Top BBC presenter ‘stripped to underwear in video call with teen he paid for explicit pictures’

[JonnyF]

Good to see that the money extorted out of the UK population and then given to vastly overpaid presenters to virtue signal to the public is being put to good use ????.

 

The time to defund the BBC is long overdue. A disgraceful organization.

[Yeah rightio]

19 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

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.. 

 Consenting group sex between people of any age over sixteen is ok? But having intimate private photos of someone under eighteen is an offense.  Now that really is bonkers.......

"Even though the age of consent is 16 in the UK, these are common questions, so we'll answer them directly here. Both are ok in the eyes of the law – once you turn 16 you can legally have sex with anyone else who is also over the age of consent, but sexting with anyone under 18 is illegal."
https://www.themix.org.uk/crime-and-safety/your-rights/age-of-consent-9106.html#:~:text=Even though the age of,anyone under 18 is illegal.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Good to see that the money extorted out of the UK population and then given to vastly overpaid presenters to virtue signal to the public is being put to good use ????.

 

The time to defund the BBC is long overdue. A disgraceful organization.

Oh dear, it turns out the whole ‘Sun Exclusive’ was a pile of tosh.

 

But you got to insert ‘virtue signaling’ into the thread, so be happy.

 

Perhaps the lesson here is another Rupert Murdoch rightwing rag is caught telling outrageous and defamatory porkies.

 

An example of precisely why the BBC should not be handed over to the self serving billionaires running most of the UK’s media.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh dear, it turns out the whole ‘Sun Exclusive’ was a pile of tosh.

 

But you got to insert ‘virtue signaling’ into the thread, so be happy.

 

Perhaps the lesson here is another Rupert Murdoch rightwing rag is caught telling outrageous and defamatory porkies.

 

An example of precisely why the BBC should not be handed over to the self serving billionaires running most of the UK’s media.

Let's wait for the investigation to conclude before we conclude it was a pile of tosh, rather than a report from The Guardian that an alleged crack cocaine addict is now denying it.

 

Even if this one turns out to be a hoax, it's not like there is a shortage of other controversies to warrant the defunding of this disgraceful, politically biased media company.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies

 

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Let's wait for the investigation to conclude before we conclude it was a pile of tosh, rather than a report from The Guardian that an alleged crack cocaine addict is now denying it.

 

Even if this one turns out to be a hoax, it's not like there is a shortage of other controversies to warrant the defunding of this disgraceful, politically biased media company.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies

 

 

 

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

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Let's wait for the investigation to conclude before we conclude it was a pile of tosh, rather than a report from The Guardian that an alleged crack cocaine addict is now denying it.

 

Even if this one turns out to be a hoax, it's not like there is a shortage of other controversies to warrant the defunding of this disgraceful, politically biased media company.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies

 

 

 

I get it Johnny I do, The Sun got your hopes up, but once again Murdoch’s rightwing mouthpiece was lying.

 

The Sun let you down Johnny, I understand it’s a bit of a blow.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's a national disgrace. The Jimmy Saville debacle alone was enough to have it disbanded. 

But this isn’t about Jimmy Saville Johnny, The Sun’s accusations are false, or to use the word’s of the alleged victim’s lawyers, rubbish.

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's a national disgrace. The Jimmy Saville debacle alone was enough to have it disbanded. 

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

[Chomper Higgot]

My guess is there’s an awful lot of twitching going on at The Sun right now.

 

 

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I get it Johnny I do, The Sun got your hopes up, but once again Murdoch’s rightwing mouthpiece was lying.

 

The Sun let you down Johnny, I understand it’s a bit of a blow.

 

But Chohmpher, the investigation hasn't concluded yet.

 

Besides, if you had read the list I provided you would have seen many, many reasons to defund the BBC. I know they are a valuable tool for the left wing and hence your undying support, but it's really time for them to go.

 

And go they will. Tick tock. 

[brewsterbudgen]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

But Chohmpher, the investigation hasn't concluded yet.

 

Besides, if you had read the list I provided you would have seen many, many reasons to defund the BBC. I know they are a valuable tool for the left wing and hence your undying support, but it's really time for them to go.

 

And go they will. Tick tock. 

The BBC left-wing?  Come on now, that's patently ridiculous!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Davie

[onthedarkside]

Trolling meme removed

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The BBC left-wing?  Come on now, that's patently ridiculous!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Davie

Stop gaslighting.

 

Everyone knows the BBC is a) left wing, b) Pro EU/Anti Brexit and c) Woke. It's highest paid star Gary Lineker oozes all 3 from every pore, from every tweet.

 

The fact that every left winger on the forum 100% supports their continued existence while pretending they are right wing is highly amusing. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Stop gaslighting.

 

Everyone knows the BBC is a) left wing, b) Pro EU/Anti Brexit and c) Woke. It's highest paid star Gary Lineker oozes all 3 from every pore, from every tweet.

 

The fact that every left winger on the forum 100% supports their continued existence while pretending they are right wing is highly amusing. 

 

My goodness, so many rightwing buzz words in one off topic post.

[Henryford]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:09 AM, Yellowtail said:

Had to be a white, right-wing Christion, Huw Edwards? 

Yes a devout Christian. TalkTV has confirmed that the Presenter is on a 410k salary. Just look up which BBC Christian is on that salary, there is only one (cough Welsh).

Edited July 11, 2023 by Henryford

[brewsterbudgen]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Stop gaslighting.

 

Everyone knows the BBC is a) left wing, b) Pro EU/Anti Brexit and c) Woke. It's highest paid star Gary Lineker oozes all 3 from every pore, from every tweet.

 

The fact that every left winger on the forum 100% supports their continued existence while pretending they are right wing is highly amusing. 

 

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?

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My goodness, so many rightwing buzz words in one off topic post.

Back on topic. 

 

It's sad to see the young person now feeling so pressured as to deny the story. It reminds me of Mason Greenwood's girlfriend immediately after posting the video of her own abuse.

 

It does seem the parents are standing by the story though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/10/claims-about-bbc-presenter-are-rubbish-says-young-person-at-centre-of-scandal

 

 

I wonder how much of the public's money will be used by the BBC to make this disappear. Shades of Saville all over again?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Back on topic. 

 

It's sad to see the young person now feeling so pressured as to deny the story. It reminds me of Mason Greenwood's girlfriend immediately after posting the video of her own abuse.

 

It does seem the parents are standing by the story though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/10/claims-about-bbc-presenter-are-rubbish-says-young-person-at-centre-of-scandal

 

 

I wonder how much of the public's money will be used by the BBC to make this disappear. Shades of Saville all over again?

Make what disappear?

 

The family’s lawyer says the whole story is rubbish.

 

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Make what disappear?

The claims. Obviously. Do try to keep up. 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The family’s lawyer says the whole story is rubbish.

 

The family says they stand by the claims (see my link above). Seems a lot of muddying the waters happening. Sounds like someone got to the kid. This is far from over. If there are pictures, they'll come out in the end.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pink Mist
Off topic portion edited

[Henryford]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The claims. Obviously. Do try to keep up. 

 

The family says they stand by the claims (see my link above). Seems a lot of muddying the waters happening. Sounds like someone got to the kid. This is far from over. If there are pictures, they'll come out in the end. 

No doubt the child is happy, he is being paid big money, nothing to see here. If the parents have bank statements showing 35000 received then there is a case to answer. No one pays a child 35000 for nothing.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pink Mist
Portion of quoted post edited as off topic

[Pink Mist]

Reported off topic post removed as well as portions of a post which were also off topic.  This OP is not about anyone named Savile.

[Purdey]

Surprised her mum never asked where she got all that money, and never wondered why she was high all the time.

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you expected this too:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2023/jul/10/bbc-investigation-suspended-presenter-police-latest-updates

Yes, weeks ago

[jak2002003]

Just now, Purdey said:

Surprised her mum never asked where she got all that money, and never wondered why she was high all the time.

Good parenting.

[KannikaP]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:28 PM, cleopatra2 said:

I have not seen these movies so cannot give an opinion.

However why do you think they would fall foul  of the law 

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' The starts in those movies were under 18, together with several more.

[Slip]

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Stop gaslighting.

 

Everyone knows the BBC is a) left wing, b) Pro EU/Anti Brexit and c) Woke. It's highest paid star Gary Lineker oozes all 3 from every pore, from every tweet.

 

The fact that every left winger on the forum 100% supports their continued existence while pretending they are right wing is highly amusing. 

 

Here we go again with "everyone knows".  Talk about gaslighting...

[Rimmer]

Some troll and speculative posts have been removed also replies

[norfolkandchance]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Make what disappear?

 

The family’s lawyer says the whole story is rubbish.

 

Not the family's lawyer. The victims lawyer.

[norfolkandchance]

15 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Surprised her mum never asked where she got all that money, and never wondered why she was high all the time.

It's a she now then. Wow, I can't keep up.

[cleopatra2]

27 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

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' The starts in those movies were under 18, together with several more.

At the time one of the scenes were shot the UKs legal definition of a child was 16.