FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > BBC developments
BBC developments
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So, could it really be the case that a Tabloid rag has stirred up a story prematurely? And has the court of public opinion shown once again how quick it is to judge? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If the young person did contact the sun on friday as claimed telling them his mother was talking rubbish then they should either have dropped the story or at least reported his comments.
God knows what's been going on but I've never understood why she didnt go to the police, why it's on bbc to investigate and why they had to go to police and not her. Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lascumMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"If the young person did contact the sun on friday as claimed telling them his mother was talking rubbish then they should either have dropped the story or at least reported his comments.
God knows what's been going on but I've never understood why she didnt go to the police, why it's on bbc to investigate and why they had to go to police and not her. Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it."
Because the mother want her payday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it.
Possibly no evidence that criminal offences have been committed? "
Cant really be any other reason can there... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the young person did contact the sun on friday as claimed telling them his mother was talking rubbish then they should either have dropped the story or at least reported his comments.
God knows what's been going on but I've never understood why she didnt go to the police, why it's on bbc to investigate and why they had to go to police and not her. Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it.
Because the mother want her payday. "
The sun went to lengths to point out she didnt get paid ....by them.
I've no idea what's gone on, no one here does but from the get go it's been odd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Other news, does anyone know if boris babbags whatsapps were handed over before the deadline...which was today hmmmm.. "
It's on the front pages and all over Twitter... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"If the young person did contact the sun on friday as claimed telling them his mother was talking rubbish then they should either have dropped the story or at least reported his comments.
God knows what's been going on but I've never understood why she didnt go to the police, why it's on bbc to investigate and why they had to go to police and not her. Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it."
The police have a duty to investigate…. We know that this person is now 20, if the explicit pictures were taken when the person was 17, then the presenter is in trouble… if they were 18, it’s all legal
Now it’s dependent on what evidence the sun have to confirm they were 17…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday. "
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Other news, does anyone know if boris babbags whatsapps were handed over before the deadline...which was today hmmmm..
It's on the front pages and all over Twitter... "
Is it oh ffs I've been on LBC n not a word  ooopsie |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday.
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions! "
Hopefully they will get sued. Same for the papers who ran the story with a pic of a celeb man making it look like he was the person in question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Other news, does anyone know if boris babbags whatsapps were handed over before the deadline...which was today hmmmm..
It's on the front pages and all over Twitter...
Is it oh ffs I've been on LBC n not a word ooopsie "
Sorry I was joking. X
I agree... that news seems to be buried! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday.
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions! "
Well according to the sun, they have evidence, a dossier no less.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Other news, does anyone know if boris babbags whatsapps were handed over before the deadline...which was today hmmmm..
It's on the front pages and all over Twitter...
Is it oh ffs I've been on LBC n not a word ooopsie
Sorry I was joking. X
I agree... that news seems to be buried!"
Ya bugger lololol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well according to the sun, they have evidence, a dossier no less.
Is this a "dossier" in the same sense that the Blair WMD dossier was ? The dossier that was written by Alistair Campbell ?"
It's the sun....so god knows, but if they have the evidence then why arent they sharing it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *acktopervMan
over a year ago
Stourport-On-Severn |
"Well according to the sun, they have evidence, a dossier no less.
Is this a "dossier" in the same sense that the Blair WMD dossier was ? The dossier that was written by Alistair Campbell ?
It's the sun....so god knows, but if they have the evidence then why arent they sharing it?"
Maybe because, like the Blair/Campbell doesier, it's full of shit and lies and was written to decieve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well according to the sun, they have evidence, a dossier no less.
Is this a "dossier" in the same sense that the Blair WMD dossier was ? The dossier that was written by Alistair Campbell ?
It's the sun....so god knows, but if they have the evidence then why arent they sharing it?
Maybe because, like the Blair/Campbell doesier, it's full of shit and lies and was written to decieve."
Nooo theyd never do that .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *llitnilMan
over a year ago
Shirehampton |
"... if they have the evidence then why arent they sharing it?"
More importantly, if they have evidence, why aren't the police raiding their offices? Possessing the pictures is an offence, no matter what the reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"... if they have the evidence then why arent they sharing it?
More importantly, if they have evidence, why aren't the police raiding their offices? Possessing the pictures is an offence, no matter what the reason."
Too many questions arent there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Would this be a the same Sun newspaper who a few years ago paid a 16 year old girl to quit school and pose topless and is now getting outraged that a BBC presenter has paid a 17 year old girl to pose? I have no idea how they kept a straight face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm wondering if The Sun have protected themselves from being sued in a defamation case because they didn't name the presenter? That would be a pity after all this nonsense! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I'm wondering if The Sun have protected themselves from being sued in a defamation case because they didn't name the presenter? That would be a pity after all this nonsense! "
No….. because all of Fleet Street know who it is.. and a lot of people inside the bbc know who it is! Because the person has been suspended they will eventually work out who it is
The fact you put it out there but don’t name them doesn’t protect them… they put it out there for sales so you could argue malicious intent!
The person could both sue them and get an injunction against papers from naming them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm wondering if The Sun have protected themselves from being sued in a defamation case because they didn't name the presenter? That would be a pity after all this nonsense!
No….. because all of Fleet Street know who it is.. and a lot of people inside the bbc know who it is! Because the person has been suspended they will eventually work out who it is
The fact you put it out there but don’t name them doesn’t protect them… they put it out there for sales so you could argue malicious intent!
The person could both sue them and get an injunction against papers from naming them! "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The market is taking care of the Sun, year on year sales in decline so they have to manufacture more and more outrageous bullshit to boost in print sales and digital advertising revenue!
I blame each and every imbecile who buys their comic book journalism; it’s an affront to the intellect of the UK public at large, or is it indicative to that lack of intellect?
We’ve all a choice what to read and especially what to buy to read!
One can only hope the Sun have dropped the biggest fuck up of its immoral history and this is the beginning of the end!!
Ask anyone from Liverpool and the surrounding North West England about the Sun! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the young person did contact the sun on friday as claimed telling them his mother was talking rubbish then they should either have dropped the story or at least reported his comments.
God knows what's been going on but I've never understood why she didnt go to the police, why it's on bbc to investigate and why they had to go to police and not her. Also why the police didnt open an investigation. Too many questions around it.
The police have a duty to investigate…. We know that this person is now 20, if the explicit pictures were taken when the person was 17, then the presenter is in trouble… if they were 18, it’s all legal
Now it’s dependent on what evidence the sun have to confirm they were 17…."
It's been suggested that the contact was via only friends where the minimum age is meant to be 18. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday.
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions! "
How ? They didn't name anyone did they ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It won’t make a tap of difference what happens now and we all know it; the BBC will cave to the pitchfork mentality and phase out said individual no matter what they did or didn’t do, their career as a broadcaster on mainstream BBC television is already over.
Consent, OnlyFans, gender, sexuality, won’t matter!
If said person paid a teenager or early twenty something for pictures and that’s a fact, said person is done; end of!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's so messy, less than 2 days ago the public were baying for the blood of the person accused now it's for the demise of the sun. It's like a big boil, dread to think what's going to come out once its popped.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have said in another thread … from the outset there was much here that doesn’t add up - and still doesn’t’
The one thing it does however show, is (yet again) the behaviour of the gutter press, and the lengths they will go to, to sell a newspaper. They often hide behind being the ‘moral police’, ‘in the public interest’ etc … they don’t care less, it’s about selling newspapers! … and sadly we buy them and digest their rubbish!
I haven’t bought a newspaper for many years … they are as bad as one another.
If they really cared about the environment, they would make their papers from something inherently more absorbent…. then we could all put their work to much better use!
Soapbox back in the cupboard!
R xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
While everyone was watching the BBC did Johnson hand in his phone and notebooks yesterday like he was ordered to?
I can't remember The Sun running a story about the MP who's been told to stay away from Parliament since April 22 either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"While everyone was watching the BBC did Johnson hand in his phone and notebooks yesterday like he was ordered to?
I can't remember The Sun running a story about the MP who's been told to stay away from Parliament since April 22 either."
No, apparently they are working out how to switch it on safely  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday.
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions!
How ? They didn't name anyone did they ?"
Printing the story is enough in legal terms…. And the sun is going to have a hard task with the “public interest” argument if this person was over 18….
There are 3 questions that fascinate me
1) if the parents believe there was something illegal going on… why did they not take it to the police
2) if the sun believe what they have is bulletproof.. why have they not named the person
3) if the sun have pictures, why have they not handed them to the police…. Otherwise they are holding onto explicit pictures of a minor! Which in itself is a criminal act |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"As I just saw elsewhere;
“All of Fleet Street will attack the BBC for not naming the person they are not naming themselves without also asking, with respect, why the mother went to the sun and not the police”
Something is seriously wrong, and the sun still chose to run it after Friday.
I am guessing the sun are now hoping the police find something because if they don’t this defamation case will cost them millions!
How ? They didn't name anyone did they ?
Printing the story is enough in legal terms…. And the sun is going to have a hard task with the “public interest” argument if this person was over 18….
There are 3 questions that fascinate me
1) if the parents believe there was something illegal going on… why did they not take it to the police
2) if the sun believe what they have is bulletproof.. why have they not named the person
3) if the sun have pictures, why have they not handed them to the police…. Otherwise they are holding onto explicit pictures of a minor! Which in itself is a criminal act "
1)As I've seen elsewhere many people don't know pics of a 17 yr old are illegal,maybe the parents didn't,that's why they didn't involve the cops.
2)it's not bulletproof until a jury says "Guilty"
3)If the Sun were in possession they would have reported it and handed them to the cops,that adds to the whole story.The parents claim to have seen pics on a laptop,that's a digital footprint for a techie to find. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the Sun were in possession they would have reported it and handed them to the cops, that adds to the whole story.The parents claim to have seen pics on a laptop, that's a digital footprint for a techie to find."
This whole sorry case is only a public interest story if a criminal offence has been committed, and that isn’t clear. The crux is…
Were the photos / videos sexual explicit created when the person was under 18, or made to look like they were under 18?
If the answer is no, the story ends. If the answer is yes, then the story lives. If the family believes that something unlawful happened while their family member was under 18, then the police should be investigating, not the Sun or the BBC. I believe that the BBC involvement is a red herring… unless the person was using BBC equipment, premises or doing it in work time.
The name will never come out now. Not least because the “victim” is arguing that nothing illegal happened and may not be a willing witness. So is there enough evidence?
Electronic evidence alone isn’t enough and needs to be rock solid and corroborated with other items. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes  "
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes "
Just seems a bit He chats to another adult on a dating site who then implies hes going to name him online then gets upset because the other guy sent him angry messages.
I'm giving up lol my heads wasted with it all  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yet another reason people should not be named in public for any suspected crime until a judge says the words guilty too many people have lost it all on accusations alone"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated. "
I haven't seen/read anything about the last few days, Yet
but still waiting on the outcome of Boris's parties (fixed penalty notices and apologises wasn't enough) tax avoidance, PPE contracts to friends/family etc
Could of say the same any government over the years but these cunts take it to another level
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"If the Sun were in possession they would have reported it and handed them to the cops, that adds to the whole story.The parents claim to have seen pics on a laptop, that's a digital footprint for a techie to find.
This whole sorry case is only a public interest story if a criminal offence has been committed, and that isn’t clear. The crux is…
Were the photos / videos sexual explicit created when the person was under 18, or made to look like they were under 18?
If the answer is no, the story ends. If the answer is yes, then the story lives. If the family believes that something unlawful happened while their family member was under 18, then the police should be investigating, not the Sun or the BBC. I believe that the BBC involvement is a red herring… unless the person was using BBC equipment, premises or doing it in work time.
The name will never come out now. Not least because the “victim” is arguing that nothing illegal happened and may not be a willing witness. So is there enough evidence?
Electronic evidence alone isn’t enough and needs to be rock solid and corroborated with other items. "
If the police don’t find enough to charge then the presenter absolutely sues the sun for defamation.. the sun in effect are the ones who made this a public interest story and have benefited from greater sales… but don’t have a public interest defence!
This presenter wins millions! The next question will be if this is the hill the sun want to die fighting upon.. because if the sun brand is that toxic they could go the same way as the news of the world! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated.
I haven't seen/read anything about the last few days, Yet
but still waiting on the outcome of Boris's parties (fixed penalty notices and apologises wasn't enough) tax avoidance, PPE contracts to friends/family etc
Could of say the same any government over the years but these cunts take it to another level
"
I just wondered as this seemed very specific. Should this not be reported? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated.
I haven't seen/read anything about the last few days, Yet
but still waiting on the outcome of Boris's parties (fixed penalty notices and apologises wasn't enough) tax avoidance, PPE contracts to friends/family etc
Could of say the same any government over the years but these cunts take it to another level
I just wondered as this seemed very specific. Should this not be reported?"
To the police then if found guilty then yes report it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Complete shambles.
No way this should have been a newspaper story, should have gone straight to the police.
The youngster seems to be estranged from the parents, and says the story is bollocks.
… and now a 2nd youngster is being rolled out.
Don’t know who or what to believe. Sounds like the Jeremy Kyle show |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated.
I haven't seen/read anything about the last few days, Yet
but still waiting on the outcome of Boris's parties (fixed penalty notices and apologises wasn't enough) tax avoidance, PPE contracts to friends/family etc
Could of say the same any government over the years but these cunts take it to another level
I just wondered as this seemed very specific. Should this not be reported?
To the police then if found guilty then yes report it"
As far as we're aware, there us no crime to report.
You can blame the parents for making it a front page story.
I'm still not sure how it's 'anything that keeps Tory scandals off the front page' seeing as you said there are no new ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"If the Sun were in possession they would have reported it and handed them to the cops, that adds to the whole story.The parents claim to have seen pics on a laptop, that's a digital footprint for a techie to find.
This whole sorry case is only a public interest story if a criminal offence has been committed, and that isn’t clear. The crux is…
Were the photos / videos sexual explicit created when the person was under 18, or made to look like they were under 18?
If the answer is no, the story ends. If the answer is yes, then the story lives. If the family believes that something unlawful happened while their family member was under 18, then the police should be investigating, not the Sun or the BBC. I believe that the BBC involvement is a red herring… unless the person was using BBC equipment, premises or doing it in work time.
The name will never come out now. Not least because the “victim” is arguing that nothing illegal happened and may not be a willing witness. So is there enough evidence?
Electronic evidence alone isn’t enough and needs to be rock solid and corroborated with other items.
If the police don’t find enough to charge then the presenter absolutely sues the sun for defamation.. the sun in effect are the ones who made this a public interest story and have benefited from greater sales… but don’t have a public interest defence!
This presenter wins millions! The next question will be if this is the hill the sun want to die fighting upon.. because if the sun brand is that toxic they could go the same way as the news of the world! "
There have been plenty of people convicted solely on electronic evidence.Insuffucient evidence is not the same as no evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Allegedly another person has come forward....wtf is going on
Anything that keeps the Tory scandals off the front pages, been doing it for years nothing changes
What scandal had happened in the last few days? We need to be educated.
I haven't seen/read anything about the last few days, Yet
but still waiting on the outcome of Boris's parties (fixed penalty notices and apologises wasn't enough) tax avoidance, PPE contracts to friends/family etc
Could of say the same any government over the years but these cunts take it to another level
I just wondered as this seemed very specific. Should this not be reported?
To the police then if found guilty then yes report it
As far as we're aware, there us no crime to report.
So why the headlines ?
You can blame the parents for making it a front page story.
No I'd blame the so called news paper for putting on the front pages
I'm still not sure how it's 'anything that keeps Tory scandals off the front page' seeing as you said there are no new ones.
There doesn't have to be any new scandals being journalist they should keep reporting on stories that have interests of the public i.e Government scandals past and present not what the media owners to push for there own agendas
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
On one hand, the British media peddle an disproportionate weighting to these kind of stories.
On the flip side, they only peddle them because they know this is what the UK public (mostly) lap up.
Not so much this case, but the Phillip Schofield case dominated for weeks!
Anyhow, back in my box...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its still ridiculous to me that whoever the presenter is - as it stands now and back when the other party was potentially 17 - they could have actually had sex but the other party could not send him pics of whatever…parts he would have seen if they had had sexual relations. Im sure the law is there to safeguard the young person in which case the age of sexual consent should be the age of majority. This would remove what could be perceived as a ridiculous inconsistency. Alternatively if you can have sex at 16 i would guess it makes sense that sexual imagery can-be shared at 16 too - just seems a really stupid contradiction.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There have been plenty of people convicted solely on electronic evidence. Insuffucient evidence is not the same as no evidence."
Allow me to be more specific. You’re in possession of the accused’s laptop. The laptop has been identified as the laptop from which a message was sent, using a particular application. You’ve got them banged to rights?
Eh, no. The application requires a login, and the accused was using a false account (from which the message was sent) and they also had their own public account to the application. Still got them?
Not quite. When opened, the application launches their public account, not the fake account. So how do you prove the accused did it? On that alone, you can’t, and such a case would be unlikely to be answered in court. You need a lot more evidence to corroborate the accusation.
But, people asked earlier why the family didn’t go to the police first? Apparently they did, and the initial police investigation found no evidence of a crime. So the parents don’t approve of what the guy on the tells did, and are trying to take them down in other ways. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its still ridiculous to me that whoever the presenter is - as it stands now and back when the other party was potentially 17 - they could have actually had sex but the other party could not send him pics of whatever…parts he would have seen if they had had sexual relations. Im sure the law is there to safeguard the young person in which case the age of sexual consent should be the age of majority. This would remove what could be perceived as a ridiculous inconsistency. Alternatively if you can have sex at 16 i would guess it makes sense that sexual imagery can-be shared at 16 too - just seems a really stupid contradiction.
"
Would you be comfortable with 16yo people performing in the porn films one might see online? Would you have been happy to wait till 18 to have sex for the first time, with someone the same age who you really fancy and of which there will be no permanent physical record? The two things are not the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Away for Christmas |
"Its still ridiculous to me that whoever the presenter is - as it stands now and back when the other party was potentially 17 - they could have actually had sex but the other party could not send him pics of whatever…parts he would have seen if they had had sexual relations. Im sure the law is there to safeguard the young person in which case the age of sexual consent should be the age of majority. This would remove what could be perceived as a ridiculous inconsistency. Alternatively if you can have sex at 16 i would guess it makes sense that sexual imagery can-be shared at 16 too - just seems a really stupid contradiction.
Would you be comfortable with 16yo people performing in the porn films one might see online? Would you have been happy to wait till 18 to have sex for the first time, with someone the same age who you really fancy and of which there will be no permanent physical record? The two things are not the same. "
I say 18 to both regardless |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its still ridiculous to me that whoever the presenter is - as it stands now and back when the other party was potentially 17 - they could have actually had sex but the other party could not send him pics of whatever…parts he would have seen if they had had sexual relations. Im sure the law is there to safeguard the young person in which case the age of sexual consent should be the age of majority. This would remove what could be perceived as a ridiculous inconsistency. Alternatively if you can have sex at 16 i would guess it makes sense that sexual imagery can-be shared at 16 too - just seems a really stupid contradiction.
Would you be comfortable with 16yo people performing in the porn films one might see online? Would you have been happy to wait till 18 to have sex for the first time, with someone the same age who you really fancy and of which there will be no permanent physical record? The two things are not the same.
I say 18 to both regardless "
Evidence from around the world shows that raising the age of consent doesn't stop young people doing the sex. It might even lead to more risky sexual behaviours because they fear doing something illegal or cannot find advice, contraception etc. I think separating the idea of two consenting people having sex for their own purposes, from sex for "sale"/on permanent record is sensible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its still ridiculous to me that whoever the presenter is - as it stands now and back when the other party was potentially 17 - they could have actually had sex but the other party could not send him pics of whatever…parts he would have seen if they had had sexual relations. Im sure the law is there to safeguard the young person in which case the age of sexual consent should be the age of majority. This would remove what could be perceived as a ridiculous inconsistency. Alternatively if you can have sex at 16 i would guess it makes sense that sexual imagery can-be shared at 16 too - just seems a really stupid contradiction.
Would you be comfortable with 16yo people performing in the porn films one might see online? Would you have been happy to wait till 18 to have sex for the first time, with someone the same age who you really fancy and of which there will be no permanent physical record? The two things are not the same.
I say 18 to both regardless
Evidence from around the world shows that raising the age of consent doesn't stop young people doing the sex. It might even lead to more risky sexual behaviours because they fear doing something illegal or cannot find advice, contraception etc. I think separating the idea of two consenting people having sex for their own purposes, from sex for "sale"/on permanent record is sensible. "
I just think there is a contradiction that says someone is mentally mature enough to give consent for actual sexual activity and yet needs to be protected because they might be manipulated by someone potentially only 2 years older and more mature. That begs the question ‘ are they then mature enough to give consent for the act’ i might not be expressing my point clearly ( i know what i mean) i believe young people do need protection from predatory adults and in fact peers. But the contradiction for me is they are seen as mature enough and can give consent for the act and on the other hand are viewed as not mature enough to provide consent for sending a picture for instance. I appreciate your point about permanency as the act is potentially fleeting and the image is permanent - especially in todays society. The part of ‘for sale’ and commercial activity - I would say 21 is where you have the necessary maturity to make a career decision that will definitely impact your adult life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To my mind, the fact that nobody, even the accusers, will publicly name him means that nobody, including the accusers, has concrete proof at this stage of any law breaking. Surely if you have irrefutable proof you do not have to fear being sued for libel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
