Now the question to ask is… what was this story diverting attention away from
So despite having this letter, the Sun went ahead with publication? No shock there then…
Did The Sun pay the young person’s mum for the story?
That’s a huge twist, I wasn’t expecting this from the kid’s ***lawyer***.
Also it’s slightly bizarre that BBC News has to report that it doesn’t know the identity of the person that the BBC has been in contact with.
Sun and the mother about to land themselves in a lawsuit if that turns out the case.
It was odd that the Sun refused to name them, cos if they had evidence and photos, it would’ve done printed them in a heartbeat.
But then it has a reputation for being a trash rag in general anyway.
This the same Sun that used to post Page 3 of 16/17 year olds?
I kind of hate myself for getting so invested in these stories.
So this implies that the parents have made a false allegation? But does imply there is a connection between the child and presenter. Am I reading that right?
So does this mean we’ll see someone on the news at 10 with an incredibly smug face?
This is either about to get even more wild and bizarre, or turn into a total non story and we’ll never know the truth or who the presenter was.
Edit – worth saying too, that if the 17 year old’s own lawyer is saying this to the media, then there’s a good chance the police agree that no crime has taken place. In which case it will quite rightly be dropped as a potential criminal case, the BBC will take no further action against the presenter, and most rightly of all, the presenter’s name will never be released.
Edit 2 – the person might not even have been 17 when they were in contact with the presenter, I’ve rightly been corrected on that. If that is the case, then the police _will_ have concluded that no crime has taken place so see scenario above.
Putting a cynical hat on – if you were 19-ish, and had been making bank by selling nudes to a presenter for a couple of years… wouldn’t you be tempted to try and discredit a disapproving parent trying to shut you down? Especially if, for sake of argument, you’d not shared any actual nudes till you hit 18?
The Sun is a fucking stain on this county and the soon it fucks off the better. Hopefully the inevitable lawsuits from this will bring that about.
Jesus H Fuck I need a lie down and a biscuit after the last 24 hours of news.
People who are victims of any inappropriate sexual behaviour already find it hard to seek help and justice. If this turns out to be a complete lie then this will just further the problem of genuine cases not being believed. My rapist got away with it. How many monsters will get away with it because of shit like this.
Probably saw the BBC presenter as a free cash cow. Or a settlement before exposing.
The Sun have fucked it either way here by not revealing a lawyer representing the “victim” strongly denied their mothers account.
Lol, what a shit show.
So it appears that the mother has “issues”/vexatious tendencies – my guess is that the family history is complex, the son may have problems of his own and there is way more to this than suggested by the Sun which has done a typical “Sun” and at best failed to conduct its due diligence and at worst, done a Hillsborough and effectively made the entire thing up.
Yet the third estate will continue to insist that all its privileges (essentially, to fuck people over at will) be preserved.
Massive law suit incoming, methinks…
Cliff Richard must be having a hollow chuckle, today.
I am starting to get the feeling that there is something fishy about this whole thing.
Of course, if there were underage photos, then that is absolutely wrong, and the presenter in question must be punished… But there is something about all this that isn’t sitting right with me. It just doesn’t seem right.
>It says the young person **sent a denial to the Sun on Friday** evening saying there was “no truth to it”.
>However, the “inappropriate article” was still published, the lawyer said.
>A spokesperson for the Sun said: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.
Murdoch and the Sun need to be crucified for this.
Vulnerable young person manipulated by rich old nonce
Reddit: takes it completely at face value
Lmao never change you guys. There’s “gullible” written on the ceiling
BBC reporting that a *large international law firm* is acting for the youth.
Family dispute got out of hand?
Bad days when your own lawyer thinks you’re talking shite.
I think this is probably the best argument for the media to have more regulation. A newspaper (probably paying for it) publishes a story implicating someone from the BBC based on information from the mother of the alleged victim, only for the alleged victim to issue a public letter calling it “rubbish”. What part of this is in the public interest? What’s interesting to the public isn’t always in the public interest, and if this was a legitimate story then it would be best reported to actual police who could do something about it, not plastered on a tat rag like the Sun for the sales only to turn out to be what appears to be a load of nonsense.
This kind of behaviour has real-world implications. People have been wildly pointing the finger at people as though they’re sexual predators when it seems nothing of the sort has even happened (if we believe this rebuttal from the supposed “victim”).
Would this happen to be a lawyer on the BBC presenters payroll? After doing a deal to discredit / quash story in exchange for cash?
The sun released the statement, that they published the story of two concerened parents, they also didn’t deny that person who the story is about sent them the letter saying the story was bullshit and yet still published it.
They basically admitted that they didn’t get the story from the person involved in the story, but their parents and disregarded what the person had to say on the matter
Crack heads and the sun not telling the truth?! Shocker.
Of course if the events actually happened, then any possible criminal proceedings, if there is scope for them, should go ahead.
HOWEVER, The Sun will have a desire to discredit and bring down the BBC. It wouldn’t surprise me if the kid’s mum was being paid by The Sun so they can smear the BBC. In which case, who doesn’t love a good lawsuit to follow?
Lmao at all the top comments asking why the BBC is protecting a pedo.
28 comments
Now the question to ask is… what was this story diverting attention away from
So despite having this letter, the Sun went ahead with publication? No shock there then…
Did The Sun pay the young person’s mum for the story?
That’s a huge twist, I wasn’t expecting this from the kid’s ***lawyer***.
Also it’s slightly bizarre that BBC News has to report that it doesn’t know the identity of the person that the BBC has been in contact with.
Sun and the mother about to land themselves in a lawsuit if that turns out the case.
It was odd that the Sun refused to name them, cos if they had evidence and photos, it would’ve done printed them in a heartbeat.
But then it has a reputation for being a trash rag in general anyway.
This the same Sun that used to post Page 3 of 16/17 year olds?
I kind of hate myself for getting so invested in these stories.
So this implies that the parents have made a false allegation? But does imply there is a connection between the child and presenter. Am I reading that right?
So does this mean we’ll see someone on the news at 10 with an incredibly smug face?
This is either about to get even more wild and bizarre, or turn into a total non story and we’ll never know the truth or who the presenter was.
Edit – worth saying too, that if the 17 year old’s own lawyer is saying this to the media, then there’s a good chance the police agree that no crime has taken place. In which case it will quite rightly be dropped as a potential criminal case, the BBC will take no further action against the presenter, and most rightly of all, the presenter’s name will never be released.
Edit 2 – the person might not even have been 17 when they were in contact with the presenter, I’ve rightly been corrected on that. If that is the case, then the police _will_ have concluded that no crime has taken place so see scenario above.
Putting a cynical hat on – if you were 19-ish, and had been making bank by selling nudes to a presenter for a couple of years… wouldn’t you be tempted to try and discredit a disapproving parent trying to shut you down? Especially if, for sake of argument, you’d not shared any actual nudes till you hit 18?
The Sun is a fucking stain on this county and the soon it fucks off the better. Hopefully the inevitable lawsuits from this will bring that about.
Jesus H Fuck I need a lie down and a biscuit after the last 24 hours of news.
People who are victims of any inappropriate sexual behaviour already find it hard to seek help and justice. If this turns out to be a complete lie then this will just further the problem of genuine cases not being believed. My rapist got away with it. How many monsters will get away with it because of shit like this.
Probably saw the BBC presenter as a free cash cow. Or a settlement before exposing.
The Sun have fucked it either way here by not revealing a lawyer representing the “victim” strongly denied their mothers account.
Lol, what a shit show.
So it appears that the mother has “issues”/vexatious tendencies – my guess is that the family history is complex, the son may have problems of his own and there is way more to this than suggested by the Sun which has done a typical “Sun” and at best failed to conduct its due diligence and at worst, done a Hillsborough and effectively made the entire thing up.
Yet the third estate will continue to insist that all its privileges (essentially, to fuck people over at will) be preserved.
Massive law suit incoming, methinks…
Cliff Richard must be having a hollow chuckle, today.
I am starting to get the feeling that there is something fishy about this whole thing.
Of course, if there were underage photos, then that is absolutely wrong, and the presenter in question must be punished… But there is something about all this that isn’t sitting right with me. It just doesn’t seem right.
>It says the young person **sent a denial to the Sun on Friday** evening saying there was “no truth to it”.
>However, the “inappropriate article” was still published, the lawyer said.
>A spokesperson for the Sun said: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.
Murdoch and the Sun need to be crucified for this.
Vulnerable young person manipulated by rich old nonce
Reddit: takes it completely at face value
Lmao never change you guys. There’s “gullible” written on the ceiling
BBC reporting that a *large international law firm* is acting for the youth.
Family dispute got out of hand?
Bad days when your own lawyer thinks you’re talking shite.
I think this is probably the best argument for the media to have more regulation. A newspaper (probably paying for it) publishes a story implicating someone from the BBC based on information from the mother of the alleged victim, only for the alleged victim to issue a public letter calling it “rubbish”. What part of this is in the public interest? What’s interesting to the public isn’t always in the public interest, and if this was a legitimate story then it would be best reported to actual police who could do something about it, not plastered on a tat rag like the Sun for the sales only to turn out to be what appears to be a load of nonsense.
This kind of behaviour has real-world implications. People have been wildly pointing the finger at people as though they’re sexual predators when it seems nothing of the sort has even happened (if we believe this rebuttal from the supposed “victim”).
Would this happen to be a lawyer on the BBC presenters payroll? After doing a deal to discredit / quash story in exchange for cash?
The sun released the statement, that they published the story of two concerened parents, they also didn’t deny that person who the story is about sent them the letter saying the story was bullshit and yet still published it.
They basically admitted that they didn’t get the story from the person involved in the story, but their parents and disregarded what the person had to say on the matter
Crack heads and the sun not telling the truth?! Shocker.
Of course if the events actually happened, then any possible criminal proceedings, if there is scope for them, should go ahead.
HOWEVER, The Sun will have a desire to discredit and bring down the BBC. It wouldn’t surprise me if the kid’s mum was being paid by The Sun so they can smear the BBC. In which case, who doesn’t love a good lawsuit to follow?
Lmao at all the top comments asking why the BBC is protecting a pedo.