Torrevieja Forum and Discussion Board

Yes I stand corrected. This seemed to have started when the teenager was 17. So he's in big trouble by the looks of it.

From the Mail.

So what laws could the TV star have broken?

Now that police have been informed by the BBC about the allegations, officers have to decide if there is sufficient evidence to open a criminal investigation. The allegations, if proved, could constitute several criminal offences.

Making, distributing, possessing or showing an indecent image of anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, even if the image was created with the consent of the young person, or the young person was asked to send a sexual image of themselves.

It carries a maximum sentence of ten years. Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor who led the case against the Rochdale grooming gangs, said the allegations could also be considered an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.

Mr Afzal told The Sunday Times he was 'surprised that this person was not suspended once they became aware of the gravity of the allegation'.

'They should have advised the police that this is a matter that they should be investigating, and that should have been done weeks ago.'

Army of stars wrote: 09 Jul 2023 23:09 The smart money is on Mary Berry.

Lawyer for the teenager says claims are rubbish. Nothing illegal has happened

A lawyer representing the young person at the centre of allegations an unnamed presenter paid a teenager tens of thousands of pounds for sexually explicit images has claimed "nothing inappropriate or unlawful" has taken place, the BBC has reported.

According to the new bombshell report, published on Monday evening, the lawyer has reportedly told the BBC: "The allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-presenter ... 25518.html

So what happens now.

If this is correct, then the unnamed presenter must be allowed to return to work and awarded compensation.

And heads must roll.

Not sure if this is too rude for this forum but possibly

Who's missing, off the TV. ?

Vino wrote: 11 Jul 2023 08:48 Who's missing, off the TV. ?

Good question, but I don't watch it anyway and without a name, rumours will run rife and then regarded as fact, even if they're not.

Not too bothered myself as it kept Philip Schofields face out of the news ..... hey wait a minute, !!

Now somebody else is making allegations against this presenter, apparently a male

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... aa9d4&ei=8

He is obviously a Gay presenter (wanting pictures of a boy).
That doesn't rule many out.

Well paid having given £30,000.
That doesn't rule many out.

On the other hand it's all over the Internet in non UK sites.

The problems of what's happening in the UK and the world, the amount of coverage this is given is ridiculous.