Jimmy who?
Allegations that an unnamed male BBC presenter paid a young adult £35,000 for explicit photos over a three-year period are remarkable for four things.
- Firstly, the glacial pace of the BBC internal investigation, and its coyness in reporting its own internal woes. So much for
report[ing] on stories from around the world fairly, impartially and without fear or favour.
- Secondly, the reticence that the corporation has shown in defending other male presenters, who've effectively been left hanging out to dry, having to defend themselves against rumours that they're the pervert in question.
- Thirdly, the BBC's largesse towards its
stars
is such that one of them can blow over ten grand a year on personal porn. - And, finally, no one at the BBC—either management or the pervert himself—seems to have heeded the lessons from the Jimmy Savile scandal.
Verily, those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. (pipe)
Reports have veriously described the victim as a teenager
and child
. But they were 17-years-old when the abuse started, and 20 when it was reported to the BBC, so I'm going with young adult
as a convenient catch-all. This does not constitute a legal opinion.
Now the alledged victim at the centre of the scandal claims through a lawyer that their mother's complaint is baseless rubbish
. 'Tis pity, for it means that we may never get to know the identify of the alleged pervert. And that's really all prurient me was interested in.
Boo.
It's unclear whether a 20-year-old is hiring a lawyer through whatever proportion of the thirty-five grand they didn't blow on drugs, or whether this is a separately-funded initiative. I think the decent ones might be quite expensive. (thinking) (vultures)
Gotta admit, the denouement's a bit of a let-down. The BBC's star
presenter turns out to be nothing more than a grey old man who reads the news in a suit. Not his birthday suit, mind; he saves that for video calls with young adults. (lecher)
According to a statement from his wife, he was
. To be matched with outpourings of yada-yada from his cronies.suffering mental health issues
and is now receiving in-patient hospital care
But what of his colleagues whose names were besmirched in the witch-hunt on social media?
One of them, Jeremy Vine, had previously asked him to come forward out of respect to his colleagues and the corporation. He was accused by a smooth brain of begging come on for the sake of me, can you out yourself please?
; which is bullshit, not only because the smooth brain in question was not in the position of being falsely accused and having to defend himself in the court of social media opinion—it's easier to take the moral high ground when you're not in the firing line, after all—but because Vine had already broadcast after Edwards had been suspended by the BBC. Therefore, simply by applying the methods of Sherlock Holmes, he was eliminated as the presenter
.* So too would others, as they appeared in their own scheduled programming.
Since Edwards' identity was an open secret within circles in the know, and with other reports of unprofessional behaviour towards junior colleagues circulating, it was only a matter of time before he was outed. At least this way he has some control over the narrative, even if it only relies on blaming depression.
To be honest, I think using depression as a deflect for licentious behavior is a bloody insult to those of us who've suffered with it, without resorting to the acts that he's been accused of and tacitly admitted to. He's not a pervert because of depression, he's just a pervert with depression. Mind you, I'd be depressed if I was a solemn news anchor who'd built a career on trustworthiness and had just been discovered to be a humbug. Hey-ho. (shrug)
* For the benefit of Jon Sopel (who?), the reasoning goes along these lines:
- BBC suspends the presenter in question;
- Jeremy Vine presents;
- ergo, Jeremy Vine is not suspended;
- ergo, Jeremy Vine is not the presenter in question;
- ergo, Jeremy Vine is not asking for the sake of he;
- Fin!