A place where escape goats go to play
https://www.notplanetrugby.com/
Because the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.GogLais wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:25 pm Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?
I guess so, I should have thought it through.fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:29 pmBecause the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.GogLais wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:25 pm Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?
It's more important to appear to do the right thing, than to actually do the right thing.
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.Ymx wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:35 pm 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.
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.Biffer wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 8:05 pmThe 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.Ymx wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:35 pm 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.
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 didC69 wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 9:10 pm 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.
Fuck off! We're full - he's a Yank nowC69 wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:50 pmFingers crossedI like neeps wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:48 pmI 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.Ymx wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:35 pm 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.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bb ... 72418.html‘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
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.Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:33 am 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.
Crossed my mind as well but that wouldn’t delete whatever evidence the Sun has.Jim Lahey wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:27 am Cover up?
The youngster in question get another brown envelope to keep schtum?
The mum and step father already gave the "evidence" to the police who said it didn't constitute anything illegal.Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:33 am 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.
If only it would die like The Screws Of The World.bogbunny wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:58 pmDeliciousInsane_Homer wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:19 pm Seeing that shitrag hoisted by their own pertard might just be the schadenfreude of the decade so far
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??Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
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.Openside wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:25 pmindeed 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??Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
Not forgetting of course the Shadow Chancellor and Labour MP's who also spouted their opinions.fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:29 pmBecause the Beeb have to satisfy a bunch of fuckwit Tory MPs, regardless of what the actual protocol should be.GogLais wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:25 pm Anyone know why the Met are talking to the BBC? Surely it’s a matter for the “victim”, “accused” and any witnesses?
It's more important to appear to do the right thing, than to actually do the right thing.
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.SaintK wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 3:45 pm ........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.SaintK wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 3:45 pm ........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.
This is a nothing to see here thing for you?Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
Interesting that second "young person" went directly to the BBC and not The Sunsockwithaticket wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:24 pm 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.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:24 pm 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.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:24 pm 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!
Instead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?Ymx wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:22 pmThis is a nothing to see here thing for you?Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
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?
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.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:24 pm 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!
This is PR/not PR - speculation is in the DNA and exercises on a daily basis.Calculon wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:57 pmInstead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?Ymx wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:22 pmThis is a nothing to see here thing for you?Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
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?
Thye were one of those that did a countdown clock for Emma Watson reaching legal age toopetej wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:59 pmWasn'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.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:24 pm 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!
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.Calculon wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:57 pmInstead of spinning the story to fuel your outrage, why don't you wait for the facts to emerge?Ymx wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:22 pmThis is a nothing to see here thing for you?Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
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?
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.Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:20 pm 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.
