brewsterbudgen

Has it been confirmed that the 'victim' is a boy?

Good grief! I assume you don't watch it then, if you think any of that is true. Gary Lineker presents football programmes, so why is his politics relevant?

The BBC left-wing? Come on now, that's patently ridiculous! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Davie

I agree about Savile. Mind you, the scandal could have (should have) brought down the monarchy, the Tory party and the NHS as well!

The BBC is a national treasure. Or 'was' before it got taken over by Cameron's Tory cronies!

An interesting development. I'd love to see The Sun damaged beyond repair and follow the NOTW into the media trashbin, which could happen if they've got this story wrong!

No it isn't. You should read the entire thread before posting... On 7/9/2023 at 10:11 AM, BritManToo said: Isn't 17 legal in the UK? No! Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent. It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. Making or possessing indecent images carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Once (if...) Pita becomes PM and MF the government, then it might be on the agenda.

It's all over Twitter. They'll have to confirm it soon.

No!

I would just wait. It's in the system and will either be approved or rejected. I didn't get my approval until around 10 days after it had been received back in May.

The forum is all about opinions. You're welcome to think that my opinion that 'giving the family baseball bats makes no sense' is ridiculous. I have little time for such over-the-top responses to tragic crimes, but appreciate that some still hanker after a medieval system of justice!

Assuming it's "pending", you can expect to wait for up to 10 days.

Because it's a ridiculous comment (in my opinion).

Online or by mail?

No and not really relevant to this case. In some cases, under-18 nudity in movies may be permitted under certain circumstances, such as when it is deemed necessary for the artistic or educational value of the film, and appropriate measures are taken to protect the child's welfare and ensure their informed consent. These measures typically involve the presence of a guardian or parent on set, strict supervision, and adherence to specific protocols.

No! Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent. It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. Making or possessing indecent images carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

I don't think it's a rumour. It's well known that Crazy House has police ownership connections. A fun gogo to visit.

So, giving the family baseball makes no sense.

The murderer is family!

Is the guy in question super rich?

Paedophilia is a crime whether it involves boys or girls. Not sure why you find "old western guys" with young boys more creepy than if they're with young girls! As long as the boy or girl is 18+ what difference does it make?

Why?

I must be very boring. No girlfriend, just a wife who's 30 years younger than me and an 8-year-old child.

My local pharmacy has plenty of Rosuvastatin Sandoz in stock. I'd keep looking.