Full view among the staff at the studios.. who had watched his antics for several years and 2 had flagged it up to their managers..nothing was done..
Click to expand...
I suppose that shows a certain level of arrogance rather than carelessness.
 
Magna-Carta said:
Maybe this particular presenter now became extremely complacent. This being the end of a pattern. Complacent due to getting away with things in the past, and potentially previously being protected by some in corporate power?
Click to expand...
Indeed we mustn't forget the power people who are highly paid and well established.

For instance as a young girl junior on office jobs so long ago, I did endure some instances of abuse. One manager would take every opportunity to come leaning over me at my desk and breathing heavily while telling me how pretty I was, another higher grade clerk once cupped my breast in his hand in the kitchen, another manager we girls all warned each other about would touch up the younger prettier ones. He did get sacked one day actually when a partner if the firm witnessed it. These things went on and we youngsters knew never to even try to make a fuss let alone an actual complaint. Nobody would have believed us beginners over a manager and we would have become pariah's and lost our jobs.
One relative of mine once told me she endured loads of small abuses in pre-war years in her job but valued her income too much to think of complaining.

Things are far better now, but not easy if you come up against a senior important employee who will protect themselves very strongly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top