Well, there's an image I never knew I didn't need to see.
If it is the alleged person you may or may not know of, then i would suggest it would be.This is huge. no wonder they don't want it getting out.
all the archive footage of all of those previous royal events.... the queen's death etc... all with him. They will all be unusable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357
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.
A spokesperson for the Sun said: "We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.
"Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC.
"We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It's now for the BBC to properly investigate."
BBC News does not know the identity of the young person and has not spoken directly to them.
It has not seen any of the Sun's body of evidence, or the dossier the Sun reported was handed to the corporation by the family over the weekend.
In their letter, the lawyer writes: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish."
That’s the end of the no story
Why did the "concerned" parents contact The Sun and The BBC but not the police?
There's a rabbit off somewhere.
That’s the end of the no story
Is it known that they had never approached either the BBC, or the Police?
Queer things newspapers, but they aren't stupid, and if they have evidence.....
They did report it to the BBC as I said. The way it is worded suggests that they didn't go to the Police though. The newspaper have also sensationalised it further, by deliberately ignoring the other side of the argument, that the alleged victim contacted them and stated that the allegation was rubbish.
I'm not suggesting that the whole story has been rubbished either, nobody knows really.
My own opinion though is that parents who go to the Sun to sell the story rather than go to the Police, have ulterior motives than just the welfare of their child.
They did report it to the BBC as I said. The way it is worded suggests that they didn't go to the Police though. The newspaper have also sensationalised it further, by deliberately ignoring the other side of the argument, that the alleged victim contacted them and stated that the allegation was rubbish.
I'm not suggesting that the whole story has been rubbished either, nobody knows really.
My own opinion though is that parents who go to the Sun to sell the story rather than go to the Police, have ulterior motives than just the welfare of their child.
****ing hell man. I can't unsee thatYou must log in or register to see images
Defence is easy though, the paper hasn’t named him, so technically he hasn’t been libelled by them. Now all the twitter accounts and websites who released his name they’re probably fair game.Could be the mother of all libel court cases this. If the lawyers account is accurate.