The Scum Newspaper

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
????
Click to expand...
The kid who received money for explicit photographs from a bbc presenter has said the whole story is baloney.
It's his parents shit stirring and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Sun newspapers lawyers were on the mark this bbc celebrity would have had their name all over the headlines.
Lowest of the low journalism.

Unfortunately people believe what they read🤷
 
The Sun has to bring the goods now.

If there is no evidence, and it isn’t true I’m at a loss to see what the parents ( it’s not just the mother apparantly) every expected to gain from this ?? That is a total mystery. Why did they go to the bbc in May, and then to the Sun, when they obviously haven't been asking for money ? 🤷‍♀️

Who is paying for this kids lawyer. It’s a very bold and organised move for a young crack cocaine addict to go to a lawyer to ’put out’ a statement, unless they have been guided and supported in doing so.

And why did the BBC state yesterday that they have since had other calls complaining about the accused’s behaviour ?

This is all turning out to be very very strange.
 
Ollygon said:
I just can't believe that the greatest newspaper in the history of the world would ever report any claims "which are rubbish"

This is a plot by left wing lawyers to smear a much loved and respected publication
Click to expand...
But if there is no substance to it then they never had chance to smear the BBC as the truth would out and they ( The Sun) would look like the idiots. I can’t believe that was their plan.
 
Lala said:
But if there is no substance to it then they never had chance to smear the BBC as the truth would out and they ( The Sun) would look like the idiots. I can’t believe that was their plan.
Click to expand...
Maybe they were conned by the "mother"
 
Ollygon said:
Maybe they were conned by the "mother"
Click to expand...
But what‘s in for her, at all ?

And it’s the parents according to the Sun’s statement tonight, not just the mother. I think the mother has been slated relentlessly to be honest, and branded a bad parent, and yet we know very little of the real situation or her parenting.

It somehow feels better now they are stating it is the parent’s that reported it and not just ‘the mother.’
 
So if it’s a load of baloney what happened to the money the Sun gave out for this information?

Are we saying the alleged victim/victims parents never took it? because someone did.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
The Sun has to bring the goods now.

If there is no evidence, and it isn’t true I’m at a loss to see what the parents ( it’s not just the mother apparantly) every expected to gain from this ?? That is a total mystery. Why did they go to the bbc in May, and then to the Sun, when they obviously haven't been asking for money ? 🤷‍♀️

Who is paying for this kids lawyer. It’s a very bold and organised move for a young crack cocaine addict to go to a lawyer to out. statement out, unless they have been guided and supported in doing so.

And why did the BBC state yesterday that they have since had other calls complaining about the accused’s behaviour ?

This is all turning out to be very very strange.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that the Mother is quoted as referring to the BBC presented having "undressed himself ready for my child to perform". The lad is currently 20 years old and as far as the Law is concerned he's very much an adult... However you know as well as I do LALA that at 20 years old, you feel very differently about your own kids when it comes to this kind of thing, than the Law suggests....

As a parent you're going to be extremely concerned (desperate in fact) if your child (adult) is engaging in sharing sexually explicit images / videos for money and especially so, if they are funding a drug habit with the money earned. So there's really no accounting for what desperate parents might do in those circumstances.... It's possible they may have approached the BBC initially hoping that they might intervene and resolve the problem.... It's possible they may have felt motivated to 'enhance' the story, got the wrong end of the stick, been misled or misinformed.

Their motivation is going to be geared around getting their kid off drugs and steering him away from earning his money in this kind of way. To the parents, the BBC Presenter is simply an ENEMY who needs to be brought down and stopped at all costs.

It's possible that Lawyers have sought the kid out.... possible that he has reached out to the BBC Presenter for help... possible that the BBC Presenter has offered to help..... possible that other media sources have offered help.... possible the lad has been helped or advised by an online media streaming site or possible that the lad has phoned his own solicitor off his own back...

The other complaints could easily just be practical jokers or people just jumping on a bandwagon, having seen the pictures on Social Media... They would need to be verified and, of course, it would need to be established whether the alleged behaviour was actually illegal.

The story has been extremely 'Fishy' from the outset as a number of things just didn't add up....It really shouldn't have been anywhere near the media until such time as a proper and private investigation had taken place.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It's interesting that the Mother is quoted as referring to the BBC presented having "undressed himself ready for my child to perform". The lad is currently 20 years old and as far as the Law is concerned he's very much an adult... However you know as well as I do LALA that at 20 years old, you feel very differently about your own kids when it comes to this kind of thing, than the Law suggests....

As a parent you're going to be extremely concerned (desperate in fact) if your child (adult) is engaging in sharing sexually explicit images / videos for money and especially so, if they are funding a drug habit with the money earned. So there's really no accounting for what desperate parents might do in those circumstances.... It's possible they may have approached the BBC initially hoping that they might intervene and resolve the problem.... It's possible they may have felt motivated to 'enhance' the story, got the wrong end of the stick, been misled or misinformed.

Their motivation is going to be geared around getting their kid off drugs and steering him away from earning his money in this kind of way. To the parents, the BBC Presenter is simply an ENEMY who needs to be brought down and stopped at all costs.

It's possible that Lawyers have sought the kid out.... possible that he has reached out to the BBC Presenter for help... possible that the BBC Presenter has offered to help..... possible that other media sources have offered help.... possible the lad has been helped or advised by an online media streaming site or possible that the lad has phoned his own solicitor off his own back...

The other complaints could easily just be practical jokers or people just jumping on a bandwagon, having seen the pictures on Social Media... They would need to be verified and, of course, it would need to be established whether the alleged behaviour was actually illegal.

The story has been extremely 'Fishy' from the outset as a number of things just didn't add up....It really shouldn't have been anywhere near the media until such time as a proper and private investigation had taken place.
Click to expand...
I have a tendency to take most things at face value. I can’t see why anyone would just lie about something like this. It makes no sense to me.
As you say there may be some level of truth throughout all this. Just not the level we thought or were told.

Or the boy could be protecting the presenter.

It’s still all very odd now as the Sun are still saying they have seen evidence.
 
Parents stated they haven't taken money from the Sun, and were driven to this due to them reporting to BBC in April and seeing f*ckall done.

I think all of these things are true:

1. They're probably not the best parents, but until the full truth emerges nobody can really judge.
2. The Sun is a horrible rag that published this for salacious value and to make money.
3. The first 2 points don't have any bearing on a 60+ year old multi millionaire getting at least 1 teenager to perform sex acts for money. If I were a betting man, I'd say there's a lot more to come...and if the Sun can be praised for (inadvertently) doing some good, it's that any other victims will now come forward.

To anyone jumping on the parents...I don't think it's a difficult thought experiment. You have a vulnerable teenager, going through a few issues...and a celebrity starts manipulating them to expose themselves for money. Would any of you be cool with the argument that your child is now legally an adult?

Deeply cynical to question the parents motives. I'm a 30 something 110kg, 6 foot 5 tub o'lard, but when I go back home for Christmas I still get hugs and told I'm my dad and mums little boy.

If their kid is going through a few issues, no wonder they're kicking up a fuss.
 
look.its.luke said:
Parents stated they haven't taken money from the Sun, and were driven to this due to them reporting to BBC in April and seeing f*ckall done.

I think all of these things are true:

1. They're probably not the best parents, but until the full truth emerges nobody can really judge.
2. The Sun is a horrible rag that published this for salacious value and to make money.
3. The first 2 points don't have any bearing on a 60+ year old multi millionaire getting at least 1 teenager to perform sex acts for money. If I were a betting man, I'd say there's a lot more to come...and if the Sun can be praised for (inadvertently) doing some good, it's that any other victims will now come forward.

To anyone jumping on the parents...I don't think it's a difficult thought experiment. You have a vulnerable teenager, going through a few issues...and a celebrity starts manipulating them to expose themselves for money. Would any of you be cool with the argument that your child is now legally an adult?

Deeply cynical to question the parents motives. I'm a 30 something 110kg, 6 foot 5 tub o'lard, but when I go back home for Christmas I still get hugs and told I'm my dad and mums little boy.

If their kid is going through a few issues, no wonder they're kicking up a fuss.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with all your points.
 
Lala said:
I have a tendency to take most things at face value. I can’t see why anyone would just lie about something like this. It makes no sense to me.
As you say there may be some level of truth throughout all this. Just not the level we thought or were told.

Or the boy could be protecting the presenter.

It’s still all very odd now as the Sun are still saying they have seen evidence.
Click to expand...
There are lies... Then there are 'perspectives' and then there's the truth and it can all het pretty jumbled up in these kinds of situations. And what exactly do the Sun have evidence of?

Do they have cast iron evidence that this was going on when the lad was underage?
Do they have evidence that BBC Presenter knew that to be the case?
or Have they merely seen a few Photos that support the general theme of what has been suggested?

In what form is the 'evidence'?

I'm not saying anything untoward hasn't happened here by the way and to be honest (in my opinion at least) it's all a bit weird and creepy regardless of age, but there's an awful lot of conflicting motivation here from all sources concerned and therefore plenty of reason for all of them / any of them to bend the truth.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
There are lies... Then there are 'perspectives' and then there's the truth and it can all het pretty jumbled up in these kinds of situations. And what exactly do the Sun have evidence of?

Do they have cast iron evidence that this was going on when the lad was underage?
Do they have evidence that BBC Presenter knew that to be the case?
or Have they merely seen a few Photos that support the general theme of what has been suggested?

In what form is the 'evidence'?

I'm not saying anything untoward hasn't happened here by the way and to be honest (in my opinion at least) it's all a bit weird and creepy regardless of age, but there's an awful lot of conflicting motivation here from all sources concerned and therefore plenty of reason for all of them / any of them to bend the truth.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The evidence the Sun purport to have seen will be the crux of how this pans out. As in does it exist ? And what is it ?
 
Lala said:
The Sun has to bring the goods now.

If there is no evidence, and it isn’t true I’m at a loss to see what the parents ( it’s not just the mother apparantly) every expected to gain from this ?? That is a total mystery. Why did they go to the bbc in May, and then to the Sun, when they obviously haven't been asking for money ? 🤷‍♀️

Who is paying for this kids lawyer. It’s a very bold and organised move for a young crack cocaine addict to go to a lawyer to ’put out’ a statement, unless they have been guided and supported in doing so.

And why did the BBC state yesterday that they have since had other calls complaining about the accused’s behaviour ?

This is all turning out to be very very strange.
Click to expand...

 
<SmugMode> I said this story was baloney all along and I'm right, sounds more like a blackmail operation gone wrong. The so called alleged victim is no such thing and perfectly happy with the arrangement. The Sun went along with to pursue it's ongoing agenda against the BBC. The case in and of itself is trivial and I highly doubt a custodial sentence would be given assuming a crime has been committed. I'm glad I have no skin in the game anymore because I despise this new puritan UK.

As to the presenter he's finished come what may that's vigilante 'justice' for you.
 
bill40 said:
<SmugMode> I said this story was baloney all along and I'm right, sounds more like a blackmail operation gone wrong. The so called alleged victim is no such thing and perfectly happy with the arrangement. The Sun went along with to pursue it's ongoing agenda against the BBC. The case in and of itself is trivial and I highly doubt a custodial sentence would be given assuming a crime has been committed. I'm glad I have no skin in the game anymore because I despise this new puritan UK.

As to the presenter he's finished come what may that's vigilante 'justice' for you.
Click to expand...
To your last sentence, he may not lose his career if this genuinely turns out to be without substance.
 
Lala said:
I can’t answer that. I’d like to think if the stories are all false the suspension will be lifted. As with Cliff Richard etc
Click to expand...
There's a whole raft of people on Twitter who still think Cliff got away with it and IMO society has become far too censorious. What makes me sick is a fair few of these people will have skeletons of their own in the cupboard.
 
Last edited:
bill40 said:
There's a whole raft of people on Twitter who still think Cliff got away with it and IMO society has become far too censorious. What makes me sich is a fair few of these people will have skeletons of their own in the cupboard.
Click to expand...
Yes I get that has happened re Cliff, but it has to be innocent if there are no substantiated claims.

It’s a mess for sure.
 
bill40 said:
The so called alleged victim is no such thing and perfectly happy with the arrangement. The Sun went along with to pursue it's ongoing agenda against the BBC. The case in and of itself is trivial and I highly doubt a custodial sentence would be given assuming a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...

"It is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. The law is contained in Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978."
 
OneStepBeyond said:
"It is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. The law is contained in Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978."
Click to expand...
The young man who is alleged to have provided the images is currently 20 years old and has issued a statement stating that the allegations are false.

As things stand it is not at all clear whether any offence has occurred at all...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The young man who is alleged to have provided the images is currently 20 years old and has issued a statement stating that the allegations are false.

As things stand it is not at all clear whether any offence has occurred at all...
Click to expand...
You can't prosecute if the "victim" is saying he isn't a victim or is unwilling to make a complaint. The Sun are just shit stirring scum bags.
 
look.its.luke said:
3. The first 2 points don't have any bearing on a 60+ year old multi millionaire getting at least 1 teenager to perform sex acts for money.
Click to expand...
Met Police say there isn’t a case to answer - therefore if anything did happen (and no one actually knows if videos were made or money exchanged hands) this ‘teenager’ was in fact an adult (let’s not confuse an 18 year old of being a ‘teenager’ in the same way you’d treat someone under 18).
By that age if you want to video yourself for money then it’s your business. If a 60 year old wants to pay for it that’s their business. No law has been broken.
The main fact is that the Sun is run by a disgraced Australian who hates anything that is good about Britain - the day someone nails Murdoch and removes the cancer from British life will be a joyous one.
 
hertfordseasider said:
You can't prosecute if the "victim" is saying he isn't a victim or is unwilling to make a complaint. The Sun are just shit stirring scum bags.
Click to expand...
Yes you can.

The BBC legal advisor said on air tonight tonight that if enquiries prove that the pics were sent when the lad was 17 it’s irrelevant whether he consented to the pictures or claims not to be a victim as the age classes him as unable to make that decision .
Police rep confirmed the same which is why the enquiries are still ongoing.

Personally I think proving this will be a stumbling block, or that maybe he was 18 and the parents have stated 17 to try and gain some leverage because of the concern they have for the lad.

The lad has a top London lawyer since Thursday , like that isn’t being paid for by the accused.

I don’t think the lad wants to cut off or upset his drug feed personally if he is a crack addict.I think a dead end may be reached soon.
 
NAPMer said:
Met Police say there isn’t a case to answer - therefore if anything did happen (and no one actually knows if videos were made or money exchanged hands) this ‘teenager’ was in fact an adult (let’s not confuse an 18 year old of being a ‘teenager’ in the same way you’d treat someone under 18).
By that age if you want to video yourself for money then it’s your business. If a 60 year old wants to pay for it that’s their business. No law has been broken.
The main fact is that the Sun is run by a disgraced Australian who hates anything that is good about Britain - the day someone nails Murdoch and removes the cancer from British life will be a joyous one.
Click to expand...
When have they said there isn’t a case to answer - is that news just in and they were still making enquiries an hour ago ?
 
Lala said:
Yes you can.

The BBC legal advisor said on air tonight tonight that if enquiries prove that the pics were sent when the lad was 17 it’s irrelevant whether he consented to the pictures or claims not to be a victim as the age classes him as unable to make that decision .
Police rep confirmed the same which is why the enquiries are still ongoing.

Personally I think proving this will be a stumbling block, or that maybe he was 18 and the parents have stated 17 to try and gain some leverage because of the lir concern they have for the lad.

The lad has a top London lawyer since Thursday , like that isn’t being paid for my the accused.

I don’t think the lad wants to cut off or upset his drug feed personally if he is a crack anffixt. I think a dead end may be reached soon.
Click to expand...
I think you may be getting a bit too involved and carried away with this LaLa, I couldn't really care less, and even if they could go ahead with a hostile witness it would fall flat on its arse.
 
hertfordseasider said:
I think you may be getting a bit too involved and carried away with this LaLa, I couldn't really care less, and even if they could go ahead with a hostile witness it would fall flat on its arse.
Click to expand...
Not if they have concrete evidence it won’t fall flat on its arse. I don’t think they will find that though.

I suppose I do care if there is the possibility of a vulnerable person being exploited, and as you say you couldn’t care less.
 
Lala said:
Not if they have concrete evidence it won’t fall flat on its arse. I don’t think they will find that though.

I suppose I do care if there is the possibility of a vulnerable person being exploited, and as you say you couldn’t care less.
Click to expand...
It's a massive media storm, there are far far worse things going on every day and they don't give it a second look. I don't care less because of it being a media circus, if he doesn't want to proceed with a prosecution it really wouldn't have many legs. The domestic violence laws were changed to protect vulnerable partners from abusive partners as prior to that the victim would generally withdraw the complaint and that is right and proper, although the lass who killed herself after attacking her male partner when he never made a complaint or wanted her prosecuted shows it's a difficult thing to balance. For this offence, even if vulnerable the bar is not set the same. It's all a bit pervy and yucky to me, but it's all because it's a "personality" involved.
 
The Sun is going to have to do a lot more than just say ”we stand by our journalism“ they’re going to have to produce evidence to back up the story.

If it turns out to be all bollocks, the accused presente, the teenager and the bbc will no doubt embark on legal claims.
 
Huw Edwards career and probably marriage is now over even if every single word uttered was a lie.

Even if totally innocent and the story is true but not him it’s over. The stigma will never leave him. TV won’t invest money in him particularly as an over 60.
 
Matesrates said:
The Sun is going to have to do a lot more than just say ”we stand by our journalism“ they’re going to have to produce evidence to back up the story.

If it turns out to be all bollocks, the accused presente, the teenager and the bbc will no doubt embark on legal claims.
Click to expand...

If they had anything they would have named the person involved. What they probably have is just hearsay from the parents and the accusation that the BBC didn't take the allegations seriously enough. If they had bank statements or pictures they would have published them.
It's a great story for Murdoch though because it feeds anti BBC bias. And as I said they are savvy enough to realise that many people enjoy a good old witch hunt. This has been the main story on the news for 3 or 4 days now, and it's not at all clear that anyone has broken any law.
Like the Schofield story, this will probably just fade away, leaving a few reputations in tatters. I can't see the alleged protagonist having a future on the BBC.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
If they had anything they would have named the person involved. What they probably have is just hearsay from the parents and the accusation that the BBC didn't take the allegations seriously enough. If they had bank statements or pictures they would have published them.
It's a great story for Murdoch though because it feeds anti BBC bias. And as I said they are savvy enough to realise that many people enjoy a good old witch hunt. This has been the main story on the news for 3 or 4 days now, and it's not at all clear that anyone has broken any law.
Like the Schofield story, this will probably just fade away, leaving a few reputations in tatters. I can't see the alleged protagonist having a future on the BBC.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. They would try to string it out for as many days as possible.
 
fcblackpool said:
Not necessarily. They would try to string it out for as many days as possible.
Click to expand...
Yes but now the person concerned, who would know the truth, has come out and said that the Sun's story is 'rubbish'.
If they had any proof it would be out there now.
I have to say, it's all a bit thin.
Anyone would think that the Sun just wanted any old excuse to bash the beeb.
 
The parents have doubled down and are insisting that they have evidence (call logs and bank statements) that will prove their claims.

Of course, it remains to be seen exactly what it is that they are proving. The lad has apparently denied anything inappropriate took place and labelled the claims as rubbish …the parents may view the whole episode as ‘inappropriate’, regardless of legality and might therefore view their ability to prove ‘it happened’ as opposed to ‘it happened when their child was 17’ as all that is necessary.

Interestingly The Sun appear to have rowed back a bit, now stating


"We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.

"Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC.

"We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It's now for the BBC to properly investigate."

If the parents have evidence of a crime, then it’s a slam dunk and I’m struggling to see why there’s any need for hesitation on the part of the Police. Bank details and call records are very easy to verify.

I’m also struggling to understand why the parents went to The Sun Newspaper as opposed to the Police (when the BBC refused to act on their requests) if they had evidence of a crime…. In fact, why go to the BBC as opposed to the police in the first place???

In my view … All roads lead to this being ‘distasteful’ but not illegal. Two parents trying to pressure the BBC to act on their concerns about their adult child and then upping the ante when they got no joy.
 
This all sounds to me like another sham a story like the Farage one it’s hardly a bombshell is it?

Far more important news around at the moment like Sadler selling us out with Jerry being sold for peanuts mortgage rates at the highest for 15 years also it’s Amazon prime day.

Some people seriously need to chill out on here.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Yes but now the person concerned, who would know the truth, has come out and said that the Sun's story is 'rubbish'.
If they had any proof it would be out there now.
I have to say, it's all a bit thin.
Anyone would think that the Sun just wanted any old excuse to bash the beeb.
Click to expand...
Their priority would have to be the privacy of the 'victim'. If they compromise that then they are on very very dodgy ground. The BBC guy could also say to them if you name me, I'll name the other person stating nothing illegal happened from the BBC blokes pov.

If this all peters out and the BBC guy has lost his career, I'm sure he would have a very big case against the Sun.

Also hinges on the lad wanting to proceed with it.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
This all sounds to me like another sham a story like the Farage one it’s hardly a bombshell is it?

Far more important news around at the moment like Sadler selling us out with Jerry being sold for peanuts mortgage rates at the highest for 15 years also it’s Amazon prime day.

Some people seriously need to chill out on here.
Click to expand...
49% off the ‘Bosch Professional Laser Level’ has certainly grabbed my attention this morning. 👍😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top