A mate tells me that The Sun didn’t publish pics of Sam Fox until she was 18, prior to her being 18 they published teaser pics of her ‘topless’ covering her modesty with her hands , and giving the date the hands would be removed , classy eh @Essexphil
A mate tells me that The Sun didn’t publish pics of Sam Fox until she was 18, prior to her being 18 they published teaser pics of her ‘topless’ covering her modesty with her hands , and giving the date the hands would be removed , classy eh @Essexphil
Under the 1978 Act (as amended) the Sun are almost certainly the leading UK publisher of child por nography, both in terms of number of topless shots of minors, and the number of people who viewed them. Published various topless minors. Together with in-depth journalism, for example the vote on whether Katie Price should or should not have a bo ob job.
Yet they provide titillating stories like the current one, totally disregarding the damage this will cause to what appears now to be a vulnerable adult. Backed up by various MPs, who would appear to be unaware just how many MPs continue to sit in the House of Commons, despite a whole array of sexual offences.
A mate tells me that The Sun didn’t publish pics of Sam Fox until she was 18, prior to her being 18 they published teaser pics of her ‘topless’ covering her modesty with her hands , and giving the date the hands would be removed , classy eh @Essexphil
Under the 1978 Act (as amended) the Sun are almost certainly the leading UK publisher of child por nography, both in terms of number of topless shots of minors, and the number of people who viewed them. Published various topless minors. Together with in-depth journalism, for example the vote on whether Katie Price should or should not have a bo ob job.
Yet they provide titillating stories like the current one, totally disregarding the damage this will cause to what appears now to be a vulnerable adult. Backed up by various MPs, who would appear to be unaware just how many MPs continue to sit in the House of Commons, despite a whole array of sexual offences.
The young man has now instructed a Solicitor-no idea who, but clearly a heavy hitter judging by how scared everyone now seems to be.
So-we have a 20-yr-old man. Who is adamant no-one has done anything wrong. And that he has absolutely no complaint about some random man giving him money. And the Sun trying to claim this is all being done in that man's best interests, conveniently ignoring the facts that:-
1. He is an adult; and 2. He has apparently not been on speaking terms with his mother/stepfather for a long time and 3. Disregarded his written request to the Sun not to run this story immediately prior to running it and 4. Coming up with some "new" revelation that the Presenter was now frantically trying to persuade the young man to "change" his story
Is anyone surprised that the BBC didn't rush to investigate this? It's some 20-yr-old's mum going off on one.
The young man has now instructed a Solicitor-no idea who, but clearly a heavy hitter judging by how scared everyone now seems to be.
So-we have a 20-yr-old man. Who is adamant no-one has done anything wrong. And that he has absolutely no complaint about some random man giving him money. And the Sun trying to claim this is all being done in that man's best interests, conveniently ignoring the facts that:-
1. He is an adult; and 2. He has apparently not been on speaking terms with his mother/stepfather for a long time and 3. Disregarded his written request to the Sun not to run this story immediately prior to running it and 4. Coming up with some "new" revelation that the Presenter was now frantically trying to persuade the young man to "change" his story
Is anyone surprised that the BBC didn't rush to investigate this? It's some 20-yr-old's mum going off on one.
never surprised about the BBC trying to cover up bad behaviour or a scandal and not rushing to investigate. Its the BBC for heck sake they are about as trustworthy as the catholic church.
Seems like the Mum & The Sun might be the ones who need to answer questions.
Meanwhile the feeding frenzy on Twitter shows no sign of slowing down, with the same culprits being named repeatedly, & rampant homophobia, especially towards Graham Norton & Claire Balding. Do people not realise it's 2023, times have changed & we are working towards inclusivity? Some of the Tweets are beyond sickening.
And of course, the BBC Bashers are bashing away, though I'm not at all sure what they are supposed to have done wrong. It employs 21,000 staff (excluding "Contractors") so there's bound to be a few wrong 'uns amongst them. The oddity of Twitter is that the BBC Bashers all said "that's why I refuse to buy a TV licence". Ahh right, it's a matter of principle, nothing to do with being dishonest.
The Sun still trotting out this nonsense about "protecting" a 20-yr-old "child". By outing him as someone who sells clips for cash to feed his drug addict. Ignoring his stated wishes on the subject. Preferring instead to side with his vindictive, attention-seeking mother.
Then the Mail. Advancing the insane argument that claims, because 1 in 6 people think they know the identity of the BBC man via illegal means, that means that everyone is entitled to know for sure. Regardless of the effect this will have on not only the BBC presenter but also the 20-yr-old man. Completely disregarding the fact that anything that may have been exchanged since he turned 18 is nobody else's business.
The young man has now instructed a Solicitor-no idea who, but clearly a heavy hitter judging by how scared everyone now seems to be.
So-we have a 20-yr-old man. Who is adamant no-one has done anything wrong. And that he has absolutely no complaint about some random man giving him money. And the Sun trying to claim this is all being done in that man's best interests, conveniently ignoring the facts that:-
1. He is an adult; and 2. He has apparently not been on speaking terms with his mother/stepfather for a long time and 3. Disregarded his written request to the Sun not to run this story immediately prior to running it and 4. Coming up with some "new" revelation that the Presenter was now frantically trying to persuade the young man to "change" his story
Is anyone surprised that the BBC didn't rush to investigate this? It's some 20-yr-old's mum going off on one.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
In part, it is because the BBC is reliant on state funding. And also, in part, because Mr Davie comes across as a bit of a wet week.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
In part, it is because the BBC is reliant on state funding. And also, in part, because Mr Davie comes across as a bit of a wet week.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
It is difficult to judge until the facts are known. The BBC have hardly acted with any urgency. Fairness is another aspect. By protecting the guilty party, many of his colleagues have been hung out to dry, and are receiving a battering on social media, as unwarranted suspicions fall on them. When I say the guilty party, I realise that although one or more criminal charges may follow, it may result in accusations of what many people may only consider to be bad behaviour. So should the BBC be protecting the culprit, or his colleagues.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
In part, it is because the BBC is reliant on state funding. And also, in part, because Mr Davie comes across as a bit of a wet week.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
It is difficult to judge until the facts are known. The BBC have hardly acted with any urgency. Fairness is another aspect. By protecting the guilty party, many of his colleagues have been hung out to dry, and are receiving a battering on social media, as unwarranted suspicions fall on them. When I say the guilty party, I realise that although one or more criminal charges may follow, it may result in accusations of what many people may only consider to be bad behaviour. So should the BBC be protecting the culprit, or his colleagues.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
In part, it is because the BBC is reliant on state funding. And also, in part, because Mr Davie comes across as a bit of a wet week.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
It is difficult to judge until the facts are known. The BBC have hardly acted with any urgency. Fairness is another aspect. By protecting the guilty party, many of his colleagues have been hung out to dry, and are receiving a battering on social media, as unwarranted suspicions fall on them. When I say the guilty party, I realise that although one or more criminal charges may follow, it may result in accusations of what many people may only consider to be bad behaviour. So should the BBC be protecting the culprit, or his colleagues.
There is another one.
Bombshell claims BBC presenter sent ‘threatening’ texts to second young person
A second young person has told the BBC they felt threatened by the presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual, who is in their early 20s, was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, BBC News reports.
The presenter then revealed his identity and asked the young person not to tell anyone, but the young person later shared a post online alluding to having contact with the presenter and hinting they might name him.
The presenter then sent a number of ‘threatening messages’ which the BBC says it has seen and confirmed came from a phone number belonging to the presenter.
The BBC said the young person felt ‘threatened’ by the messages and ‘remain scared’.
BBC News said it had contacted the presenter via his lawyer but had received no response to the allegations.
The Sky reporter thinks the BBC should leave this to their reporters. The corporate investigation team were on the case for 7 weeks, without actually speaking to anyone. Yet a reporter has stood the second story up in a day.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
I quite like the BBC, but whatever the rights and wrongs of this, I thought that Tim Davie was very unconvincing in his interview. They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made. They followed up with one email. They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July. Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
In part, it is because the BBC is reliant on state funding. And also, in part, because Mr Davie comes across as a bit of a wet week.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
It is difficult to judge until the facts are known. The BBC have hardly acted with any urgency. Fairness is another aspect. By protecting the guilty party, many of his colleagues have been hung out to dry, and are receiving a battering on social media, as unwarranted suspicions fall on them. When I say the guilty party, I realise that although one or more criminal charges may follow, it may result in accusations of what many people may only consider to be bad behaviour. So should the BBC be protecting the culprit, or his colleagues.
There is another one.
Bombshell claims BBC presenter sent ‘threatening’ texts to second young person
A second young person has told the BBC they felt threatened by the presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual, who is in their early 20s, was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, BBC News reports.
The presenter then revealed his identity and asked the young person not to tell anyone, but the young person later shared a post online alluding to having contact with the presenter and hinting they might name him.
The presenter then sent a number of ‘threatening messages’ which the BBC says it has seen and confirmed came from a phone number belonging to the presenter.
The BBC said the young person felt ‘threatened’ by the messages and ‘remain scared’.
BBC News said it had contacted the presenter via his lawyer but had received no response to the allegations.
Not the story itself. That is symptomatic of everything wrong with the World we now live in. Whiny little babies claiming they are scared while rushing to the papers to tell their story. Which is, when someone threatens to "out" someone breaching the terms of a dating app, they get threatened with legal action.
Why on earth does the BBC feel able to report in this way? Firstly, they have a hopeless conflict of interest. Secondly, and more importantly, their employee should be questioned about this internally. Not have his employer reporting on it in this way. Unless the BBC intends learning an expensive lesson in relation to "mutual trust and confidence" the hard way. On taxpayers money.
BBC presenter sent abusive and menacing messages to second young person
A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.
They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.
They said the threats made in the messages - which have been seen and verified by BBC News - had frightened them, and they remain scared.
The new allegations of menacing and bullying behaviour by the high-profile presenter raise fresh questions about his conduct.
BBC News has contacted the presenter directly and via his lawyer but has received no response to the latest allegations.
Follow live: BBC boss defends delay in speaking to presenter Timeline: The BBC presenter allegations story Family contacted just twice in BBC presenter row After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms.
At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone.
Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.
The presenter reacted by sending a number of threatening messages.
BBC News has been able to verify that the messages were sent from a phone number belonging to the presenter.
The young person's online post has also been seen by BBC News.
Claims about the unnamed BBC presenter first surfaced in the Sun newspaper on Friday night.
The paper quoted a mother as saying her child, now 20, had used the money paid for explicit photos to fund a crack cocaine habit, and worried they could "wind up dead".
A lawyer for the young person has since said the accusations were "rubbish" but the family are standing by the account.
The BBC has been defending the handling of its own investigation into the allegations.
At a press conference, BBC director general Tim Davie said the presenter was not spoken to until last Thursday - seven weeks after the first complaint was made to the corporation.
Two attempts had been made to contact the family involved, before the Sun approached them with new claims last week, the BBC said.
The BBC has now paused its own investigation into what happened while police examine the matter.
The presenter, who has been suspended, is not being named because of concerns about defamation and breaching his privacy.
'Everyone in this building knows who it is': Moment BBC boss is grilled over identity of presenter BBC director-general Tim Davie was questioned by journalist Sarah Montague on Radio 4 programme The World At One.
Comments
Yet they provide titillating stories like the current one, totally disregarding the damage this will cause to what appears now to be a vulnerable adult. Backed up by various MPs, who would appear to be unaware just how many MPs continue to sit in the House of Commons, despite a whole array of sexual offences.
The MP’s are hypocrites .
The young man has now instructed a Solicitor-no idea who, but clearly a heavy hitter judging by how scared everyone now seems to be.
So-we have a 20-yr-old man. Who is adamant no-one has done anything wrong. And that he has absolutely no complaint about some random man giving him money. And the Sun trying to claim this is all being done in that man's best interests, conveniently ignoring the facts that:-
1. He is an adult; and
2. He has apparently not been on speaking terms with his mother/stepfather for a long time and
3. Disregarded his written request to the Sun not to run this story immediately prior to running it and
4. Coming up with some "new" revelation that the Presenter was now frantically trying to persuade the young man to "change" his story
Is anyone surprised that the BBC didn't rush to investigate this? It's some 20-yr-old's mum going off on one.
Seems like the Mum & The Sun might be the ones who need to answer questions.
Meanwhile the feeding frenzy on Twitter shows no sign of slowing down, with the same culprits being named repeatedly, & rampant homophobia, especially towards Graham Norton & Claire Balding. Do people not realise it's 2023, times have changed & we are working towards inclusivity? Some of the Tweets are beyond sickening.
And of course, the BBC Bashers are bashing away, though I'm not at all sure what they are supposed to have done wrong. It employs 21,000 staff (excluding "Contractors") so there's bound to be a few wrong 'uns amongst them. The oddity of Twitter is that the BBC Bashers all said "that's why I refuse to buy a TV licence". Ahh right, it's a matter of principle, nothing to do with being dishonest.
The Sun still trotting out this nonsense about "protecting" a 20-yr-old "child". By outing him as someone who sells clips for cash to feed his drug addict. Ignoring his stated wishes on the subject. Preferring instead to side with his vindictive, attention-seeking mother.
Then the Mail. Advancing the insane argument that claims, because 1 in 6 people think they know the identity of the BBC man via illegal means, that means that everyone is entitled to know for sure. Regardless of the effect this will have on not only the BBC presenter but also the 20-yr-old man. Completely disregarding the fact that anything that may have been exchanged since he turned 18 is nobody else's business.
@Essexphil
i believe the Solicitors representing the young man are Child & Child.
We currently have the unedifying prospect of him/his Solicitor demanding the BBC interview their client. And his Mother demanding the BBC interview her. Ignoring the fact that neither are employed by the BBC.
I expect the BBC want this to all go away-which is, of course, why they are trying to shift the onus on to the Police. Would have done the same in their shoes
They phoned the parents on June 6th, the call didnt connect, and no further attempts were made.
They followed up with one email.
They didnt speak to the presenter until 6th July.
Yet he maintained that the allegations were taken very seriously.
I suspect that, if this was in the private sector, this would have been dealt with rather more swiftly.
What do we actually have here? An allegation about the conduct of an employee. Outside of his job. Doing something that might be a bit creepy, may or may not have been illegal for less than a year, and then carried on legally and consensually (if at all) for a further 2 years. That the 1 person with definite knowledge (the 20-yr-old), the 1 person who may have been harmed, has instructed Solicitors to say he has no complaint, and that all is above board. While his estranged Mother, who was not there and has an axe to grind, bangs on to the Press, no doubt causing further harm to her Child.
You hold a disciplinary Hearing. You apply some sort of sanction short of Dismissal, while warning the employee that a recurrence will lead to Summary Dismissal. And you move on. Or, if you want rid of him, you use it as an excuse to terminate the Contract. But that has enormous risks attached.
Incidentally, while in Private Practice, I always had a simple rule. I would never take money from Person A to act for Person B if there was the remotest possibility of a Conflict of Interest between A & B. And I would most certainly have considered suing anyone (particularly a newspaper) who suggested otherwise.
The BBC have hardly acted with any urgency.
Fairness is another aspect.
By protecting the guilty party, many of his colleagues have been hung out to dry, and are receiving a battering on social media, as unwarranted suspicions fall on them.
When I say the guilty party, I realise that although one or more criminal charges may follow, it may result in accusations of what many people may only consider to be bad behaviour.
So should the BBC be protecting the culprit, or his colleagues.
A second young person has told the BBC they felt threatened by the presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual, who is in their early 20s, was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, BBC News reports.
The presenter then revealed his identity and asked the young person not to tell anyone, but the young person later shared a post online alluding to having contact with the presenter and hinting they might name him.
The presenter then sent a number of ‘threatening messages’ which the BBC says it has seen and confirmed came from a phone number belonging to the presenter.
The BBC said the young person felt ‘threatened’ by the messages and ‘remain scared’.
BBC News said it had contacted the presenter via his lawyer but had received no response to the allegations.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/11/bombshell-claims-bbc-presenter-sent-threatening-texts-to-second-young-person-19108754/
The corporate investigation team were on the case for 7 weeks, without actually speaking to anyone.
Yet a reporter has stood the second story up in a day.
Not the story itself. That is symptomatic of everything wrong with the World we now live in. Whiny little babies claiming they are scared while rushing to the papers to tell their story. Which is, when someone threatens to "out" someone breaching the terms of a dating app, they get threatened with legal action.
Why on earth does the BBC feel able to report in this way? Firstly, they have a hopeless conflict of interest. Secondly, and more importantly, their employee should be questioned about this internally. Not have his employer reporting on it in this way. Unless the BBC intends learning an expensive lesson in relation to "mutual trust and confidence" the hard way. On taxpayers money.
A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.
They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.
They said the threats made in the messages - which have been seen and verified by BBC News - had frightened them, and they remain scared.
The new allegations of menacing and bullying behaviour by the high-profile presenter raise fresh questions about his conduct.
BBC News has contacted the presenter directly and via his lawyer but has received no response to the latest allegations.
Follow live: BBC boss defends delay in speaking to presenter
Timeline: The BBC presenter allegations story
Family contacted just twice in BBC presenter row
After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms.
At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone.
Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.
The presenter reacted by sending a number of threatening messages.
BBC News has been able to verify that the messages were sent from a phone number belonging to the presenter.
The young person's online post has also been seen by BBC News.
Claims about the unnamed BBC presenter first surfaced in the Sun newspaper on Friday night.
The paper quoted a mother as saying her child, now 20, had used the money paid for explicit photos to fund a crack cocaine habit, and worried they could "wind up dead".
A lawyer for the young person has since said the accusations were "rubbish" but the family are standing by the account.
The BBC has been defending the handling of its own investigation into the allegations.
At a press conference, BBC director general Tim Davie said the presenter was not spoken to until last Thursday - seven weeks after the first complaint was made to the corporation.
Two attempts had been made to contact the family involved, before the Sun approached them with new claims last week, the BBC said.
The BBC has now paused its own investigation into what happened while police examine the matter.
The presenter, who has been suspended, is not being named because of concerns about defamation and breaching his privacy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766
BBC director-general Tim Davie was questioned by journalist Sarah Montague on Radio 4 programme The World At One.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-boss-identity-presenter-named-143435855.html