It's also a rather odd choice of news outlet to go to. The Sun. As the family claim they're not being paid for the story. Surely the only reason you'd go to those fuckers instead of a reputable paper is cash.
Sam Fox was 37 by the time the law was changed to raise child porn from 16 to 18. More outrageous is them running the guess who articles of the other potential bbc employees when they, having broken the story , are fully aware of who is in the frame. That'd not public intrest that's how much misery can we causethe SUN paid and put Samantha fox topless on page 3 at 16.
so they claiming anysort of outrage is bollocks
Might also explain why the earlier complaints got nowhere, if they weren't couched in the right way to hit the BBC complaints buttons immediately.Some people do actually read that shit-rag, so if you're one of them, why not?
Sam Fox was 37 by the time the law was changed to raise child porn from 16 to 18. More outrageous is them running the guess who articles of the other potential bbc employees when they, having broken the story , are fully aware of who is in the frame. That'd not public intrest that's how much misery can we cause
Saying it’s a young male gives the opportunity for a nudge, nudge, wink, wink as to whom it might be. Which is why gabisays it.It's been mentioned here. Is that the case? Just says young person on BBC news website
They might have not heard back from every paper they contacted.It's also a rather odd choice of news outlet to go to. The Sun. As the family claim they're not being paid for the story. Surely the only reason you'd go to those fuckers instead of a reputable paper is cash.
instead of a reputable paper...
Yep, that added 'guess the gay' frisson.Saying it’s a young male gives the opportunity for a nudge, nudge, wink, wink as to whom it might be. Which is why gabisays it.
Yep, that added 'guess the gay' frisson.
Lots of possible reasons, from the victims apparent drug use through to not actually being aware any criminal offence had been committed. It seems perfectly reasonable for them to have contacted the BBC, especially if all they wanted, at least initially, was for the behaviour to stop.
Ed: nope
Kelvin MacKenzie dropping a name by “accident” at 4mins.
Be good to see that despicable cunt stripped of his ill gotten gains in a big liable case.Ed: nope
Kelvin MacKenzie dropping a name by “accident” at 4mins.
Saying it’s a young male gives the opportunity for a nudge, nudge, wink, wink as to whom it might be. Which is why gabisays it.
McKs always been liable to libelBe good to see that despicable cunt stripped of his I'll gotten gains in a big liable case.
Please put nsfw spoiler tags around this for those of us at work. And generally. Ta.Internet tradition, innit.
Please put nsfw spoiler tags around this for those of us at work. And generally. Ta.
It's out there on the web, but no, im not gonna post the name here.
The BBC are damned if they do and damned if they dont here by not naming/naming him. But their initial handling of it. Unbelievable. It's been almost 2 months since the complaint was made. I'm still unsure as to why the parents didn't contact the police first though, rather than his employer.
On some sites the teenager has been described as female.Has it been mentioned that the teenager is male? I seem to have missed that.
someone need to make their mind up here because I'm now confused, is it Male or female?On some sites the teenager has been described as female.