1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

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

 

Link to the scene please.

 

1 hour 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? They may have been slightly left of centre once upon a time but they certainly aren't now. Their top management is now dominated by former Tory party members and/or donors.

 

Just look the people most recently in the top positions. Chairmen: David Clementi, pillar of the conservative establishment, followed by Richard Sharp, Tory party mega-donor and the man who arranged an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson (although he has just stepped down). Director General: Timothy Davie, former Tory party member and deputy chairman of his local Conservative Association.

 

As for Gary Lineker being somehow representative of the BBC, well hardly - he isn't even a BBC employee.

This whole story, even if true, is a non-event.

17yo boy sends naughty selfies over phone .............. so what?

About as serious as double parking (if true).

 

29 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The BBC left wing? They may have been slightly left of centre once upon a time but they certainly aren't now. Their top management is now dominated by former Tory party members and/or donors.

 

Just look the people most recently in the top positions. Chairmen: David Clementi, pillar of the conservative establishment, followed by Richard Sharp, Tory party mega-donor and the man who arranged an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson (although he has just stepped down). Director General: Timothy Davie, former Tory party member and deputy chairman of his local Conservative Association.

 

As for Gary Lineker being somehow representative of the BBC, well hardly - he isn't even a BBC employee.

It's not a question of the top management. It's the rank and file of lefties that have built up over the years. The bosses would need to get rid of everyone to root it out, but they can't replace anyone for political reasons so they are stuck. If you don't see the rampant leftism that is in virtually every BBC news item and piece of programming, I have to question your ability to understand anything.

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

This whole story, even if true, is a non-event.

17yo boy sends naughty selfies over phone .............. so what?

About as serious as double parking (if true).

 

Even less serious than that. The British have always been a prurient bunch but they need to start having a word with themselves because the fuss over this non-issue should be a national embarrassment. 

I no longer consider myself British as the country has gone down so far down the pan.

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

This whole story, even if true, is a non-event.

17yo boy sends naughty selfies over phone .............. so what?

About as serious as double parking (if true).

 

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

"The mother described how her child, who was said to be 17 when the payments began, turned from a “happy-go-lucky youngster” to a “ghost-like crack addict” in three years."

 

A 17-year-old "child" blackmailing a grown man with the help of parents. The extortion Society.

 

P.S. Would The Guardian come to the rescue of an accused man if he wasn't a member of a sister leftie woke organisation like the BBC?

Edited July 11, 20232 yr by JackGats

3 hours ago, norfolkandchance said:

Not the family's lawyer. The victims lawyer.

Alleged victim. 
 

And he’s saying the accusations are rubbish.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

This whole story, even if true, is a non-event.

17yo boy sends naughty selfies over phone .............. so what?

About as serious as double parking (if true).

 

Shock horror probe stories keep the sheeple occupied and give ad algorithms something to bite on. Engineered dramas can also be used to squeeze uncomfortable issues out of the headlines.

36 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Even less serious than that. The British have always been a prurient bunch but they need to start having a word with themselves because the fuss over this non-issue should be a national embarrassment. 

I no longer consider myself British as the country has gone down so far down the pan.

12 long years of Tory misrule...  Who else to blame?

36 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

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

It hasn’t been confirmed he’s a victim.

 

His lawyer says it’s all rubbish.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It hasn’t been confirmed he’s a victim.

 

His lawyer says it’s all rubbish.

 

 

So, it has been confirmed it's a boy? 

3 hours 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.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, it has been confirmed it's a boy? 

I asked this a few posts ago.  I don't think it has.  

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Alleged victim. 
 

And he’s saying the accusations are rubbish.

I wonder who's paying the victims lawyers bill. Or is it a 

'No win. No Fee'.

 

As the so called teen thru his lawyer is saying its rubbish and no evidence of wrongdoing; the presenter of course will admit nothing.

What the parents would say in Court is hearsay without the teens evidence.

My reading of the case is that if money was paid that can prove nowt without the victims' evidence. Even if there is a photo of the presenter in his underwear: nothing wrong with that and it  also proves nothing unless the teen says otherwise which he will not  either about that or anything else to implicate the presenter.

However loud the parents scream and shout their allegations cannot prove anything in Court without their child or an admission by the presenter.

Of course:

I think we can all guess who arranged and financed the lawyer...and many of us now know the name of the presenter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 20232 yr by homeseeker

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

As for Gary Lineker being somehow representative of the BBC, well hardly - he isn't even a BBC employee.

Being disingenuous? He invoices them through a company to reduce his tax bill as do many others.

24 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I asked this a few posts ago.  I don't think it has.  

Chomper Higgot implies it has and they're really smart

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Chomper Higgot implies it has and they're really smart

Who cares about the gender of a victim whom is by the admission of their own lawyer not a victim of wrong doing?

 

Without evidence of a crime then the real victims here are the BBC and the male employees of the BBC maligned by a baseless accusation.

 

But then perhaps that was the whole intention.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who cares about the gender of a victim whom is by the admission of their own lawyer not a victim of wrong doing?

 

Without evidence of a crime then the real victims here are the BBC and the male employees of the BBC maligned by a baseless accusation.

 

But then perhaps that was the whole intention.

Sorry dude, don't have a stroke, brewsterbudgen asked, I thought you knew. 

 

If you know, why not tell? 

42 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

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

Key words Mum, Cash, High

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry dude, don't have a stroke, brewsterbudgen asked, I thought you knew. 

 

If you know, why not tell? 

Because I don’t care, the alleged victim’s lawyers says it’s all made there was no wrongdoing.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because I don’t care, the alleged victim’s lawyers says it’s all made there was no wrongdoing.

Your lack of concern is clear, thanks. 

1 hour ago, homeseeker said:

I think we can all guess who arranged and financed the lawyer...and many of us now know the name of the presenter.

This 'we all' has no idea of what your alleging. Come on, spill the beanz!

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Your lack of concern is clear, thanks. 

I’m not at all concerned about things that didn’t happen.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not at all concerned about things that didn’t happen.

 

 

Got it, thanks. 

Well, it has been consumed it did not happen. 

 

Thanks everyone, move along now, nothing to see here...

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Well, it has been consumed it did not happen. 

 

Thanks everyone, move along now, nothing to see here...

Not so quickly, we can now look forward to the consequences for those making false accusations of serious crime.

 

 

6 hours ago, Yeah rightio said:

 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.

 

Absolutely mad.

 

We should just raise the age of consent to 18, or get rid of that ridiculous law. If you can consent to having sexual intercourse, and the potential to have a child, then you should be able to do anything you wish with your body. That includes sending nudes to whomever you wish.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not so quickly, we can now look forward to the consequences for those making false accusations of serious crime.

 

 

Are you back to being concerned now?