It doesn't make any sense to attack the BBC for the actions of its employees.

Criminal matters are a Police matter, did the mum inform the Police or was she expecting a handout from the BBC? If the mum did not inform the Police then it would not be the BBC's job to inform the police either.

1 in 600 people are on the sex offenders register, probably somewhere around 1 in 20 of the UK population have been convicted or officially judged to be guilty of a crime, probably worse than 1 in 10 of the UK population have committed a crime. Loads of employers have criminals and suspected criminals on their books. It is very dangerous for an employer to take action against an individual purely because of an accusation when the Police haven't taken any action.

What is even more farcical is the Department of Culture, Media and Sport demanding the BBC should investigate the matter, wouldn't that a kangeroo court which Government departments should iscourage?

Clearly everyone jumping on the bandwagon in some weird obfuscation attempt!

They have covered for sexual deviants in the past, also other underhanded goings on.

The illuminati ... lol I reckon it's all world war 5 or some snobby rubbish from the soggy biscuit boys !!! japs eye op ... dot com !!!! That's my simple answer ! bamboozling the general public through emotional manipulation ... while they say hurrah??

No more than many other bigger and smaller companies and nowhere near on the scale or actions of either of our "moral leaders"; the Catholic or Anglican churches.

As I said, it is not the BBC's job to preempt Police action, nor are they under any legal responsibility to have reported crime, especially that based on hearsay.

Historic cases against deceased individuals hold no weight as they were uncontested, especially when in some cases the laws were effectively changed retrospectively.

The BBC are yet another easy prey for the media (like the RSPCA) because they have limited capability to defend themselves. As far as I am aware the BBC has never sued anyone for defamation partly because the Government wouldn't allow them to, that makes them a punch bag for all sorts of rubbish.

When was ITV or SKY ever taken to account on something like this?

It appears to have been forgotten that Jimmy Saville also worked for Granada and other companies.

It is also forgotten that actresses like Keira Knightley, Charlotte Gainsborough etc appeared nude in movies at age 16 and there are a number of actresses that appeared in sex scenes at less than the age of 18 in films that are still not banned.

And in the latest twist, the accusation by the "victim"'s mother is claimed to be false by the "victim"'s solicitor.

So it may well have just have all been malicious hearsay. The real victim in all this may be a person that is known to already suffer from severe depression without all this kerfuffle.

But the media have had a field day yet again without any real evidence - what happened to this oversight they always claim occurs before publishing stories?

It appears the father has screenshots and no doubt the Sun Newspaper have seen these and feel they are on safe ground reporting this. It also appears the BBC have sat on this for 2 months and not even responded or replied to the parents.

The victims solicitor has only said what you would expect any defence solicitor to say "nothing inappropriate or unlawful"
Which to me means something has gone on, that the BBC wish to keep in house and hush hush.

The suggestion is, the so called star name has been funding a drug habit, perhaps unknowingly and the parents wanted it stopped, can't blame them for that.

We shall see where it goes.

There seems to be something expected if you work at the BBC - that you must be whiter than white. And if you're not, out come the lynch mobs.

Is it because they're a public service broadcaster, or do people just like getting the pitchforks out these days?

It is a potential crime, the BBC should not be involved whatsoever. Would you expect ASDA to do a criminal investigation if it was one of their members of staff? It is nothing to do with the BBC, in fact they could be interfering with a police investigation if they make any comment whatsoever. Being a criminal matter why did the mother speak to the BBC, it is unclear whether she also reported it to the Police at the same time or not.


Its not a defence solicitor as far as the photograph matter goes, the (very expensive) solicitor is representing the purported victim. A solicitor is allowed to conjecture but they are not allowed to purger themselves by making a false statement and this was a pretty absolute statement.

BBC News,

It seems the BBC was happy to handle their own investigation to a point,

"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.

The BBC has now paused its own investigation into what happened while police examine the matter".

Also, apparently the parents went to a Police force a couple of months ago and was told at that stage no criminality could be found, their aim was to have the money source stopped which was fuelling their sons crack habit. As far as I can see they have asked for no money or payment from anyone or organisation (Scam)

But this complaint is about things that happened three or four years ago when the purported victim was under 18. It is an offence to pay for any type of sexual service to someone under 18 (including modelling). Once the person is 18 or over it is no longer an offence.

In the present, stopping the reliable safe form of income of an addict probably won't have a good ending, they will chase other means of obtaining money or drugs.

The BBC can only await the outcome of any Police investigation. The BBC appear to be under fire for not investigating but now you say they have been investigating. Its just piss poor cheap nasty journalism which is pulling society down every time they do this.

They are not under fire for not investigating but for sitting on it and hoping it went away like so many times in the past. I don't have to remind anyone of their past history. Former police and legal investigators have said this could have been concluded within a week or two with the reported evidence available. The very least the so called star should have been taken off air until the investigation was concluded regardless of the outcome.

You are really confusing me now.

You said it WAS investigated by police who said there was no criminality, but you think despite that the BBC should have taken him off the air????

So is that now your position, moral depravity is acceptable providing there's no criminality.
I know everyone's opinion on depravity will differ, my opinion is I don't want my licence fee contributing towards that sort of behaviour.

The original question,
Why is the BBC Under Fire?, You should really have the answer by now.

I haven't mentioned anything about morality, that is you putting words in my mouth.

An employer cannot act to the detriment of an employee based on hearsay.

An employer cannot act as Police, Judge nor Jury in a criminal matter.

An employer cannot act to the detriment of an employee on morality.

Moral depravity? That is exceedingly judgemental when you haven't got the slightest clue what went on, you don't even know what sex the "victim" is.

If you were the employer of diver Vernon Unsworth, what would you have done to Vernon when Elon Musk called him a paedo?

According to reports and interviews with his friends, the Victim is male. One friend even suggested it would not have gone this far if it was with a young girl, not sure what difference that would make anyway. Regardless of what he has done, everyone I have seen interviewed on this matter all agree the BBC could have warned him or at least mentioned it to him 7 weeks ago. If the BBC dealt with it sooner it may not have got to the Sun.

They will have a Code of Conduct and will investigate under their set of rules and make a decision.

Warned him of what?

Do you not think that would be interfering with a Police investigation about a potentially criminal matter?

No code of conduct can override the law.

No code of conduct can protect you if you commit defamation, slander or libel when you act on hearsay.

It has now got ridiculous ..... I received a letter with a kiss on the end and it has ruined my life.

Can you not recognise when the media are having a field day against a company that can't protect itself and manipulating people into a certain mindset. This only happens against companies that can't protect themselves such as the BBC, RSPCA and various other charities. What about the thousands of genuine offenders that worked for high street chains or other large media companies, you don't see the media playing silly-beggers with them because they would end up in court.

I wouldn't have warned him of anything, but the people I seen being interviewed were making the point it may have saved him from being admitted to hospital in the apparent state he is in now.

Apparently, it has just come to light, the BBC were investigating him before this particular episode involving the parents.

7 months ago a Police Force said at that point there was no criminality and again recently but there are Moral standards even though the BBC are slow to act on them.

Would you have if back on the telly?

2 months not 7

Yes, I've just seen the full timeline.

It was a private matter between two individuals, if there is nothing illegal and both parties agree how can there be any moral issues and how dare the media plaster it everywhere?

Why are the BBC under fire? It is absolutely nothing to do with the BBC other than if they suspect there may have been leaks from the BBC about this confidential matter then they need to report it to the Police and the the Information Commissioners Office (data protect act).

People have different likes, fetishes and kinks, they are private matters, their privacy should be respected.

The media have acted appallingly in this case, it is a complete breach of privacy and nothing at all to do with public interest. We need the Levenson 2 enquiry to go ahead.

The "moral" case that the money paid was used to fund the other party's drug problem doesn't hold any weight. Every drug user has sources of income, the sources cannot be held responsible as we the public fund much of them.

The "victim" might be in breach of tax legislation as they were clearly receiving money for services. If they were not paying tax, revealing that may be in the public interest however the sources of that income (Huw in this case) is not in the public interest.

And to answer your question, I have seen nothing that indicates he is unsuitable to do his job.

I don't see him coming back from this and it has nothing to do with legalities, when was it the media had any scruples and they are unlikely to have any in the future. The BBC have been no different, Cliff Richard springs to mind and no doubt a few others who had no case to answer.
The latest allegation is being inappropriate with young BBC staff members, so we will see where that goes.

You say it has nothing to do with the public interest, the public will make their own mind up on that one.

I meant Public Interest in the legal term where it specifically overrides the expectation of privacy, yes the public are fascinated in anything with an X in it, we never leave the sniggering playground stage.

He's been wanting to retire for the last few years but the BBC just kept throwing more money at him. Its a difficult decision to walk away from a half million salary.

I hope he recovers his health and enjoys life, i wouldn't be surprised to see him back on some outdoor ramble type more relaxed program at some point, he is a natural presenter and obviously took pride in his abilities.

I also hope he also sues the media or brings about some change, he was known to be a very vulnerable person and the media were relentless, although they didn't name him, there have been successful cases where pointed comments were made about a person without actually naming them.