I wonder who this is...................

[fishfoodie]

Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?

Because the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.

It's more important to appear to do the right thing, than to actually do the right thing.

[GogLais]

Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?

Because the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.

It's more important to appear to do the right thing, than to actually do the right thing.

I guess so, I should have thought it through.

[Biffer]

Me thinks it’s not over yet.

If such accusations were baseless, there would be one heck of a libel claim. Let’s see if that transpires.

Apparently, the name of the presenter was blurted out on the bbc. A Welsh Guy, who is trending on twitter apparently.

The Sun hasn’t named anyone, and hasn’t made it obvious enough to point the finger at one person in particular. So hard to prove libel.

[I like neeps]

Me thinks it’s not over yet.

If such accusations were baseless, there would be one heck of a libel claim. Let’s see if that transpires.

Apparently, the name of the presenter was blurted out on the bbc. A Welsh Guy, who is trending on twitter apparently.

The Sun hasn’t named anyone, and hasn’t made it obvious enough to point the finger at one person in particular. So hard to prove libel.

Defamation covers businesses and organisations. There could be a case because they accused the BBC of harbouring a peadophile essentially and it seems to be entirely baseless.

[Ymx]

I assume the parents have named this someone to the sun??! So I was more thinking they be in the firing line.

Twitter appear to have centred on a certain Welsh presenter #bbcnonce appears to be the most common tag which will find them.

[C69]

This is far from over as far as the feeding frenzy of the court of public opinion is over even if no police action is taken.

[fishfoodie]

This is far from over as far as the feeding frenzy of the court of public opinion is over even if no police action is taken.

Someone now needs to pick a small fish in this crime, & offer them a kind word to the Judge before sentencing, in return for a complete statement on who told them to do what they did

This time they can't stop at some pissant PI who hacked voice mails; this time they need to work up to Editors, who sign off on expenses etc.

[Hal Jordan]

I see Johnson failed to comply with the deadline.

I only mention this in passing.

[mat the expat]

Me thinks it’s not over yet.

If such accusations were baseless, there would be one heck of a libel claim. Let’s see if that transpires.

Apparently, the name of the presenter was blurted out on the bbc. A Welsh Guy, who is trending on twitter apparently.

I can't wait. Hopefully the libel is large enough to send that serpent who owns it back to Australia with all the other reptiles they have over there.

Fingers crossed

Fuck off! We're full - he's a Yank now

[Insane_Homer]

The Govt keen interest and intervention now makes a lot of sense

[Ymx]

Bank statements saying otherwise

[Jim Lahey]

Cover up?
The youngster in question get another brown envelope to keep schtum?

[tabascoboy]

‘Trial by Twitter’ for those named in the BBC scandal is desperately unfair – and dangerous
This doesn’t feel very much like a lawful process, let alone natural justice, for whoever it is. It feels like a modern, digital version of lynching – and any celebrity will do

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bb ... 72418.html

[Margin__Walker]

How about the Sun just give everything they have to the police (and print if they can stand behind it), where a decision on prosecution can be made, rather than piss about stringing this along over a week of front pages with faux concern for the alleged victim.

[Jim Lahey]

How about the Sun just give everything they have to the police (and print if they can stand behind it), where a decision on prosecution can be made, rather than piss about stringing this along over a week of front pages with faux concern for the alleged victim.

No money in spilling the beans this early. Get another week or two out of the publicity until it starts to die down then name them, and get another few weeks of the shit storm.

[Ymx]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011826/ ... y-ignored/

[GogLais]

Cover up?
The youngster in question get another brown envelope to keep schtum?

Crossed my mind as well but that wouldn’t delete whatever evidence the Sun has.

[I like neeps]

How about the Sun just give everything they have to the police (and print if they can stand behind it), where a decision on prosecution can be made, rather than piss about stringing this along over a week of front pages with faux concern for the alleged victim.

The mum and step father already gave the "evidence" to the police who said it didn't constitute anything illegal.

[Hal Jordan]

Don't forget that a swift resolution would be contrary to Murdoch's aim of destroying the BBC. I shall take great pleasure in reading his obituary.

[Torquemada 1420]

Seeing that shitrag hoisted by their own pertard might just be the schadenfreude of the decade so far

Delicious

If only it would die like The Screws Of The World.

[Openside]

Can anyone see the Sun getting sued over this?? That would get the whole tawdry mess into the public eye I think this is dying a death I suspect some serious wonga has changed hands!! Crack addict represented by the Queens ex lawyers??

[Biffer]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

[Openside]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

indeed but also something that the finer details of which he would far rather not come to light. Why is it that TV turns up so many sex pests and paedos??

[weegie01]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

In light of what we know so far, probably about right.

Save I do sadly know a young lady who fuelled her drug habit via Onlyfans. £1k a month from an individual for custom content or one to one interaction isn't that rare, and most often involved older men (no fool like an old fool). So it could be a physical or virtual relationship.

[Hal Jordan]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

indeed but also something that the finer details of which he would far rather not come to light. Why is it that TV turns up so many sex pests and paedos??

Access to victims, positions of power and a tolerance of behaviour that "ordinary" workplaces don't have. See also sports coaches, youth organisations, churches etc.

[Glaston]

Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?

Because the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.

It's more important to appear to do the right thing, than to actually do the right thing.

Not forgetting of course the Shadow Chancellor and Labour MP's who also spouted their opinions.

[SaintK]

........and another one!

A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app. They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.

[Oxbow]

........and another one!

A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app. They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.

A person well over the age of consent meets someone famous online then threatens to go public about it. The only story I see here is potential blackmail.

[GogLais]

........and another one!

A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app. They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.

I know people can do things that seem crackers to the rest of us but surely you’re not going to do that if you’re a household name. Are you? Unless under the influence maybe.

[Ymx]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

This is a nothing to see here thing for you?

An older and person in the public spotlight for integrity, paying a child for sex pics. S(he) is paid a large amount and develops a bad drug habit.

This is just a bit seedy but fine with you?

[sockwithaticket]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

[SaintK]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

Interesting that second "young person" went directly to the BBC and not The Sun
I think The Sun will be sweating a bit about their original story.

[GogLais]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

Illegal if the young person under 18 even with their consent I think.

[Ymx]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

He’s a public figure who may or may not read the news. He’s a beacon for the bbc.

Actually isn’t 18 the age needed for explicit material?

Either way, this child was not allowed to vote yet.

He’s a filthy old scum bag, if true.

[Calculon]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

This is a nothing to see here thing for you?

An older and person in the public spotlight for integrity, paying a child for sex pics. S(he) is paid a large amount and develops a bad drug habit.

This is just a bit seedy but fine with you?

Instead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?

[petej]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

Wasn't it the sun who published the photo of a 14 year old Charlotte church with the caption she's a big girl now while on the same page complaining about the brass eye paedophile episode.

[shaggy]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

This is a nothing to see here thing for you?

An older and person in the public spotlight for integrity, paying a child for sex pics. S(he) is paid a large amount and develops a bad drug habit.

This is just a bit seedy but fine with you?

Instead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?

This is PR/not PR - speculation is in the DNA and exercises on a daily basis.

[sockwithaticket]

While it's creepy given the likely age gap, is there actually anything illegal in one person over the age of consent paying another person over the age of consent for naked photos?

Also the fucking gall of The Sun to be going in on someone getting their rocks off to a 17 year old when they paid 16 year olds to appear on page 3 in the not so distant past!

Wasn't it the sun who published the photo of a 14 year old Charlotte church with the caption she's a big girl now while on the same page complaining about the brass eye paedophile episode.

Thye were one of those that did a countdown clock for Emma Watson reaching legal age too

[Ymx]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

This is a nothing to see here thing for you?

An older and person in the public spotlight for integrity, paying a child for sex pics. S(he) is paid a large amount and develops a bad drug habit.

This is just a bit seedy but fine with you?

Instead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?

Not sure what this even means. I’ve spun nothing. Facts have been presented. Bank statements, etc. My comments are in response to the parents version of facts, as opposed to the poor drug addicted victim.

[fishfoodie]

Older wealthy man financially supporting a young lover who happens to be a drug addled. Not really anything new, not really anything illegal, not really moral, not particularly pleasant.

Tomorrow these same rags will be fawning over a disgraced former PM, welcoming another sprog, spawned with a women 24 years his junior, whom he groomed , while in a position of power.