|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 8, 2023 21:41:02 GMT
Well there seems to be 3 names doing the rounds on Reddit (yes, I've become mildly obsessed temporarily) and none of them look like the silhouette from The Sun so fuck knows.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 8, 2023 21:45:55 GMT
What's the actual issue here? Some bloke paid money for naked pics. Like a porno mag? Except he paid a hell of a lot more. Is there any actual physicality involved? Is there an age issue? If this is the extent of it then there's been a lot worse. She was 17, apparently. So, if it is true, they’ll possibly get into a bit of trouble (most likely not). I find the law around that kind of odd. Can have sex with a 16 year old but can’t see a picture of them naked. Note, I wouldn’t want to do the latter (or the former) either but it does seem like an odd distinction. The law is strange, I mean you can get married at 16 then you have to wait 2 years before you can see an x-rated movie! Also I'm not quite sure how if someone who happens to work for the BBC pays up on one of these 'Only Fans' style websites for some risqué pictures it is the BBC's fault? I mean they can't really control what someone does in their spare time. Still, great fun guessing, perfect light news story.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 8, 2023 22:02:47 GMT
I have been told on good authority of the person involved and all of a sudden a lot of things made sense and why one of the beebs biggest shows is off the air still while blaming other circumstances…. A certain motoring programme perhaps? Well the Sun article says he was still on air in May so it's not that.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 8, 2023 22:14:38 GMT
A certain motoring programme perhaps? Well the Sun article says he was still on air in May so it's not that. Presents multiple shows
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jul 8, 2023 22:43:56 GMT
If the silhouette is the person in that Sun article, coupled with the other clues above, I think it’s pretty obvious.
I was also completely unaware this was a legal.
Indecent images 18. Never knew that.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 8, 2023 22:48:34 GMT
I don't think it is him, the Sun today claim mum saw him on the "youth's" phone. Do we call females youth? Not round here anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Jul 8, 2023 23:54:05 GMT
The silhouette in The Sun’s article is just a stock Getty image, it isn’t the actual person.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2023 0:53:19 GMT
Shaggy is the most recent celebrity to now come out and say it wasn't me.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2023 0:54:57 GMT
One thing about this being leaked is that it's stopped everyone talking about George osborne. Interesting timing.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Jul 9, 2023 1:29:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jul 9, 2023 1:38:35 GMT
One thing about this being leaked is that it's stopped everyone talking about George osborne. Interesting timing. Do you think that the crack addict’s mum is trying to score a spot on the guest list?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2023 2:22:26 GMT
One thing about this being leaked is that it's stopped everyone talking about George osborne. Interesting timing. Do you think that the crack addict’s mum is trying to score a spot on the guest list? Did she not contact the bbc in May? And the sun is running the story after the person is already taken of air. Just because the sun released the story on Friday doesn't mean that's when they first got knowledge of if. Look at the schofield stuff which was doing the rounds for years before it ever hit the news.
|
|
|
Post by NassauDave on Jul 9, 2023 2:29:08 GMT
Shaggy is the most recent celebrity to now come out and say it wasn't me. What about Scooby-Doo?
|
|
|
Post by fishlovesoatcakes on Jul 9, 2023 3:53:43 GMT
I have been told on good authority of the person involved and all of a sudden a lot of things made sense and why one of the beebs biggest shows is off the air still while blaming other circumstances…. We've ever got ITK's on this thread 🤣
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 9, 2023 6:43:52 GMT
Now I wonder if the mother would be moaning like fuck if her daughter had put the thirty odd grand down as a deposit on her first house Rather than being a crack addict
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 9, 2023 6:53:22 GMT
Now I wonder if the mother would be moaning like fuck if her daughter had put the thirty odd grand down as a deposit on her first house Rather than being a crack addict I'm not really getting the link as to how paying someone money is the cause for them having a drug habit. If the payments were made in drugs then fair enough, but the decision to spend the cash on drugs isn't down to whoever the presenter is.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 9, 2023 6:56:23 GMT
Amazing how when it's an ordinary man on the street, his life is basically destroyed.... Innocent or guilty.
A BBC presenter? Let's give him anonymity. Just in case it's all made up.
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Jul 9, 2023 7:16:37 GMT
Now I wonder if the mother would be moaning like fuck if her daughter had put the thirty odd grand down as a deposit on her first house Rather than being a crack addict I'm not really getting the link as to how paying someone money is the cause for them having a drug habit. If the payments were made in drugs then fair enough, but the decision to spend the cash on drugs isn't down to whoever the presenter is. If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 9, 2023 7:22:17 GMT
I'm not really getting the link as to how paying someone money is the cause for them having a drug habit. If the payments were made in drugs then fair enough, but the decision to spend the cash on drugs isn't down to whoever the presenter is. If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim. Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim.
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Jul 9, 2023 7:40:41 GMT
If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim. Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim. I’m not saying that at all mate, regardless of what the payments were spent on is nothing to do with the perpetrator at all. However to query the relevance of the story based on the money being spent on drugs, as I’ve seen in a few places almost excuses the perpetrator as it was only a junkie. I think the payments / drugs is a complete red herring and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jul 9, 2023 7:41:00 GMT
If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim. Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim. Whilst it's speculation that the presenter caused the drug habit, there's no way the presenter did not know that the teenager did not develop a drug habit. It's also possible that the teenager switched the control dynamic and turned it towards extortion. What ever the truth everything about the case is grubby.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 9, 2023 7:41:56 GMT
If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim. Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim. I would imagine it’s more for the heartbroken mother stories That will surly follow obviously at a great cost to whichever news rag coughs the money
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 9, 2023 7:55:32 GMT
Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim. I’m not saying that at all mate, regardless of what the payments were spent on is nothing to do with the perpetrator at all. However to query the relevance of the story based on the money being spent on drugs, d I’ve seen in a few places almost excuses the perpetrator as it was only a junkie.
I think the payments / drugs is a complete red herring and irrelevant. I never said that either mate There's too little known about this so far. Namely how they met...In person? Online? Anonymously online? If online, how and on what platform. Was he aware of her drug habit and did she become an addict before or after he paid her money. We can be sure that who ever he is his defence will probably be a) unaware of age, b) unaware of drug habit, and possibly c) she pimped herself out online, if that is determined how they met. Based on what is reported so far there are loads of assumptions that can be made.
|
|
|
Post by stiggerstackle on Jul 9, 2023 8:04:43 GMT
I’m not saying that at all mate, regardless of what the payments were spent on is nothing to do with the perpetrator at all. However to query the relevance of the story based on the money being spent on drugs, d I’ve seen in a few places almost excuses the perpetrator as it was only a junkie.
I think the payments / drugs is a complete red herring and irrelevant. I never said that either mate There's too little known about this so far. Namely how they met...In person? Online? Anonymously online? If online, how and on what platform. Was he aware of her drug habit and did she become an addict before or after he paid her money. We can be sure that who ever he is his defence will probably be a) unaware of age, b) unaware of drug habit, and possibly c) she pimped herself out online, if that is determined how they met. Based on what is reported so far there are loads of assumptions that can be made. No worries mate and wasn’t specifically directing at you - just to general comments being made 👍 I just think the drug addiction / funding of drugs angle is completely irrelevant and will be used to excuse the perpetrator.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 9, 2023 9:06:23 GMT
Now I wonder if the mother would be moaning like fuck if her daughter had put the thirty odd grand down as a deposit on her first house Rather than being a crack addict 'daughter'...is the 'victim' not a young man? I thought that was what I heard them say on the news this mroning although I was only half listening. So much is unclear on this story. I mean why would the victims mother contact the BBC (the employer) rather than the police? To try to answer my own question I totally see why they would sell the story to the Sun newspaper and perhaps the BBC's failure to act swiftly is a key part of it so perhaps thats the answer.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 9, 2023 9:37:55 GMT
Now I wonder if the mother would be moaning like fuck if her daughter had put the thirty odd grand down as a deposit on her first house Rather than being a crack addict 'daughter'...is the 'victim' not a young man? I thought that was what I heard them say on the news this mroning although I was only half listening. So much is unclear on this story. I mean why would the victims mother contact the BBC (the employer) rather than the police? To try to answer my own question I totally see why they would sell the story to the Sun newspaper and perhaps the BBC's failure to act swiftly is a key part of it so perhaps thats the answer. The mother says she received nothing from the Sun, she just leaked it to make it stop.
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Jul 9, 2023 9:57:45 GMT
If somebody is an addict then you know damn well where any money they get their hands on is going. I completely agree with the personal responsibility argument, but addiction is a different animal. Regardless of the reason / expenditure of said cash, paying kids for dirty pics is illegal. It’s the dirty fucker paying that’s on trial, not the victim. Aren't you assuming that the person paying the money is fully aware of what it's being spent on and is using the drug addiction to his or her benefit? Also that the habit and addiction existed before the payments started? I agree the victim isn't on trial, but it's not clear to me how the addiction ties in with the payments, at the moment. Nor the actual relationship between the presenter and the victim. Please stop wanting facts before coming to a conclusion. Society doesn’t do that any more.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 9, 2023 10:05:03 GMT
Why the presumption that the 'victim' is female?
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 9, 2023 10:16:03 GMT
Why the presumption that the 'victim' is female? Because the mother has said my daughter went from happy go lucky to crack addict.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 9, 2023 10:31:54 GMT
Why the presumption that the 'victim' is female? Because the mother has said my daughter went from happy go lucky to crack addict. The BBC article uses child, young person and teenager. "The mother told the paper that the anonymous individual, now aged 20, had used the money from the presenter to fund a crack cocaine habit.
She described to the paper how her child had gone from a "happy-go-lucky youngster to a ghost-like crack addict" in three years."Gender isn't mentioned at all either way.
|
|