BBC's turn now...

Chunkylad said:
Huw would have thought it?
Click to expand...
glasshalffull said:
😪 Oh No!
Click to expand...
Lala said:
That’s where the odds are at the moment. News at 10 tonight may be revealing, either way.
Click to expand...

Apparently he was due to appear on the One Show the other night but pulled out last minute citing another commitment, reports and pictures from that event show he wasn't there.

Rumours circulating that he's quite well known for paying men for sex 🤦🏻 he's got a wife and 5 adult children, they're the ones I'd feel sorry for if it is him.
 
Mother of a drug addict blames TV Presenter for fuelling their habit - hardly the shining beacon of Parenthood and yet everyone is believing every word that she's been paid to say to that disgusting rag of a newspaper. Whatever this presenter did or didn't do, it's a sad day when the Scum are dictating what we read.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
If it’s to believed that there are others involved, then it takes an amazing level of narcissism / arrogance to think that you aren’t going to get caught out at some point.

I dunno, maybe the thrill of getting caught is part of the whole perversion as there’s simply no need to take those kinds of risks surely.

At the back of my mind (assuming there’s been no physical meet ups) I can’t help but wonder if this might be someone ‘posing as’ the individual (with a manufactured internet persona).

I mean it’s the equivalent of committing a murder and leaving your business card next to the body.
Click to expand...
But hasn’t he sent a picture of himself, supposedly, to the lad? I suppose with AI anything’s possible as per Martin Lewis last week. But 35k for the privilege? Surely that would be so easy to disprove. And those who have seen the evidence must seem to think there’s something in it.
 
Maths said:
Mother of a drug addict blames TV Presenter for fuelling their habit - hardly the shining beacon of Parenthood and yet everyone is believing every word that she's been paid to say to that disgusting rag of a newspaper. Whatever this presenter did or didn't do, it's a sad day when the Scum are dictating what we read.
Click to expand...
The family aren’t being paid by the Sun for the story.
 
Jeremy Vine has stated that he knows who it is, obviously, and has said that we may find out today! Which maybe points at charges being made as the police are meeting with the Beeb today 🤷‍♀️

As an aside if it is who we think, and it is true, it just makes you realise you never ever really know a person besides what they project. And I think that can apply to people close to you too. Dark sides can potentially exist in anyone even those you would never expect them to 😳
 
Lala said:
Jeremy Vine has stated that he knows who it is, obviously, and has aid that we may find out today! Which maybe points at charges being made as the police are meeting with the Beeb today 🤷‍♀️

As an aside if it is who we think, and it is true, it just makes you realise you never ever really know a person besides what they project. And I think that can apply to people close to you too. Dark sides can potentially exist in anyone even those you would never expect them to 😳
Click to expand...
I’d like to think you have more insight into the personality and character your close friends relationships than you do a ‘character’ who appears on your T.V. screen.

I think ‘I’m A Celebrity’ and ‘Big Brother’ have gone some way to highlighting how wrong you can be just about individual personality traits, never mind their deeper darker side (although I think some still fake their way though those kind of programmes).

I do think people give an awful lot away though tbh… And if you’re perceptive then you can pick up an awful lot.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’d like to think you have more insight into the personality and character your close friends relationships than you do a ‘character’ who appears on your T.V. screen.

I think ‘I’m A Celebrity’ and ‘Big Brother’ have gone some way to highlighting how wrong you can be just about individual personality traits, never mind their deeper darker side (although I think some still fake their way though those kind of programmes).

I do think people give an awful lot away though tbh… And if you’re perceptive then you can pick up an awful lot.
Click to expand...
I agree in the main Bifster but if this fella has a wife and she has been blind sided then I give up !
 
Lala said:
I agree in the main Bifster but if this fella has a wife and she has been blind sided then I give up !
Click to expand...
I think sexual deviance or perversion is likely to be something quite ‘personal’ and I suppose that it would be quite normal for those to sit outside of your day to day ‘relationships’.

There are also some pretty big assumptions being made, based on the story to date. A big issue has been made about the girl being 17 when it started (Maybe that was the key to getting anyone to listen ?) because beyond that, it could quite easily be a bit of consenting titillation between two adults with a protective mother having kicked up a fuss… And if so, what’s the big deal…. I imagine loads of blokes (and a good few women) will use porn sites and many of them might offer interactive services ..

What I will also say is rather than being ‘blindsided’ I do wonder whether plenty of people (men and women) choose convenient ignorance, rather than pursue the signs and signals that something isn’t quite right 😉
 
Last edited:
Let's hope the payoff from the Currant Bun keeps her in shellsuits and 8 Ace for a bit longer. What a scummy paper and owner.
 
Always tangerine said:
Yes , the obvious thing to do. Went to the BBC then the Sun.
Click to expand...
If the mother thought they were carrying out a legal activity, what could the employer do?

If she thought it was illegal why go to the employer.

Apart from celebrity is there other ways of life where you would raise issues with the employer rather than the authorities?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I think sexual deviance or perversion is likely to be something quite ‘personal’ and I suppose that it would be quite normal for those to sit outside of your day to day ‘relationships’.

There are also some pretty big assumptions being made, based on the story to date. A big issue has been made about the girl being 17 when it started (Maybe that was the key to getting anyone to listen ?) because beyond that, it could quite easily be a bit of consenting titillation between two adults with a protective mother having kicked up a fuss… And if so, what’s the big deal…. I imagine loads of blokes (and a good few women) will use porn sites and many of them might offer interactive services ..

What I will also say is rather than being ‘blindsided’ I do wonder whether plenty of people (men and women) choose convenient ignorance, rather than pursue the signs and signals that something isn’t quite right 😉
Click to expand...
I think it’s a boy Bifster, not that it matters legally as if 17 it’s the crime will be the same. Although that could be another shocker for the wife !
Ye, I think some people don’t acknowledge even in their own head signs that something isn’t right. Mainly to not have to deal with upsetting their own status sometimes, like avoiding the distress of divorce and starting again. Or simply not wanting to be traumatised by what they have to face being true.
 
Lala said:
I think it’s a boy Bifster, not that it matters legally as if 17 it’s the crime will be the same. Although that could be another shocker for the wife !
Ye, I think some people don’t acknowledge even in their own head signs that something isn’t right. Mainly to not have to deal with upsetting their own status sometimes, like avoiding the distress of divorce and starting again. Or simply not wanting to be traumatised by what they have to face being true.
Click to expand...
Ah OK… 👍

As you say, the same from a criminal perspective, perhaps rather different for the wife and family to take on board.

I suppose we need to hear what the old boy has to say for himself, before getting too stuck in, but it’s certainly a bit of a shocker in the face of it.

I’d like to hope that most of us wouldn’t have something quite so extreme hidden in the cupboard, but I suppose (as you say) you just never quite know.😲
 
The current laws are a joke, he could of boffed her perfectly legally but cyber sex has a higher age of consent. This story stinks, it could well be blackmail for all we know. What we do know is that the Murdoch empire hates the BBC and they'll be creaming their kex at this.
 
What can they charge him with? AFAIK he hasn't met the druggie who is of age, so hasn't knowingly manipulated a minor ( a crime).

I can understand the BBC binning him because it will be in his contract to not attract this type of story, a moral code if you will.

However the mother should have dealt with the lads problems not sat back and watched, seemingly taking the opportunity to exploit her son's problems for financial gain, so arguably is just as culpable of taking advantage.
 
If the story is as billed on here I think the legal question (and defence) would be whether the BBC man could have reasonably known that the other person involved was not 18. If they met on only fans where under 18s are not allowed to have accounts then the defence might work unless there is other evidence that shows that he must have known.
The whole thing just puts everybody involved in a bad light, the BBC person, the 17 year old, the mother and the BBC. It's not the fault of the BBC that the woman's child is an addict, which she says is her motivation for putting this into the public domain.
 
fcblackpool said:
What can they charge him with? AFAIK he hasn't met the druggie who is of age, so hasn't knowingly manipulated a minor ( a crime).

I can understand the BBC binning him because it will be in his contract to not attract this type of story, a moral code if you will.

However the mother should have dealt with the lads problems not sat back and watched, seemingly taking the opportunity to exploit her son's problems for financial gain, so arguably is just as culpable of taking advantage.
Click to expand...
He’s not of age Founts as it’s 18 for sexual pics.
 
So, let me get this right. If you are over 18, it's OK to take sexual pictures and videos of yourself and upload them on the Internet? For what ?money ?
Stop the world, I'm getting off
 
Hertsseasider said:
So, let me get this right. If you are over 18, it's OK to take sexual pictures and videos of yourself and upload them on the Internet? For what ?money ?
Stop the world, I'm getting off
Click to expand...
I guess that’s what platforms like only fans are for.
 
Hertsseasider said:
So, let me get this right. If you are over 18, it's OK to take sexual pictures and videos of yourself and upload them on the Internet? For what ?money ?
Stop the world, I'm getting off
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you can just do it ‘indiscriminately’, but there are legitimate ways to share sexual pictures between adults…

You are also free to have sex with other adults if you wish 👍
 
lawy for the young person involved says nothing inappropriate hand the mothers story is rubbish. Looks like it’s going to get messy.
 
Hertsseasider said:
So, let me get this right. If you are over 18, it's OK to take sexual pictures and videos of yourself and upload them on the Internet? For what ?money ?
Stop the world, I'm getting off
Click to expand...
Some of them make an absolute fortune - millionaire level.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure you can just do it ‘indiscriminately’, but there are legitimate ways to share sexual pictures between adults…

You are also free to have sex with other adults if you wish 👍
Click to expand...
It’s like Polaroids of old. I’m sure there are many such pics gathering dust in many a wallet or attic.
 
Matesrates said:
lawy for the young person involved says nothing inappropriate hand the mothers story is rubbish. Looks like it’s going to get messy.
Click to expand...
The Sun have disputed this and says they have seen evidence. Looks like the kid doesn’t want this putting out there.

Who’s paying for the crack addicts lawyer I wonder ?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The underlying agenda of the story is to attack the BBC. This is unsurprising from the Murdoch owned Sun.
Has an offence been committed here?
It's unclear, and if, like in the Schofield case no offence has been committed then is there really a story here?
A TV star has done something sleazy and immoral - if that person wasn't famous (or worked for the BBC) the Sun wouldn't be all over it.
If an offence has been committed then leave the police to do their job.
What a circus and the Sun, as ever, are talking many people for a walk around the block.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that the Sun were showing Samantha Fox's tits from her being 16. What's the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top