I'm replying to myself. The young person has been paid off and given a lawyer, and no doubt continuing money. There is only one person I can think of that big. Plus, the youngster is now constantly person. This makes me think, firstly, avoid homophobic backlash as in Schofield, secondly this is someone more powerful than the BBC. Their own Oprah as it were. That leaves only one person in my opinion.

Red and Blue Army!

Timmy Mallet. does he need to spell it out ?

I disengage, I turn the page.

The person deserves some anonymity until the BBC has concluded its investigation. As for the Sun it will reach a point in the next few days when it's put up or shut up time.

If the Sun believes that some or all of these allegations are true they should print the name and face the possibility of legal action by the individual.

One more point

As there should be. Just because the public is interested doesn't mean it's in the public interest to reveal anything. Let the police do their job and establish whether anything criminal has potentially taken place. Then let due process establish guilt or innocence. Behaving immorally or unwisely is not a crime. The BBC are between a rock and a hard place. They need to avoid both being guilty of defamation and of reputational damage, whilst not being directly involved at all.

Any MP using Parliamentary privilege to name the person would take a very big risk of reputational damage themselves should it later emerge that there was nothing but a shakedown going on.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If this is a disciplinary review then the lawyer will not be allowed any involvement. Likely there may be a Trade Union rep to support the individual.

The issue is that this has not been a normal process, it has become a media circus involving potential defamation of the young person in question in multiple media. That is not an issue for a disciplinary review, nor is there a specific duty of care to that person unless 'they' are a BBC employee

Are you implying that the individual doesn't have the right to get professional help when apparently being defamed by one of the most powerful businesses in the country?

No, but it can have life-changing consequences..... just ask the Duke of York

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

I think officially this is fair as what happened to Cliff Richard was just wrong. Some might point to the fact that Richard hadn't been honest about his sexuality but that in no way meant he deserved the treatment he received. Nothing wrong with wanting privacy.

However, that doesn't mean people can't speculate, but no one should be certain until facts are confirmed. I like the fact that the media have to wait before going all in. Also, there are always those fruitcakes who think it gives them license to harass, which is also concerning.

If what happened happened, it's dodgey but not illegal (if the stuff around crack isn't this guy's fault or just false).....it's more a reputation thing. No one's been murdered here.

The pressure from something like this can lead to people topping themselves. While some might support that I think we have to accept that someone can do things we find distasteful and wrong without wishing death on them......there will be many pop and rock stars who would have done this kind of thing and people just nod and wink.

However, reputation is something else entirely.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Jul 2023 3.03pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

With due respect, they are different issues. If you want to set a limit on how much a publicly funded broadcaster is allowed to pay its staff, fine. Make the argument and evaluate the consequences.

The public has no need to know anything. The BBC employs this person, not us. They agree to the contract and its terms, which may well include restrictions on behaviour likely to cause reputational damage. If they decide they have been broken then it's for them alone to decide what action is appropriate. How much they share publicly is also up to them to decide given the need to avoid defamation and damage to reputation.

I don't see any threats being made. I see caution being counselled. Nor does it matter how big, or small, the person involved is. The same consideration ought to apply to everyone.

Murdoch's newspapers have had their fingers burned, and his wallet raided, over the phone hacking scandals. I cannot but wonder if there is a smell wafting from down Wapping way again.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Second accuser comes forward

“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn

This is potentially more damaging as it it BBC news reporting this.

""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. ""

So this is not the tabloids and possibly not the same issue but the BBC saying bullying and threatening.

One more point