Intrigue of unnamed BBC presenter

Rose65 said:
I suppose that shows a certain level of arrogance rather than carelessness.
Click to expand...
Oh goodness yes.. one thing thus far everyone who knows him has reported about Schofield is his sheer arrogance and sense of entitlement... and of course with Saville, there was no one more arrogant, self entitled and Narcissistic than that horrendous waste of oxygen
 

I'm normally not interested in what people get up to, but this story caught my attention because it involved a child, which puts it on a completely different level for me. Additionally, what usually intrigues me, regardless of the subject, are inconsistencies and gaps.

Very little seems to make sense at the moment; there appears to be a lot missing from the story. However, this is often the case when a story breaks. There is still a lot to piece together as more information becomes known and is then reported.

According to various reports, the family reported the incident to the BBC on May 19. Later, they were frustrated by seeing the presenter still on TV. It is alleged that the presenter was still in touch with the now 20 year old, which apparently began when the family's child was 17 years old.

Some reports suggest that the BBC claimed they were unable to get in touch with the family to discuss the matter further, for unknown reasons. It seems that the family, feeling frustrated by seeing the presenter still on TV and the ongoing "relationship" between their child (now 20 year old) and the presenter, decided to contact a newspaper.

It was after this that the BBC's investigation supposedly intensified, presumably due to new information. Based on the wording of some reports, it seems that the BBC then contacted the police this weekend. There is no indication that the family themselves ever reported the incident to the police.

I read that the police have stated that no formal complaint has been made to them by any of the parties involved. Apparently, there is a meeting scheduled for this Monday between the BBC and the police to discuss the matter.

So far, there are significant gaps in the story, and it is not quite making sense yet. As usual, when a story breaks, there are more questions than answers.
 
Magna-Carta said:
It is alleged that the presenter was still in touch with the now 20 year old, which apparently began when the family's child was 17 years old.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the age of consent is in the UK?

If it's 18 some of the problem may be proving what happened before the child turned 18 as opposed to since. However my very unscientific research says it's 16, see https://lawstuff.org.uk/police-and-law/age-of-consent/ , in which case I don't know what laws were broken.

Disgusting? Absolutely, but maybe not illegal...
 

Alligatorob said:
Do you know what the age of consent is in the UK?

If it's 18 some of the problem may be proving what happened before the child turned 18 as opposed to since. However my very unscientific research says it's 16, see https://lawstuff.org.uk/police-and-law/age-of-consent/ , in which case I don't know what laws were broken.

Disgusting? Absolutely, but maybe not illegal...
Click to expand...

I believe it's 16 in the UK. Obtaining sexually explicit material from and of a minor is something different though, (illegal), and the manner in which it was done or obtained, depending on circumstances, might be considered 'grooming'?
 
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...
One name...Jimmy Saville. Got away with it for decades, before being caught out. JimB.
 

What does the law say?​

Making, distributing, possessing or showing an indecent image of anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, even if the image was created with the consent of the young person, or the young person was asked to send a sexual image of themselves.

It carries a maximum sentence of ten years. Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor who led the case against the Rochdale grooming gangs, said the allegations could also be considered an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

It is a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves and inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

And even though the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16, those aged under 18 legally cannot give consent for sexual images of themselves to be taken.

These laws have been tightened over the years to protect young people aged 16 and 17 from sexual exploitation.

However, the laws would not apply to any explicit images sent when the individual was over the age of 18.
 
The police officer who unmasked Jimmy Savile as a serial paedophile has said the BBC should not only name the presenter at the centre of allegations - but that they should have suspended him weeks ago.

The BBC this afternoon suspended a male member of staff who is accused of paying a teenager more than £35,000 for sexually explicit images, but has not revealed the identity of the employee.

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it has spoken to the BBC, while director-general Tim Davie said the Corporation was investigating the 'deeply concerning claims' 'swiftly and sensitively'.

Ex-Surrey police officer Mark Williams-Thomas, who exposed the crimes of Jimmy Savile in 2012, took to Twitter to share his views on the latest scandal.

He said: 'The police are now investigating the allegation against the BBC presenter.
I have investigated lots of these type of allegations and the presenter should have been formally suspended weeks ago - given the very serious nature of the allegations.'

He also told The Mirror: 'The BBC has already had a month to look into this – they should have concluded their investigation by now and named the individual in question.

'It's all about openness and transparency, but the BBC has got a track record of carrying out fatally flawed investigations.

'They need to get this investigated. It's obligatory now that they go through proper due process to get this sorted as soon as possible.'
 
I saw a 'talking head' on TV saying why the BBC presenter was "unnamed". There were legal issues like defamation, etc, and tarring an innocent person. That's total BS. If these allegations were about a MP, the Daily Mail wouldn't have type large enough for the frontpage exposé. The BBC would be airing interviews with the accused's childhood buddies, his acquaintances, even his parents asking if they saw evidence of the crime. It's amazing how the BBC gets so legal when it's one of their own.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I saw a 'talking head' on TV saying why the BBC presenter was "unnamed". There were legal issues like defamation, etc, and tarring an innocent person. That's total BS. If these allegations were about a MP, the Daily Mail wouldn't have type large enough for the frontpage exposé. The BBC would be airing interviews with the accused's childhood buddies, his acquaintances, even his parents asking if they saw evidence of the crime. It's amazing how the BBC gets so legal when it's one of their own.
Click to expand...
Exactly right on the money !!
 
I wouldn't dare name anyone. It's completely unacceptable to do that yet people in the comments on the BBC news sites are openly,viciously, naming individuals. This shows the absolute heartlessness of the public. People should remember it is actionable.

General conjecture is natural, specific is not. I think the BBC should now say who the accused is, using careful words. Because the lives of many presenters is being made very very hard right now. This cannot go on.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I saw a 'talking head' on TV saying why the BBC presenter was "unnamed". There were legal issues like defamation, etc, and tarring an innocent person. That's total BS. If these allegations were about a MP, the Daily Mail wouldn't have type large enough for the frontpage exposé. The BBC would be airing interviews with the accused's childhood buddies, his acquaintances, even his parents asking if they saw evidence of the crime. It's amazing how the BBC gets so legal when it's one of their own.
Click to expand...
You do have a valid point there. Absolutely.
 
jimintoronto said:
One name...Jimmy Saville. Got away with it for decades, before being caught out. JimB.
Click to expand...
Savile had died before his predatory offences were discovered, so it could be argued that he actually got away with it.
Rolf Harris on the other hand, got five years and nine months in prison for having sex with underage girls, one of which was just thirteen.
Politician, Sir Cyril Richard Smith, 28 June 1928 – 3 September 2010 was a British Liberal Party politician who served as Member of Parliament (MP) for Rochdale from 1972 to 1992. After his death, hundreds of allegations of child sex-ual abuse were made against him, leading authorities to conclude that he was a prolific sex offender.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top