Views on the BBC approach to protecting their media star?

[Mussels]

Does this not demonstrate double standards by the BBC?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66190231

Tim Westwood interviewed under police caution again

[Mr. Dazzle]

Westwood is 65?!

He doesn't work for the BBC any more though? Does he???

[Yorick]

I wonder why they keep saying "young person" and "child"?

Why hide if it's male or female?

[Mussels]

I wonder why they keep saying "young person" and "child"?

Why hide if it's male or female?

It shouldnt make any difference but if he turned out to be gay he'd instantly get victim status.

[Mr Moofo]

I thought the first allegations were about a girl. Or at least the article in the Sunday Tines mentioned it

[Docca]

What’s saddened me is seeing the trolls suggesting the BBC should not employ people with severe mental illness.

I’ve got news for you- most of the successful and brightest and best in the media /performance are/more likely to be on that spectrum.

[Mussels]

What’s saddened me is seeing the trolls suggesting the BBC should not employ people with severe mental illness.

I’ve got news for you- most of the successful and brightest and best in the media /performance are/more likely to be on that spectrum.

I don't think anyone suggested that, but mental illness is not an excuse for getting children into creating porn (if that happened).

[Docca]

What’s saddened me is seeing the trolls suggesting the BBC should not employ people with severe mental illness.

I’ve got news for you- most of the successful and brightest and best in the media /performance are/more likely to be on that spectrum.

I don't think anyone suggested that, but mental illness is not an excuse for getting children into creating porn (if that happened).

Not on here, it’s more on the ‘socials’ that some are shouting loudly about it

[irie]

BBC should have flagged any complaint of sexual nature to safeguarding and child protection team

We have a moral and legal obligation to act if there are concerns about any person in a position of influence

KATE SILVERTON11 July 2023 • 9:48pm

You might think that when an organisation as big and important as the BBC receives a complaint of a sexual nature against one of its stars, it would have protocols in place to deal with something so potentially serious. And you would be right.

In this case, when two parents claimed their child had been paid by a BBC presenter for indecent images, starting when they were 17, it should have been flagged to the corporation’s safeguarding and child protection unit, which would have known exactly what to do.

We do not yet have the established facts in this case, but all organisations must have a safeguarding policy in place and a designated safeguarding lead, so that when allegations of such a serious nature are made, they are the first people to act. Typically they would refer to the local authority or the police – certainly there should be due process for cases to be considered by a team who are impartial and have the crucial experience to give critical oversight. When Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, made his first public comments on the matter he made repeated references to a Corporate Investigations Team, but he made no mention of safeguarding, which leaves us very unclear as to the due process.

It is not the BBC’s job to investigate potential criminality, just as it wouldn’t be a school’s job to investigate when an allegation is made of this nature, even if the facts are initially unclear.

Duty of care

Davie said: “If you’ve got an allegation coming into a corporate team you need to balance the concerns of duty of care and privacy.”

The first duty of care should be towards the young person, and staff are made aware of this.

I know, because in 2020 the BBC asked me to be the face of their Safeguarding Talent Project, which was a series of videos for on-screen presenters to watch to ensure they were made aware of our duty of care towards the children we might come into contact with during filming.

At the time I was still working as a newsreader, but I was training to become a child counsellor. I now work as a child therapist supporting young children at a primary school.

Safeguarding – I then explained – is something “we proactively do as a society and business to protect children and young people from harm. It is the legal and moral, policies, procedures, behaviours, actions and beliefs we put into place”.

The script continued: “As artists working in the media industry, you have a unique and influential role…people may look up to you. You’re in a position of trust. You have a duty to protect young and vulnerable people you work with, as we all do. You can never really be sure how people will interpret your actions.”

And this is the point. Adults – especially well known ones – are in a position of trust and influence. We have a moral as well as legal obligation to act if there are concerns about any person in a position of influence.

As the video also states: “Each and every one of us must step up.”

BBC policy clear

There has been much talk over the past few days about claims that the young person in question was 17 when they had first contact with the presenter, and therefore over the legal age of consent. We are, again, as yet to establish the facts, but to be clear, under the Children Act – a young person under the age of 18 is legally considered a child. Even if a 17-year-old willingly exchanges indecent images with someone, the law says they are not in a position to make that judgement.

The BBC safeguarding policy is also very clear on what constitutes sexual abuse. It states that it can include “a child/young person being involved in the production of sexual online images” and that victims often “do not recognise themselves as such”.

That is why I would be very shocked if the BBC did not inform its safeguarding lead about this serious allegation, because that person should then have informed the local authority or the police.

The BBC has a difficult job, we are told this complaint was one of 250 in one month, but this is not an excuse. If we genuinely want to safeguard children and young people we have to train staff and support them to be able to report concerns appropriately.

I am writing not to enter the media fray. This is my only comment. I felt compelled to write because, as someone who has made the care and advocacy of children my life’s work, I get extraordinarily angry when systems fail children and young, potentially vulnerable people. This case might yet reveal other facts of which we are not aware. Again, this must be a case for more transparency on the part of an organisation that states on its safeguarding page “it’s not OK to do nothing”.

I write as someone who is an advocate for children – knowing the suffering that comes from silencing by adults in denial, whether consciously or unconsciously. I write to implore every organisation to look at its safeguarding policies, to ensure every member of staff is clear on their responsibilities, both from a moral perspective – and as the BBC is now finding – from a reputational one too.

Crucially, it is for us all to look at our responsibilities to those more vulnerable and less protected than we are. It is not enough to stand by and do nothing. It is not enough not to speak up.

If you, or anyone you know is concerned about a child or young person you can call the NSPCC on 0808 800 5000.

Kate Silverton is a child therapist and former BBC journalist

[mangocrazy]

Does that apply equally to The Sun?

[Count Steer]

Does that apply equally to The Sun?

It doesn't say that they didn't involve the child protection team (or whether they were included in the investigation team) either. Just that they should have done and it's not clear to the ex-employee that they did.

[irie]

Huw

[JamJar]

Does that apply equally to The Sun?

And GB News for that matter now that Dan Wootton is trending on twitter and their pervious with Darren Grimes