FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > BBC Presenter

BBC Presenter

By *aGaGagging for it OP Couple over a year ago

Newcastle upon Tyne

So a BBC Presenter has been accused of giving a teen £35000 over several years for explicit photos, starting when the teen was 17. The teen has used the money (maybe not all of it) for crack.

It seems that the Presenter hasn't done anything illegal (but the recipient has). The Presenter has been taken off air and there is an investigation underway).

Is this justified? Is the Presenter being vilified? Is the recipient the guilty one? Is the recipient's mother wrong to blame the Presenter?

Your thoughts?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Was it his mum ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Based on the little bit of info above I'd say .... There is no law prohibiting gifts to 17 year olds.

There is a law against buying drugs.

So the presenter has not done anything punishable.... until I hear the seedy bits I guess...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

oh ...... explicit pics..... hmmmm

Still ..... the person in the pics wasn't underage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There's always two sides to the story, right?

What is a BBC presenter (guessing much older) doing that to a 17 year old?

On the other hand, a 17 year old knows what's right and wrong. Or should do. In this case, clearly their drugs were more important than their self esteem... Not blaming them for it - drugs are nasty things that totally take over your neuropathways...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

On the presenters side its all legal, then it's nothing but court of public opinion. And even then they did nothing wrong really. But still.

They job is front of camera, which is heavily involved in the public. It's bad publicity to go against publc opinion.

Lose job no for what they did, no.

Lose job (within legal rights) for being bad for publicity, yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Procuring / possessing sexually explicit images from under 18’s *IS* illegal.

So far, Rylan Clark & Jeremy Vine have confirmed it’s not them in light of online speculation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

£35k is probably less than what The Sun gave Sam Fox when she was 16

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oe_Steve_NWestCouple over a year ago

Bolton

All depends who the presenter is and what sort of programs they present and how the general public will view it.

Even if its not illegal it will taint the brand that they keep trying to push. If the mother knew about it why did she not put a stop to it before now.

All the folks on the tv seem to be at it in some way we just dont know about it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uriousscouserWoman over a year ago

Wirral

Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asterR and slut mayaMan over a year ago

Bradford

The presenter fucking barmy more money than sence I want my licences fee back paying them to much case of poor choice on behalf of both be interesting to see who it is .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lenderfoxMan over a year ago

Leeds

Parking aside the legalities, it sounds pretty exploitative from what i've read. The teenager was clearly vulnerable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Reading what is available online I have these Q's

1. Why is the mother saying her child's life has been ruined by cocaine because of the money they got ? Some get money and DONT use it for drugs.

2. Why wasn't something done earlier if this has been going on for YEARS? or is it just now that it appears to be a money maker ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *batMan over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

It’s not legal to possess sexually explicit pictures of a 17 year old, even if they willingly consent. So it depends on when the pictures were taken.

In essence, you can have sex with a 17 year old, but not possess a photograph of it.

Gbat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aGaGagging for it OP Couple over a year ago

Newcastle upon Tyne

"Procuring / possessing sexually explicit images from under 18’s *IS* illegal.

So far, Rylan Clark & Jeremy Vine have confirmed it’s not them in light of online speculation. "

I stand corrected, yes of course explicit images from an under 18 is illegal. That puts a totally different angle on things.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18."

This in itself is a large part of the problem. Okay maybe not problem but bear with me.

Maybe the presenter did not know that, I can guarantee lots of people don't. It's very mixed messages and inconsistent restrictions.

Things should be across the board to avoid any confusion. Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18."

Agreed but the presenter isn't accused of making or distributing. Would their part in receiving count as being part of distribution .... ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *agneto.Man over a year ago

Bham

"Procuring / possessing sexually explicit images from under 18’s *IS* illegal.

So far, Rylan Clark & Jeremy Vine have confirmed it’s not them in light of online speculation. "

Correct. Indecent images age was raised in 2003 from 16 to 18.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18.

Agreed but the presenter isn't accused of making or distributing. Would their part in receiving count as being part of distribution .... ?"

Possession, I would assume. If that can be proved.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *batMan over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

"Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo) "

That’s as realistic as trying to stop the sunrise.

It’s okay for 17 year olds to have sex with each other or their peers. It’s not okay when there’s an imbalance of power, which is quite often the case with a big age difference.

I’m sure there’s more than a few people on this site who were having sex when they were 16 or 17.

Gbat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *TG3Man over a year ago

Dorchester

Druggies shouldnt be encouraged so he should receive a large penalty for that alone, the pics well I'm sick of pervs, you see it everyday on the beach old men marching up and down naked in search of sex which they have no hope of getting unless with another old man, so whoever this chap is he should have his balls cut off but having said that none of this would be possible without the press, long live the British press

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

I think reporting should be restricted. There is all sorts being printed now and we don't know the truth of it.

Apparently he never hid his identity and that is according to the mother of the girl...

Someone being seedy and acting illegally would surely hide their I.D

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aucasian GhandiMan over a year ago

from my dad's left nut (Warwick)

Crack doesn't ruin lives. BBC presenters ruin lives

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aGaGagging for it OP Couple over a year ago

Newcastle upon Tyne

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18.

Agreed but the presenter isn't accused of making or distributing. Would their part in receiving count as being part of distribution .... ?

Possession, I would assume. If that can be proved. "

Possession of indecent images is an offence, as is incitement to send them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Druggies shouldnt be encouraged so he should receive a large penalty for that alone, the pics well I'm sick of pervs, you see it everyday on the beach old men marching up and down naked in search of sex which they have no hope of getting unless with another old man, so whoever this chap is he should have his balls cut off but having said that none of this would be possible without the press, long live the British press

Is this serious?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo)

That’s as realistic as trying to stop the sunrise.

It’s okay for 17 year olds to have sex with each other or their peers. It’s not okay when there’s an imbalance of power, which is quite often the case with a big age difference.

I’m sure there’s more than a few people on this site who were having sex when they were 16 or 17.

Gbat. "

Is it? It's not all that difficult to raise the legal age by 2 years.

Those under the legal age will still continue to do as they wish with those of the same age, because that's what they do, they do it now. A legality change of 2 years won't change that at all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Macky ..... age is irrelevant. Is a young man looking for sex a perv ?

It's pretty dangerous to label older people 'pervs' simply because they are still sexually active.

And you are wrong to think that older people have no hope in hell of getting sex. Trust me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality."

Pay taxes don't you? There isn't a thing we pay for in this world that does not fund criminal activity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *batMan over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

"Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo)

That’s as realistic as trying to stop the sunrise.

It’s okay for 17 year olds to have sex with each other or their peers. It’s not okay when there’s an imbalance of power, which is quite often the case with a big age difference.

I’m sure there’s more than a few people on this site who were having sex when they were 16 or 17.

Gbat.

Is it? It's not all that difficult to raise the legal age by 2 years.

Those under the legal age will still continue to do as they wish with those of the same age, because that's what they do, they do it now. A legality change of 2 years won't change that at all."

Then why bother with a change of law that makes no difference? What’s all that about?

Gbat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality."

That's so funny. Seriously funny

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aucasian GhandiMan over a year ago

from my dad's left nut (Warwick)

Druggies shouldn't be encouraged.. Are you for real. In fact this whole statement just shouts of preconceived ideas and misconceptions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo)

That’s as realistic as trying to stop the sunrise.

It’s okay for 17 year olds to have sex with each other or their peers. It’s not okay when there’s an imbalance of power, which is quite often the case with a big age difference.

I’m sure there’s more than a few people on this site who were having sex when they were 16 or 17.

Gbat.

Is it? It's not all that difficult to raise the legal age by 2 years.

Those under the legal age will still continue to do as they wish with those of the same age, because that's what they do, they do it now. A legality change of 2 years won't change that at all.

Then why bother with a change of law that makes no difference? What’s all that about?

Gbat"

Its quite clear

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I find it interesting but not surprising all the speculation online elsewhere as to who it is

So easy to ruin careers with false information

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I always thought images being produced of under 18s regardless of age of consent were the illegal.

The whole Schofiled thing left a bitter taste in my mouth because at worst, strictly speaking, he was unprofessional. The press sensationalised the whole thing and all sorts of rumours spread about grooming, underage stuff etc. I’m taking anything reported in the press with a pinch of salt until the facts come out.

No doubt the press and the pitchfork brigade will have a field day.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uriousscouserWoman over a year ago

Wirral

"I think reporting should be restricted. There is all sorts being printed now and we don't know the truth of it.

There are all sorts of names being thrown about with no evidence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Who's the presenter in question? I think I have a feeling who it is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *batMan over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

" Its quite clear"

What you propose is indeed quite clear.

It’s also quite clear it would make no difference.

It’s not at all clear why anybody would want to make a change to legislation that won’t make any difference at all.

I respect your opinion but I don’t agree with it. As it’s a public (ish) forum, I thought you might be happy to explain your reasoning.

No probs if you don’t want to.

Personally, I think it’s a horrendous idea to try and remove the right of consenting 16 and 17 year olds to have sex.

Gbat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don’t know but I have it on good authority the name of the celebrity involved in the Katherine Ryan thing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always thought images being produced of under 18s regardless of age of consent were the illegal.

No doubt the press and the pitchfork brigade will have a field day."

The british love a scandal!

Personally, I don't think Schofield did anything wrong. People went after him because he's gay.

Whoever this is, again, technically, done nothing wrong. But that'll be their career over.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?"

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality.

Pay taxes don't you? There isn't a thing we pay for in this world that does not fund criminal activity. "

Ironically i dont pay tax, i only work 10 hours a week so i dont earn enough to pay tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If nothing else it shifted attention from the email sent out about George Osborne yesterday

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Don't say it don't say it don't say it.......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

So young person makes money from selling images of themselves and then because the person is said to be traumatic after the money stopped they go to a red top more than likely for another load of money because the other person's employer won't jump?

Not heard there was class A involved but as someone else rightly said the scum were happy to have a 16 year old on page 3..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Don't say it don't say it don't say it......."

Don't say what ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Who's the presenter in question? I think I have a feeling who it is"

Who ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ts the taking part thatMan over a year ago

southampton

"Who's the presenter in question? I think I have a feeling who it is

Who ?"

It's not who I thought unless he's calling everyone's bluff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

who did you think ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lifftopMan over a year ago

staxton

The Scum rush this out to get the news of George Osborne allegedly shagging 16yos of the pages.

Alleged in THE email.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always thought images being produced of under 18s regardless of age of consent were the illegal.

No doubt the press and the pitchfork brigade will have a field day.

The british love a scandal!

Personally, I don't think Schofield did anything wrong. People went after him because he's gay.

Whoever this is, again, technically, done nothing wrong. But that'll be their career over. "

100% agree although the 17 yo is leaving me feeling a little uneasy. But yeah, schofield being gay was why it blew up the way it did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan over a year ago

Pershore

It was Brexit wot made him do it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uri00620Woman over a year ago

Croydon

[Removed by poster at 08/07/23 18:01:22]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ad NannaWoman over a year ago

East London

Hope it's not John Craven.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r_PinkMan over a year ago

london stratford

"So a BBC Presenter has been accused of giving a teen £35000 over several years for explicit photos, starting when the teen was 17. The teen has used the money (maybe not all of it) for crack.

It seems that the Presenter hasn't done anything illegal (but the recipient has). The Presenter has been taken off air and there is an investigation underway).

Is this justified? Is the Presenter being vilified? Is the recipient the guilty one? Is the recipient's mother wrong to blame the Presenter?

Your thoughts?"

I just wanna know who this presenter is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Another nonce on the telly? I am truly shocked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *agneto.Man over a year ago

Bham

Seeing a lot of people naming this person. In fact it was the first person I seen mentioned this morning.

They was supposed to be on the one show on Thursday but suddenly weren't...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

BBC keeps referring to 'the youth' ......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Seeing a lot of people naming this person. In fact it was the first person I seen mentioned this morning.

They was supposed to be on the one show on Thursday but suddenly weren't..."

Who did someone else ( but not you ) name this morning ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

Who is this person?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Who is this person?"

Guess we'll find out soon enough. For now no one dare speculate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

Saw a tweet a Nonce at the BBC is like finding a sausage roll at Greggs.

I’m shocked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anything sexual limited to 18 (imo)

That’s as realistic as trying to stop the sunrise.

It’s okay for 17 year olds to have sex with each other or their peers. It’s not okay when there’s an imbalance of power, which is quite often the case with a big age difference.

I’m sure there’s more than a few people on this site who were having sex when they were 16 or 17.

Gbat.

Is it? It's not all that difficult to raise the legal age by 2 years.

Those under the legal age will still continue to do as they wish with those of the same age, because that's what they do, they do it now. A legality change of 2 years won't change that at all."

Remember when being a homosexual male was illegal. Then the age of consent was 21 but anal sex was illegal. Then it dropped to 18, then 16. And this whole time there was no age of consent for homosexual women. Thats British sex law for you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think that this is more indicative of the veracity of both the Sun and the BBC.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tylebender03Man over a year ago

Manchester

The BBC again employing nonces , it’s a culture

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Who is this person?

Guess we'll find out soon enough. For now no one dare speculate. "

Legally I would be tempted to say to the mods to close this thread… because where you can report on the people who had denied the allegations… you know someone here will eventually throw out a name that could potentially get the site into trouble

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

They aren't BBC presenters.

The youth hasn't had the gender specified yet many seem to assume it's a female youth. Nothing tells us that.

Essentially, stop speculating. All it does is draw potentially innocent people in toward the pitchfork brigade and unfortunately, mud sticks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Frank Bough didn't die for this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aizyWoman over a year ago

west midlands

"Frank Bough didn't die for this."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

The Radio/TV Times is the new sex offenders register.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

They aren't BBC presenters.

The youth hasn't had the gender specified yet many seem to assume it's a female youth. Nothing tells us that.

Essentially, stop speculating. All it does is draw potentially innocent people in toward the pitchfork brigade and unfortunately, mud sticks. "

Exactly. Something I noticed early on in this whole thing…no gender mentioned about the teenager. Assumptions have been made is all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"So a BBC Presenter has been accused of giving a teen £35000 over several years for explicit photos, starting when the teen was 17. The teen has used the money (maybe not all of it) for crack.

It seems that the Presenter hasn't done anything illegal (but the recipient has). The Presenter has been taken off air and there is an investigation underway).

Is this justified? Is the Presenter being vilified? Is the recipient the guilty one? Is the recipient's mother wrong to blame the Presenter?

Your thoughts?"

If it is true, then they have both broken the law. Creating & distributing explicit images of a minor and possession of those images are all crimes.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality."

Haven’t had a Tv license for years. And when the specky bastard who knocks on ma door looking to hand me a fine rather than cowering behind my door I’ll present this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *agneto.Man over a year ago

Bham

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

They aren't BBC presenters.

The youth hasn't had the gender specified yet many seem to assume it's a female youth. Nothing tells us that.

Essentially, stop speculating. All it does is draw potentially innocent people in toward the pitchfork brigade and unfortunately, mud sticks.

Exactly. Something I noticed early on in this whole thing…no gender mentioned about the teenager. Assumptions have been made is all. "

The mother confirmed it was her son.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

They aren't BBC presenters.

The youth hasn't had the gender specified yet many seem to assume it's a female youth. Nothing tells us that.

Essentially, stop speculating. All it does is draw potentially innocent people in toward the pitchfork brigade and unfortunately, mud sticks.

Exactly. Something I noticed early on in this whole thing…no gender mentioned about the teenager. Assumptions have been made is all.

The mother confirmed it was her son. "

Which is not what many people on the media of socialness have assumed.

I'm sure all will come out in the murky wash.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icolerobbieCouple over a year ago

walsall

"Who was missing from your T.V. last night ?

I dont watch TV. I’m guessing Ant or Dec.

They aren't BBC presenters.

The youth hasn't had the gender specified yet many seem to assume it's a female youth. Nothing tells us that.

Essentially, stop speculating. All it does is draw potentially innocent people in toward the pitchfork brigade and unfortunately, mud sticks.

Exactly. Something I noticed early on in this whole thing…no gender mentioned about the teenager. Assumptions have been made is all.

The mother confirmed it was her son. "

And that the presenter was a he.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ighland gentlemanMan over a year ago

Ardgay

It may well have come as a shock to a couple of those who had to issue denials how many people thought it was them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call. "

All wrong in so many ways x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It may well have come as a shock to a couple of those who had to issue denials how many people thought it was them. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call. "

Wouldn’t have been mine either. That said, she may have gone to the police and got nowhere so decided to go to the press to force the police into action

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

Wouldn’t have been mine either. That said, she may have gone to the police and got nowhere so decided to go to the press to force the police into action "

It's possible but I'd guess if that was the case it would have been mentioned due to the current trend for the press to report police in a negative light.

I might be off course but it was first thought in my mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tsJustKateWoman over a year ago

London

"So a BBC Presenter has been accused of giving a teen £35000 over several years for explicit photos, starting when the teen was 17. The teen has used the money (maybe not all of it) for crack.

It seems that the Presenter hasn't done anything illegal (but the recipient has). The Presenter has been taken off air and there is an investigation underway).

Is this justified? Is the Presenter being vilified? Is the recipient the guilty one? Is the recipient's mother wrong to blame the Presenter?

Your thoughts?"

18 is the minimum for explicit photos. So yes, they have done something illegal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ts the taking part thatMan over a year ago

southampton

"Think Irish & Eurovision, he's in it for the Craic.....

How about we think about the lives and livelihoods of people being guessed at and stop speculating? Once the finger is pointed, society and the media struggles to wind it back in. "

Go on then, you do that.

Leave us lot to have some fun on this non public website.

If it's not you & you publicly say so there is no winding back in.

This is the bitter sweet part of pursuing fame & fortune.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uperocean44Man over a year ago

Wolverhampton

IMO it’s not a question about whether it’s legal or legal, it’s about whether it’s morally right or ethically right. Should an older gent in the public eye whose salary is being funded purely by public funds be doing things like that to a much younger person. Although legal, it’s defo not morally right. Using his influence and power on a very young person, especially using money as a persuasion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *onnyadtMan over a year ago

Uttoxeter

Oh go on then. HE did it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"IMO it’s not a question about whether it’s legal or legal, it’s about whether it’s morally right or ethically right. Should an older gent in the public eye whose salary is being funded purely by public funds be doing things like that to a much younger person. Although legal, it’s defo not morally right. Using his influence and power on a very young person, especially using money as a persuasion "

Where is money came from (if obtained legally) is irrelevant. You can’t say that anyone's salary is subject to a restriction on what on or where they spend it.

The rest…well, I’ve said it in this thread…I thought producing pornography o f subjects under the age of 18 was illegal, no matter the age of consent being 16. For the rest, really isn’t that much difference from what goes on with on OF.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What clown actually pays £35k for pictures ??????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *issalignedTV/TS over a year ago

London

"What clown actually pays £35k for pictures ??????"

Not Sydney university that’s for sure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

Twitter throwing all these names out there of who this person is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iddylad87Man over a year ago

kidderminster

Another reason not to pay a tv license

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What clown actually pays £35k for pictures ??????"

A clown who works for the BBC and gets paid so much that £35k is pocket change.

Bess x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ucka39Man over a year ago

Newcastle

Boils down to vulnerability of the addicted and the presenters actions using this for his/her own satisfaction/gratification. holding a role such as a TV presenter would violate most likely their own terms and conditions also I'm guessing that it wasn't BBC

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call. "

The person producing and distributing the images is commiting an illegal act. Its a joint enterprise- or crack rock in this case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

The person producing and distributing the images is commiting an illegal act. Its a joint enterprise- or crack rock in this case"

Yes so why didnt she go to the police with it instead of the sun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The presenter was thinking with his cock not his head to send pics to anyone, talk about putting himself in a position of vulnerability (i cant say the word 'b')!

Which I'm assuming this young person has been doing to fund the drug habit.

So the presenter was an idiot, and from what you guys are saying has also done something illegal whether he intended to , or wasn't aware of the young person's age (he/she may have lied)

Does this mean the presenter will be pursued by the legal system? And the young person pursued for 'b'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

Rumour is Gary and Ryan have instructed lawyers to look for twitter posts that have named them and sue them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *TG3Man over a year ago

Dorchester

Macky ..... age is irrelevant. Is a young man looking for sex a perv ?

It's pretty dangerous to label older people 'pervs' simply because they are still sexually active.

And you are wrong to think that older people have no hope in hell of getting sex. Trust me. "
Have you seen these older people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *TG3Man over a year ago

Dorchester

Is this serious?"
So the statement "drug users shouldn't be encouraged" or "old pervs" or "the good old British press" which part of this didn't ring true, you'd be the first to shun an old perv, do you encourage drug takers or do you love the good old British press?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ommodoCouple over a year ago

OX16

The BBC will be putting up the price of a licence again in order to cover the cost of another big fine I'm sorry but the BBC can do one for its licence fee if it really wants us to pay why don't they do the same as sky pay for a sim to watch that way we would all have a fair choice pay and watch or no payment no tv I ain't paying to fund pesos

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *el65Man over a year ago

paisley

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

The person producing and distributing the images is commiting an illegal act. Its a joint enterprise- or crack rock in this case

Yes so why didnt she go to the police with it instead of the sun."

Because the sun probly pays more cash than the police

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

The person producing and distributing the images is commiting an illegal act. Its a joint enterprise- or crack rock in this case

Yes so why didnt she go to the police with it instead of the sun.

Because the sun probly pays more cash than the police "

They printed that shed recieved none but that's by the by. Why didnt she go to the police if the law has been broken. I just dont understand. I'm no fan of the BBC but as an employer are they responsible for for their employees private life? I'm possibly being thick but why is the cry that the BBC are in trouble, must carry out an investigation? Shouldn't it be a police matter to investigate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The BBC will be putting up the price of a licence again in order to cover the cost of another big fine I'm sorry but the BBC can do one for its licence fee if it really wants us to pay why don't they do the same as sky pay for a sim to watch that way we would all have a fair choice pay and watch or no payment no tv I ain't paying to fund pesos "

The BBC doesn't set the licence fee.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ts the taking part thatMan over a year ago

southampton

The BBC doesn't set the licence fee."

Luckily as it wants vastly more than what it's set at.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ts the taking part thatMan over a year ago

southampton

"Rumour is Gary and Ryan have instructed lawyers to look for twitter posts that have named them and sue them. "

Nice try.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"If illegal activities took place, why did the mother go to the BBC and the Sun and not the police?

If it were a child of mine and I discovered this had gone on I dont think the other person's employer or the press would have been my first port of call.

The person producing and distributing the images is commiting an illegal act. Its a joint enterprise- or crack rock in this case

Yes so why didnt she go to the police with it instead of the sun.

Because the sun probly pays more cash than the police

Any opportunity will be taken by those in this government and other media who want the end of the BBC to put the blame if any is deserving upon them..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obilebottomMan over a year ago

All over

It is certainly not for me to comment on the casw and that should be left to appropriate authorities. It's interesting though how people conflate issues when realy shouln't imo. BBC licence, and salaries and all that stuff,important as they might be for a different debate don't really have anything to do with it and as others said it just gives opportunity for the media and others to score points.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

Don't name or hint at who it is please.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

The BBC have asked for time and space to investigate.They've known of the allegations since May.The mother went to the Sun when she heard nothing back from the BBC.People wonder why Saville and Co were allowed to operate for so long.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ereagainlolMan over a year ago

Lerwick

If the girl was 17, doesn't that make her an adult?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky_couple2020Couple over a year ago

North West

"If the girl was 17, doesn't that make her an adult?"

Who said anything about a girl? Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups.

Secondly, 17 is considered too young in law when it comes to sharing/soliciting images that could be deemed sexual or pornographic. In law, a 17yo cannot give consent to share such images, even if they do fully understand what they're doing. Just like a 15yo cannot give consent to intercourse because the age of consent is 16.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don’t think it’ll be that long before they’re named - they have just been suspended

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ex HolesMan over a year ago

Up North

Let’s see what political soapbox he uses this time to try and worm his way out of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan over a year ago

Pershore

"If the girl was 17, doesn't that make her an adult?"

No, the age of becoming an adult is 18.

The age of sexual consent is 16.

The age of sending sexual images is 18.

A complicated scenario.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If the girl was 17, doesn't that make her an adult?

No, the age of becoming an adult is 18.

The age of sexual consent is 16.

The age of sending sexual images is 18.

A complicated scenario."
apparently this only changed in about 2003. Hence the sun doing topless 16 yo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *umamoto88Man over a year ago

leeds

This can be any presenter ,does anyone know who ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lex46TV/TS over a year ago

Near Wells

If it was an MP or a celebrity not working for the BbC doing this kind of thing, the BBC would reveal the name the moment they knew it. Remember what happened to Cliff Richard).

When it's their own people, they don't???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I haven't heard of this story apart from this thread so I'm going purely off what was said in the opening post. But ah no, not weird at all. Can we not all jump on the grown man (I assume?) sending the young girl money for explicit photos? It's so normal and she's the one in the wrong she should be mature enough to know better! If that was my grown ass dad I wouldn't judge him because he's just living his best life taking advantage of young girls.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eamworkboyMan over a year ago

Irvine

"Don't name or hint at who it is please. "

Some presenters are already threatening legal action if their name is published in conjunction with this anywhere on social media, be careful folks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man over a year ago

BRIDPORT

"I haven't heard of this story apart from this thread so I'm going purely off what was said in the opening post. But ah no, not weird at all. Can we not all jump on the grown man (I assume?) sending the young girl money for explicit photos? It's so normal and she's the one in the wrong she should be mature enough to know better! If that was my grown ass dad I wouldn't judge him because he's just living his best life taking advantage of young girls.

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen. "

Well it works both ways!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man over a year ago

BRIDPORT

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Well it works both ways!

What does?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Well it works both ways!

What does?"

I haven't heard of this story apart from this thread so I'm going purely off what was said in the opening post. But ah no, not weird at all. Can we not all jump on the grown man (I assume?) sending the young boy money for explicit photos? It's so normal and he's the one in the wrong he should be mature enough to know better! If that was my grown ass dad I wouldn't judge him because he's just living his best life taking advantage of young boys.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man over a year ago

BRIDPORT

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Well it works both ways!

What does?

I haven't heard of this story apart from this thread so I'm going purely off what was said in the opening post. But ah no, not weird at all. Can we not all jump on the grown man (I assume?) sending the young boy money for explicit photos? It's so normal and he's the one in the wrong he should be mature enough to know better! If that was my grown ass dad I wouldn't judge him because he's just living his best life taking advantage of young boys.

If you were going purely of what was said in the original post , as you say, then you would not have genderized ( not sure that’s a word) either the teen or the presenter, your bias took over and you made the presenter a male and the teen a female, is what I was pointing out

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Well it works both ways!

What does?

I haven't heard of this story apart from this thread so I'm going purely off what was said in the opening post. But ah no, not weird at all. Can we not all jump on the grown man (I assume?) sending the young boy money for explicit photos? It's so normal and he's the one in the wrong he should be mature enough to know better! If that was my grown ass dad I wouldn't judge him because he's just living his best life taking advantage of young boys.

I'm just too used to that kind of shit I suppose.

But I can definitely say without knowing who the presenter is that he is 100% a man.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inger_SnapWoman over a year ago

Hampshire/Dorset

"This can be any presenter ,does anyone know who ? "

Whoever is usually on the telly... But not in the last few days.

I think it's a man, with a young boy, again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

I find it incredible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

I find it incredible."

That's the thing I'm not understanding either!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

She went to the BBC first,when she got no meaningful action/response she went to the Sun.She was probably unsure if any offences had been committed,just as some posts on here do not know that it is an offence to receive pics from a 17 yr old.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *TG3Man over a year ago

Dorchester

The Opening Post made no reference to the gender of the teen.

Well it works both ways!

What does?"
sex

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"She went to the BBC first,when she got no meaningful action/response she went to the Sun.She was probably unsure if any offences had been committed,just as some posts on here do not know that it is an offence to receive pics from a 17 yr old."

Well she sure knows now and yet....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ornym66Man over a year ago

Col /ips

"I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

find it incredible."

All about getting money greed taking over

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

"I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

find it incredible.

All about getting money greed taking over"

It seems they were not paid

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

"I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

find it incredible.

All about getting money greed taking over

It seems they were not paid"

Not paid the 35k or not paid more after the 35k?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

A feast for crows

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amesBeelzebubMan over a year ago

norwich

"oh ...... explicit pics..... hmmmm

Still ..... the person in the pics wasn't underage.

I think it's illegal to have or pay for explicit pics of people under 18 ( but you can have sex with them at 16 or 17!)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hristopherd999Man over a year ago

Brentwood

How much was the mum paid by the sun?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

"How much was the mum paid by the sun?"

Depends if they asked her to get her tits out for page 3

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

"I just wonder why the parent of this teenager went to the BBC and the Sun instead of the Police?

find it incredible.

All about getting money greed taking over

It seems they were not paid

Not paid the 35k or not paid more after the 35k?"

The mum not being paid by the rag

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why are they not naming him?

Seen so much scandal over the years and they've been named. Why not this time?

Asking because I'm nosey and I'm needing to know after all the talk about it on the telly box

Mrs C

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

I would imagine innocent until proven guilty?

However I am not sure all the people who's names have been bandied about on SM as being the one would agree with the person not being named.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heekyDemandCouple over a year ago

Leicester

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18."

This just makes no sense, either increase the legal age to 18 for sex, or reduce the age for explicit images. Sending a nude selfie of a 17 year old could get you prosecuted, but stick your actual cock inside them and it's perfectly legal. The law is an ass and makes no sense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18.

Said that early on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Why are they not naming him?

Seen so much scandal over the years and they've been named. Why not this time?

Asking because I'm nosey and I'm needing to know after all the talk about it on the telly box

Mrs C "

He's an employee even whilst suspended and under investigation, he has certain rights as do we all if we were under investigation by an employer..

Until the investigation concludes there's a case to answer or not any legal advice from the BBC's solicitors etc will be to not name him..

I think there'll be a statement from whomever it is at some point..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asycouple1971Couple over a year ago

midlands

So this is all about money then? If they got paid we wouldnt hear about this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ravelling_WilburyMan over a year ago

Beverley

"Although the age of consent is 16 it's still an offence to make, sell or distribute indecent images of anyone under 18.

Proper paradox. Really odd law

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"How much was the mum paid by the sun?"

She didn't ask for and wasn't offered any money by the Sun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *achel SmythTV/TS over a year ago

Farnborough

"How much was the mum paid by the sun?

She didn't ask for and wasn't offered any money by the Sun."

This is completely wrong, and am sure in the fullness of time all will hopefully become clear … or covered up with BS…. but there is so much that doesn’t add up here;

I too ask … why go to the BBC and the Sun … if I was aware of a sexual offence of one of my kids I’d be going straight to the police, and not the employer / media …. hmmm!

This happened 3 years ago ….. so why leave it until now to report it to whoever - I’d have reported it as soon as I was aware!

Of course all the facts are correct … it’s reported in The Sun … FFS!!

I can totally understand why this is being kept anonymous. Any sniff of who it is, and it would be trial and sentencing by the media, followed by execution on SM! … sadly the time we live in!!

I just cannot believed with sooooo much going on in the world … this is headline news across all media platforms - I revert to the point above about media and SM.

R xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

I just cannot believed with sooooo much going on in the world … this is headline news across all media platforms - I revert to the point above about media and SM.

R xx"

Right wing red top and Tory politicians keen to deflect from their own government with a chance to attack the BBC again..

Manna from heaven..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"How much was the mum paid by the sun?

She didn't ask for and wasn't offered any money by the Sun.

This is completely wrong, and am sure in the fullness of time all will hopefully become clear … or covered up with BS…. but there is so much that doesn’t add up here;

I too ask … why go to the BBC and the Sun … if I was aware of a sexual offence of one of my kids I’d be going straight to the police, and not the employer / media …. hmmm!

This happened 3 years ago ….. so why leave it until now to report it to whoever - I’d have reported it as soon as I was aware!

Of course all the facts are correct … it’s reported in The Sun … FFS!!

I can totally understand why this is being kept anonymous. Any sniff of who it is, and it would be trial and sentencing by the media, followed by execution on SM! … sadly the time we live in!!

I just cannot believed with sooooo much going on in the world … this is headline news across all media platforms - I revert to the point above about media and SM.

R xx"

Probably the mother wasn't aware offences were being committed as a few people posting on here were not,so contacting the BBC was a request to stop the presenter,as she said she got no meaningful response from the Beeb.The kid is a crack addict,the mum may have been more concerned with that than thinking straight.If anyone has had any dealings with big organisations like the BBC they will know very quickly how easy it is for "wrong un's" to hide and operate within.Apathy or the arrogance to think they are untouchable.Very often the threat or actually going public is what is needed to get some action.To dismiss this as trivial after Saville,Harris,Hall,Talbot etc is not an option,it just puts off genuine victims of other abusers from coming forward.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ondonFunTimesMan over a year ago

Hampshire/Surrey

The issue here is that if the first encounters between the two was at the age of 17 it’s a grey area, you could make a coercive, grooming case out of that. Or and this is potentially likely, if the pictures weren’t paid for or produced until after the age of 18 no law has been broken. The whole thing is more of a media storm. That is unless more allegations that cross the line into illegality come up.

So, from an HR standpoint it’s wise to a) not name and from a legal perspective The Sun are having their cake and eating it.

It’s also interesting to note that Samantha Fox was 16 when she first appeared - you guessed it - in The Sun on Page 3.

It’s a crazy world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

Topless is neither explicit or indecent.Whatever evidence was put before the Sun their lawyers will have crawled all over it before publication.Given the pictures were sent digitally there will be an electronic footprint.Presumably this is the same evidence the Police are investigating,unless they are doing it just for a laugh or an opportunity to bash the BBC.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hGlobbitsMan over a year ago

Leeds

...or to draw attention from the fact that George Osborne was publicly accused on his wedding day of r*ping a 16 year old (erm... allegedly).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always thought images being produced of under 18s regardless of age of consent were the illegal.

No doubt the press and the pitchfork brigade will have a field day.

The british love a scandal!

Personally, I don't think Schofield did anything wrong. People went after him because he's gay.

Whoever this is, again, technically, done nothing wrong. But that'll be their career over.

100% agree although the 17 yo is leaving me feeling a little uneasy. But yeah, schofield being gay was why it blew up the way it did."
schofs partner was of legal age, it was enjoyment terms that where breached and lied about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always thought images being produced of under 18s regardless of age of consent were the illegal.

No doubt the press and the pitchfork brigade will have a field day.

The british love a scandal!

Personally, I don't think Schofield did anything wrong. People went after him because he's gay.

Whoever this is, again, technically, done nothing wrong. But that'll be their career over.

100% agree although the 17 yo is leaving me feeling a little uneasy. But yeah, schofield being gay was why it blew up the way it did.schofs partner was of legal age, it was enjoyment terms that where breached and lied about"

I mean employment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heekyDemandCouple over a year ago

Leicester

I mean employment. "

I liked the idea of enjoyment terms

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality."

We are the same , we’re not paying the wages of kiddie fiddlers who are constantly being protected by the British Beasting Corporation

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"Topless is neither explicit or indecent.Whatever evidence was put before the Sun their lawyers will have crawled all over it before publication.Given the pictures were sent digitally there will be an electronic footprint.Presumably this is the same evidence the Police are investigating,unless they are doing it just for a laugh or an opportunity to bash the BBC."
in the eyes of the law Topless IS explicit & indecent as regards photography & video especialy in the case of anyone under the age of 18 .taking pictures or video of someone in swimwear under 18 is a very grey area as said images can be considered "sexualised " and it only takes a jury of 12 of your peers to agree with the cps at trial and you signing the sex offenders register for the rest of your life .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heekyDemandCouple over a year ago

Leicester

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality.

We are the same , we’re not paying the wages of kiddie fiddlers who are constantly being protected by the British Beasting Corporation

To be fair, if you buy products that advertise on commercial TV and any of their people are kiddy fiddlers, you are still indirectly funding them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

"This is why i dont pay for my tv licence. Im not contributing to funding criminality.

We are the same , we’re not paying the wages of kiddie fiddlers who are constantly being protected by the British Beasting Corporation

To be fair, if you buy products that advertise on commercial TV and any of their people are kiddy fiddlers, you are still indirectly funding them"

Indeed. Almost impossible to not fund criminal activities of any kind these days.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I wish the BBC would choose another bloody name. It’s confusing for those that want to fetishise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Don’t search for this on Twitter. I’ve seen an image that will haunt my dreams for an eternity

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don’t search for this on Twitter. I’ve seen an image that will haunt my dreams for an eternity

I’ve spent my recent days on twitter following the story of Tonali and his gf discussing Newcastle FC’s training facilities compared to Milan’s

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don’t search for this on Twitter. I’ve seen an image that will haunt my dreams for an eternity

I’ve spent my recent days on twitter following the story of Tonali and his gf discussing Newcastle FC’s training facilities compared to Milan’s

She seems a lot more impressed than he is. I’d happily let her stay if he wants to go

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tsJustKateWoman over a year ago

London

"Based on the little bit of info above I'd say .... There is no law prohibiting gifts to 17 year olds.

There is a law against buying drugs.

So the presenter has not done anything punishable.... until I hear the seedy bits I guess...

Explicit photos of under 18s is illegal!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"Topless is neither explicit or indecent.Whatever evidence was put before the Sun their lawyers will have crawled all over it before publication.Given the pictures were sent digitally there will be an electronic footprint.Presumably this is the same evidence the Police are investigating,unless they are doing it just for a laugh or an opportunity to bash the BBC.in the eyes of the law Topless IS explicit & indecent as regards photography & video especialy in the case of anyone under the age of 18 .taking pictures or video of someone in swimwear under 18 is a very grey area as said images can be considered "sexualised " and it only takes a jury of 12 of your peers to agree with the cps at trial and you signing the sex offenders register for the rest of your life ."

So why was the newspaper not prosecuted for publishing pictures of Sam Fox when she was 16?For the same reason we could use 16 year old models for topless advertising work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Don’t search for this on Twitter. I’ve seen an image that will haunt my dreams for an eternity

I’ve spent my recent days on twitter following the story of Tonali and his gf discussing Newcastle FC’s training facilities compared to Milan’s

She seems a lot more impressed than he is. I’d happily let her stay if he wants to go

Great pick up that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

I was replying to an earlier post and talking specifically about the time contemporary with Sam Fox's first appearance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So why was the newspaper not prosecuted for publishing pictures of Sam Fox when she was 16?For the same reason we could use 16 year old models for topless advertising work."

Because back then it was legal, but the law changed in 2003. They couldn’t do it now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Don't let facts or any reality of how humans do the human when there are headlines to be made and advertising to be sold. It is purely about milking the all important sensationalist advertising dough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky40mkMan over a year ago

Malmesbury

"Based on the little bit of info above I'd say .... There is no law prohibiting gifts to 17 year olds.

There is a law against buying drugs.

So the presenter has not done anything punishable.... until I hear the seedy bits I guess...

I thought you had to be 18 to sell pics?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ormerWelshcouple2020Man over a year ago

Stourbridge

To throw a spanner in the works. Was he being held to ransom

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *batMan over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

"If the girl was 17, doesn't that make her an adult?

No, the age of becoming an adult is 18.

The age of sexual consent is 16.

The age of sending sexual images is 18.

A complicated scenario."

Not that complicated, you nailed it in three sentences.

Gbat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Probably not breaking any laws.

Ethically is maybe wrong to pay substantial amounts of money for photos.. especially when it’s reported the person has bought drugs.

Any young person at that age would relish with such amounts of money.

The parents must have know early on… I bet they didn’t just see drugs being bought.

And £35k for pictures that is a very expensive wank…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)