July 9, 20233 yr 5 minutes ago, mickbrown said: It's just bantz isn't it? He's just keeping@BobyBrno entertained.. That's OK then. It's still a bit odd though Edited July 9, 20233 yr by Sweep
July 9, 20233 yr 31 minutes ago, jayjayoghani said: I read it's illegal to send such images until you're 18. But yes I'm struggling to understand the outrage, other than it involves the BBC and another stick to beat them with. It is, hence the law being broken. Kinell, imagine if he'd got an fpn for having some cake in lockdown- hell to pay. Crime of a sexual nature though- non story. Edited July 9, 20233 yr by Tonge moor green jacket
July 9, 20233 yr An FPN for breaking the rules you made Anyway, IF it started at 17 and IF that makes it illegal, fine, get him dealt with, but its not even on my radar of things to give a fuck about
July 9, 20233 yr 39 minutes ago, Sweep said: That's OK then. It's still a bit odd though They are indeed.
July 9, 20233 yr It's Huw Edwards apparently Pedo covers queens funeral, not shocked, that mob love all that Pulled off the one show before his appearance to apparently
July 9, 20233 yr Author £35k for pictures? Must have been pretty niche to be charging that? We talking gape clamps here or something?
July 9, 20233 yr Can i ask If its true, is the crime taking the pics or is the crime paying for the pics Or both? Pretty sure posession/use of crack isnt legal Maybe thats why mummy of the 'victim' went to the papers and not the cops?
July 9, 20233 yr I bet very few male presenters will be pulling a sicky this week. If it is a staffer that has had the photos taken or if the organisation has not responded in a correct mannor to a complaint then they need to be sanctioned. Not sure it is a BBC problem though more a person with money and influence being a prick problem.
July 9, 20233 yr 5 hours ago, Casino said: Can i ask If its true, is the crime taking the pics or is the crime paying for the pics Or both? Pretty sure posession/use of crack isnt legal Maybe thats why mummy of the 'victim' went to the papers and not the cops? The suggestion seems to be the presenter first contacted the young person when they were 17 If images/videos were exchanged at that point, a crime would've been committed because the minimum age for pornographic material is 18
July 9, 20233 yr 8 minutes ago, radcliffe white said: I’m going for squeaky clean dan Walker Highly doubt it, and he doesn't even work for the BBC any more. Edited July 9, 20233 yr by Cheese
July 9, 20233 yr I’ve no idea who it is. On an unrelated note, I was watching a rerun of the coronation recently and I noticed that Huw Edwards made a purring noise every time they showed Prince George in his morning suit. anyway, I’ve no idea who it is. Filthy nonce.
July 10, 20233 yr 14 hours ago, Sweep said: You hope that Gary Lineker is/was outed as a Paedophile? - that's really fucking odd Don't be an even bigger clown than usual. You know full well what I meant. Virtue signalling hypocrites being outed as less than fault free in whatever way would be delicious in the 'people who live in glass houses' way. You knew that of course. I find that really fucking odd.
July 10, 20233 yr 13 hours ago, jayjayoghani said: I read it's illegal to send such images until you're 18. But yes I'm struggling to understand the outrage, other than it involves the BBC and another stick to beat them with. Absolutely bang on. This - all day long.
July 10, 20233 yr 17 hours ago, L/H White said: It's Huw Edwards apparently If this turns out to be correct, I will be surprised to learn that the aggrieved party is not ovine. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12246063/BBC-News-anchor-Huw-Edwards-admits-fears-tweeting-case-falls-foul-impartiality-rules.html Edited July 10, 20233 yr by bolty58
July 10, 20233 yr I'm surprised it's been kept under wraps for this long, I was reading yesterday that it's not even under one of these "Super Injunction" things, it's just being, for now, kept under wraps, which is most unlike our gutter press, especially as it was one of Rupert Murdoch's papers that has broke the story, I'd have thought they'd be for hanging the beast by now
July 10, 20233 yr 8 hours ago, bolty58 said: If this turns out to be correct, I will be surprised to learn that the aggrieved party is not ovine. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12246063/BBC-News-anchor-Huw-Edwards-admits-fears-tweeting-case-falls-foul-impartiality-rules.html From what I've read, it isn't him. LH should be careful. Easy to find out who is being reported as the culprit, but again, it's a risk.
July 10, 20233 yr 21 hours ago, Cheese said: Highly doubt it, and he doesn't even work for the BBC any more. Presumably the same is also true on here. Anyway, I don't agree with anyone saying it's a non-story that a household name was sending a barely legal, vulnerable girl tens of thousands of pounds for pictures - even if not criminal it's certainly newsworthy and very fucking weird. But turning it into a national whodunnit is only making the story 10x bigger, and it'll all come out soon enough anyway.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.