Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Sexually Explicit Photos & The Beeb
Does anyone care if someone wants to pay large sums of money to a 17 year old young man for them?
Is this simply a battle between the different news channels?
Is this simply a battle between the different news channels?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the beginning of the story, it was mentioned that the victim was a rent boy. Any young person male or female often work in the sex industry to pay for their habit. It is the taking of the pictures that is illegal if he was under 18. Presumably the ones taken after he was 18 are not illegal. Is that why the BBC is discussing this with The Met?
The BBC have form on this - Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, all protected, yet look at what they did to Cliff Richard! The Met tipped off the BBC when raiding his home while he wasn’t there to film. He was completely innocent!
The BBC have form on this - Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, all protected, yet look at what they did to Cliff Richard! The Met tipped off the BBC when raiding his home while he wasn’t there to film. He was completely innocent!
if he's over 18, no - some people are upset that anyone working for a publicly funded institution should spend thousands on a young person they fancied - as if it would be okay if they worked for a private company. BBC presenters are entitled to spend their money as they choose, the same as anyone else.
If he's under 18, then the photos are apparently illegal. I don't know if you'd have to prove the recipient knew he was under 18, though.
From what's been in the papers - not social media - it sounds as if the BBC did start an investigation but didn't get far because the young man wasn't helpful. The complainant is clearly his mother, who's annoyed that his coke habit is being funded. But for the moment, I can't see why the BBC should be expected to monitor the spending habits of its employees, famous or otherwise.
If he's under 18, then the photos are apparently illegal. I don't know if you'd have to prove the recipient knew he was under 18, though.
From what's been in the papers - not social media - it sounds as if the BBC did start an investigation but didn't get far because the young man wasn't helpful. The complainant is clearly his mother, who's annoyed that his coke habit is being funded. But for the moment, I can't see why the BBC should be expected to monitor the spending habits of its employees, famous or otherwise.
//then the photos are apparently illegal//
No apparently about it, that is the whole problem here.
//But for the moment, I can't see why the BBC should be expected to monitor the spending habits of its employees, famous or otherwise.//
I can, if any organisation is approached with allegations of illegality they should report it immediately to the Police. they should not investigate it themselves.
// If the alleged perpetrator worked in a factory or down a mine would the employer even know about the investigation before he was charged?//
I dont see why not although I think the biggest problem here is the publicity due to the person being 'famous'.
No apparently about it, that is the whole problem here.
//But for the moment, I can't see why the BBC should be expected to monitor the spending habits of its employees, famous or otherwise.//
I can, if any organisation is approached with allegations of illegality they should report it immediately to the Police. they should not investigate it themselves.
// If the alleged perpetrator worked in a factory or down a mine would the employer even know about the investigation before he was charged?//
I dont see why not although I think the biggest problem here is the publicity due to the person being 'famous'.
If the alleged photos had been legal, everything would have been all over the papers, as an exposé by The Sun ... in many ways like Phillip Schofield. The presenter would be ruined already.
Ironically, it's because of the alleged illegality of it that the name is being kept under wraps until all the correct checks and procedures are taken.
Ironically, it's because of the alleged illegality of it that the name is being kept under wraps until all the correct checks and procedures are taken.
if any organisation is approached with allegations of illegality they should report it immediately to the Police
I disagree, ymb. Surely the complainant - who presumably has evidence of the (alleged) crime - ought to be the one to report it? As Barry says, coming from the employer it's nothing but hearsay. And for them to say "We've been told an employee committed a crime", when neither the mother nor the son has mentioned it, isn't exactly helping the police.
I accept the mother's claim that she's not in it for the money. But why on earth tell the Sun rather than the cops?
I disagree, ymb. Surely the complainant - who presumably has evidence of the (alleged) crime - ought to be the one to report it? As Barry says, coming from the employer it's nothing but hearsay. And for them to say "We've been told an employee committed a crime", when neither the mother nor the son has mentioned it, isn't exactly helping the police.
I accept the mother's claim that she's not in it for the money. But why on earth tell the Sun rather than the cops?
The Metropolitan Police says it has met representatives of the BBC over the claims and its officers are working to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence
But the force says there is "no investigation at this time"
https:/
(that's about 20 minutes ago)
But the force says there is "no investigation at this time"
https:/
(that's about 20 minutes ago)
//giving him money for indecent photos I would have told her to go to the police.
No good me reporting it to the police, it is hearsay. 'Excuse me, Officer, this woman said her son said...my employee.....
what about murder for chrissakes, "hello someone here has murdered!" - PC on end of phone, studyng for sergeants exama "no dat hearsay luv, we have to hear from the victim himself!"
but...No luv, ring the police because i have no evidence
and ( I speculate) was the reason SHE didnt ring the police was.....she had no evidence as well.
1730- police ( the met, all paragons of virtue and very good now at sex crime as they have had a lot of recent practice) have so far declined/failed to start an investigation on the grounds they arent sure a crime has been committed.
has leddy ( the muvva, silly!) done a Prince Harry
P.C. ( keen as mootar) You any evidence, leddy
Leddy ( the muvva that is!) all shouty and bazoom heaving
you will have to ask my son that !
No good me reporting it to the police, it is hearsay. 'Excuse me, Officer, this woman said her son said...my employee.....
what about murder for chrissakes, "hello someone here has murdered!" - PC on end of phone, studyng for sergeants exama "no dat hearsay luv, we have to hear from the victim himself!"
but...No luv, ring the police because i have no evidence
and ( I speculate) was the reason SHE didnt ring the police was.....she had no evidence as well.
1730- police ( the met, all paragons of virtue and very good now at sex crime as they have had a lot of recent practice) have so far declined/failed to start an investigation on the grounds they arent sure a crime has been committed.
has leddy ( the muvva, silly!) done a Prince Harry
P.C. ( keen as mootar) You any evidence, leddy
Leddy ( the muvva that is!) all shouty and bazoom heaving
you will have to ask my son that !
Claims made by the mother at the heart of the BBC presenter scandal are "rubbish", a lawyer representing the young person has said.
In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer makes claims that throw doubt on the story that has dominated front pages through the weekend.
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.
https:/
Yes, that's more than lack of co-operation, it's a flat denial - and an accusaton against the Sun of fake news. Beats me how they're going to work this up into a case.
In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer makes claims that throw doubt on the story that has dominated front pages through the weekend.
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.
https:/
Yes, that's more than lack of co-operation, it's a flat denial - and an accusaton against the Sun of fake news. Beats me how they're going to work this up into a case.
that is my point innit.
people think the statement 'he is selling his photos and it is disgusting ' is enough to trigger an investigation.
the beeb should have said "we are a telly station and not investigative" - well I have been to the police - - - -
then what do you expect US to do
not too garbled, is it?
people think the statement 'he is selling his photos and it is disgusting ' is enough to trigger an investigation.
the beeb should have said "we are a telly station and not investigative" - well I have been to the police - - - -
then what do you expect US to do
not too garbled, is it?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Songs That Should Have Been Number 1
Music32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
What Do You Think Of The King's...
News186 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.