|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 9, 2023 10:48:22 GMT
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. Hmmm. Apologies you are right. I thought sure gender was mentioned maybe in the original sun article (not exactly the bastion of truth mind is it)
|
|
|
Post by potteringermany on Jul 9, 2023 10:50:00 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by potteringermany on Jul 9, 2023 10:50:32 GMT
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. The Sun THE MUM of a teen allegedly paid for sexual pictures by a top BBC presenter has relived the moment the youth admitted "showing things" to him.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jul 9, 2023 11:10:23 GMT
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. It’s possible. They are supposed to do things like validate sources etc though. It’s my understanding that with Schofield, it finally blew up when one of them admitted it. Until then, it was just rumour. I’m not saying that you are wrong, I just don’t think that the Sun are that good 😂 The Osborne stuff is still all over the internet as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 9, 2023 11:39:00 GMT
I’m an advocate of not naming names in historical sex cases at least until they are formerly charged with anything. So how come the media were all over many celebrities accused or being investigated but not charged however this one is somehow different. Freddy Star, Jim Davidson, Cliff Richards were just a few of the celebrities that were dragged through the mud by our frenzied media without ever being charged.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 9, 2023 12:01:31 GMT
Why the presumption that the 'victim' is female? I just naturally assume male the way these kind of stories tend to roll these days. The times they are a'changing as someone said!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 9, 2023 12:41:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 9, 2023 13:01:49 GMT
35,000 though!
Must have been a platinum coated pork sword or a front bum that dispensed beer at those prices
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Jul 9, 2023 13:20:36 GMT
Some bloke with a posh voice who likes to wake celebrities up when they're asleep?
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on Jul 9, 2023 14:08:29 GMT
The name will no doubt be exposed in something like the Scottish press or further afield where a super injunction or whatever they call them doesn't mean anything
Whoever it is though its game over for their "career"
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 9, 2023 14:39:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Jul 9, 2023 15:20:07 GMT
The irony of politicians lining up to tell the BBC to get it's house in order. Pass me the Gaviscon...
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jul 9, 2023 15:23:05 GMT
If the allegations are true it’s Pretty sickening to think we’re all (assuming you pay the licence fee) paying for this! We’re even paying for this persons injunction so we can’t find out who it is!!! Something needs to change here!
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 9, 2023 15:50:01 GMT
If the allegations are true it’s Pretty sickening to think we’re all (assuming you pay the licence fee) paying for this! We’re even paying for this persons injunction so we can’t find out who it is!!! Something needs to change here! It's as easy as cancelling the direct debit and ignoring their fake threat letters. There are no visits. Why would they waste BBC fat pension money on employing staff for visits when fake fear is enough to keep most people paying?
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 9, 2023 16:04:05 GMT
If the allegations are true it’s Pretty sickening to think we’re all (assuming you pay the licence fee) paying for this! We’re even paying for this persons injunction so we can’t find out who it is!!! Something needs to change here! Not sure if there is an injunction or whether it is just a case of the British press being unable too reveal the name due too legal restrictions
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Jul 9, 2023 16:05:35 GMT
A certain motoring programme perhaps? It might well be I can’t possibly say anymore! Admin will be furious should anybody be named. The person who told me this told me about Schofield a couple of years back, check the silhouette image from the sun article and it becomes pretty obvious It’s becoming more apparent from online gossip who the person is. It’s a BBC journalist so nothing to do with a motoring programme. And if it is who it seems to be, then it shows you really cannot have faith in anyone anymore.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 9, 2023 16:05:35 GMT
If the allegations are true it’s Pretty sickening to think we’re all (assuming you pay the licence fee) paying for this! We’re even paying for this persons injunction so we can’t find out who it is!!! Something needs to change here! It's as easy as cancelling the direct debit and ignoring their fake threat letters. There are no visits. Why would they waste BBC fat pension money on employing staff for visits when fake fear is enough to keep most people paying? One time I moved house I went to the new gaff the day before moving to pick up the keys from the landlord, inside the solitary house was an old black and white TV and literally nothing at else at all Within barely a minute of being there there was a knock on the door and it was the TV licensing people (they are not from the BBC they work for the local authority) demanding to see my TV licence
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 9, 2023 16:07:26 GMT
It's as easy as cancelling the direct debit and ignoring their fake threat letters. There are no visits. Why would they waste BBC fat pension money on employing staff for visits when fake fear is enough to keep most people paying? One time I moved house I went to the new gaff the day before moving to pick up the keys from the landlord, inside the solitary house was an old black and white TV and literally nothing at else at all Within barely a minute of being there there was a knock on the door and it was the TV licensing people (they are not from the BBC they work for the local authority) demanding to see my TV licence I’ve also had a visit in the past. It is a thing unfortunately
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 9, 2023 16:14:39 GMT
One time I moved house I went to the new gaff the day before moving to pick up the keys from the landlord, inside the solitary house was an old black and white TV and literally nothing at else at all Within barely a minute of being there there was a knock on the door and it was the TV licensing people (they are not from the BBC they work for the local authority) demanding to see my TV licence I’ve also had a visit in the past. It is a thing unfortunately Haven't paid in more than ten years, maybe nearer 15, although in and out of the country. Maybe one visit right at the start. Easily ignored, or they have no right of entry. Say you don't know what they're talking about. Letters now just addressed generally.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 9, 2023 16:16:50 GMT
I’ve also had a visit in the past. It is a thing unfortunately Haven't paid in more than ten years, maybe nearer 15, although in and out of the country. Maybe one visit right at the start. Easily ignored, or they have no right of entry. Say you don't know what they're talking about. Letters now just addressed generally. Yeah I was just making the point that it exists having experienced it. I do pay it since it’s probably the smallest outgoing I have and don’t notice it but this kind of thing really does boil my onions
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 9, 2023 16:32:38 GMT
Haven't paid in more than ten years, maybe nearer 15, although in and out of the country. Maybe one visit right at the start. Easily ignored, or they have no right of entry. Say you don't know what they're talking about. Letters now just addressed generally. Yeah I was just making the point that it exists having experienced it. I do pay it since it’s probably the smallest outgoing I have and don’t notice it but this kind of thing really does boil my onions Yeah, it's not about saving money. Although 1500 quid+ in total for me is not to be sniffed at.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jul 9, 2023 17:33:22 GMT
If the allegations are true it’s Pretty sickening to think we’re all (assuming you pay the licence fee) paying for this! We’re even paying for this persons injunction so we can’t find out who it is!!! Something needs to change here! What would you suggest?
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 9, 2023 18:01:14 GMT
Has he broken the law....the child, so called, is aged 20?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 9, 2023 18:05:24 GMT
Has he broken the law....the child, so called, is aged 20? 20 now, 17 when it started. This cunt needs exposing simple as that, if it’s true of course. Having said that, normal people get exposed following accusations so why not this high profile bbc employee. One rule for one etc…..
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jul 9, 2023 18:10:18 GMT
I am probably being very dense and/or naive but why would someone pay £35k for a few mucky pics, when I assume there are 1,000s, probably millions, available for free on the internet?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2023 18:10:58 GMT
Has he broken the law....the child, so called, is aged 20? 20 now, 17 when it started. This cunt needs exposing simple as that, if it’s true of course. Having said that, normal people get exposed following accusations so why not this high profile bbc employee. One rule for one etc….. I don't think it's Colleen Nolan.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 9, 2023 18:12:05 GMT
I am probably being very dense and/or naive but why would someone pay £35k for a few mucky pics, when I assume there are 1,000s, probably millions, available for free on the internet? Assume eh?😉…….. Joking aside, because I think joking is just about still allowed. Is it all about control of a person? I’d say so
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Jul 9, 2023 18:14:21 GMT
If the cesspit that is Twitter is anything to go by, they probably won't be anonymous Furlong.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 9, 2023 18:17:45 GMT
I am probably being very dense and/or naive but why would someone pay £35k for a few mucky pics, when I assume there are 1,000s, probably millions, available for free on the internet? Badger always told me that it's because of his niche fetishises which he couldn't find online. Tbf I doubt there's many video of young men dressing their willy up to look like an elephant while helicoptering the trunk to lion King anthems. Was a nice tidy earner for me when I was young too.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 9, 2023 18:21:44 GMT
Has he broken the law....the child, so called, is aged 20? 20 now, 17 when it started. This cunt needs exposing simple as that, if it’s true of course. Having said that, normal people get exposed following accusations so why not this high profile bbc employee. One rule for one etc….. There are lots of injunctions out there like this one below for example. In this case gagging the BBC from running a story about sexual misdemeanours that involves a high profile individual granted on the 29th June this year. caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2023/1618#start-of-documentI don't like it any more than the next person but if you can afford it there is a different kind of legal process for some. PS I'm not saying this is the person in question, but if such a document does exist there isn't much that can be done without incurring contempt of court. The person in this document has already been arrested under caution twice but the judge suggests no story can come out. Unless an MP for example was brave enough to mention it under Parliamentary privilege. However they won't do that because most of them are up to their armpits in deceit themselves.
|
|