friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
The only reason the Scum isn't doing that is because they've historically had their wings clipped.
BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.
- Thread starter Calamity1971
- Start date
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Interesting , however it won't prevent accusations of BBC cover ups/pervert cabals etc etc.
Do wonder what is driving the immense speculation. Not here, but outside of urban. Is it genuine concern or the chance to pounce on the degenerate/woke/media cabal?
Of course there are legitimate concerns over exploitation and sordid power imbalance. But also feels like the all pervasive hysteria currently festering away in right wing circles.
Haven't any answers, obviously, as the full details are not available.
bimble
floofy
I think whether you “should” (are doing something wrong or not) depends on whether you respect them and like them or, not really. Also you should probably provide hearty breakfasts.
I’d never have sex with anyone I didn’t like. And I don’t make breakfast. Although I occasionally serve a glass of water if they’ve shown valour in the joust.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
"Let battle commence"
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
It's really not that hard to figure out is it? edit. fuck it.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Dropping the Sky commandoes and roving reporters to capture the truth, no doubt.
Bizarre.
Weller
So ermm ... You know ermm
and totally agree and Ill be there to piss on it with you but it was a reply to someone else and various other posts mentioning that perhaps because a fake site was produced with fake stuff that forbes tells people was fake they had taken down that other bile may not be true too
Dont pin it all on me please Im quite aware of what the shit rags do to delete stories from memory and get away with
I usually just photoshop cats here these days
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Nothing at all pinned on you and I wasn't responding to your post. As for the love of cats though, well we might actually have some beef thereand totally agree and Ill be there to piss on it with you but it was a reply to someone else and various other posts mentioning that perhaps because a fake site was produced with fake stuff that forbes tells people was fake they had taken down that other bile may not be true too
Dont pin it all on me please Im quite aware of what the shit rags do to delete stories from memory and get away with
I usually just photoshop cats here these days
WouldBe
Dislicksick
What part of "recruitment and use" do you not understand?
They are not used in combat roles until they are 18.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Just prepped for death.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
you can be legally married and charged with sexual offences for having sex with your wife in a state with a lower age threshold. It happened to someone famous, cant recall who tho.
Dr. Furface
One small step for me
Luv that!
onlyfans has an age verification system for performers which whilst obviously not infallible suggests this didn't develop on there.
I feel pretty uncomfortable that the voice of the young person concerned has not been heard. Do they really have a drug problem or have their parents just freaked out because they found out they take drugs? Is this an online sex work thing in which case it's not implausible that this young person is capable of fleecing money off creepy old men on the internet whilst maintaining bounderies and their own safety. £35,000 over two or three years isn't actually that much, there are people making ten grand a month on onlyfans just selling pictures of their feet and doing lingerie shots.
There's a wider debate to be had about this but the fact is that there's a lot of 18/19 year olds doing cam work, working in lapdancing venues and all kinds of other forms of non contact sex work and some of them are making a lot of money. That's something I'm sure many News Corp executives are personally well aware of - there's a lot of creepy old fucks out there. But I don't think we should assume that anyone doing this kind of work at that age is a naive drug addled victim based solely on the opinion of their parents who may be doing this as a form of coercive control because they disapprove of their adult child's lifestyle (and it's a big may, we don't know enough and that it allegedly started at 17 is concerning and potentially illegal).
I feel pretty uncomfortable that the voice of the young person concerned has not been heard. Do they really have a drug problem or have their parents just freaked out because they found out they take drugs? Is this an online sex work thing in which case it's not implausible that this young person is capable of fleecing money off creepy old men on the internet whilst maintaining bounderies and their own safety. £35,000 over two or three years isn't actually that much, there are people making ten grand a month on onlyfans just selling pictures of their feet and doing lingerie shots.
There's a wider debate to be had about this but the fact is that there's a lot of 18/19 year olds doing cam work, working in lapdancing venues and all kinds of other forms of non contact sex work and some of them are making a lot of money. That's something I'm sure many News Corp executives are personally well aware of - there's a lot of creepy old fucks out there. But I don't think we should assume that anyone doing this kind of work at that age is a naive drug addled victim based solely on the opinion of their parents who may be doing this as a form of coercive control because they disapprove of their adult child's lifestyle (and it's a big may, we don't know enough and that it allegedly started at 17 is concerning and potentially illegal).
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Are you thinking of Jerry Lee Lewis? His third wife was only 13 (he was 22) at the time.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Didn't realise BBC HQ was so hard to get to.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Aren't all squaddies?
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Yes but the under 18's have to wait for it. Not sure which is more cruel when all they're doing isAren't all squaddies?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
What part of 'no matter their involvement' do you not understand? There is no mention of combat roles in the statement quoted.
Anyway, this isn't the teaching fuckwits to read thread so I'll leave it there.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
No.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Indeed. Truth cannot be libel.
As the BBC has announced it has suspended the individual, it is reasonable to assume that the reports are accurate, that and the testimony of the victim's mother.
Being suspended from work isn’t an indication of guilt.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
While I don't know the situation clearly - no, it isn't reasonable to assume that. The BBC suspending somebody is not legal proof that they've committed a crime, or done anything.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
There's a world of difference between presenter watches model on onlyfans and is pressured to give money, and presenter has sex with 17 year old and showers them with cash. Wise to wait to see what the truth really is.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
No, it's reasonable to assume that suspending an employee where there is an allegation of serious wrongdoing that needs to be investigated is standard procedure in most professions.
bimble
floofy
This is probably why the man’s not been named:
www.theguardian.com
That’s pretty big recent change in case law - the principle now (in cases where it could be that a crimes been committed) is a right to privacy during any investigation until / unless actually charged with an offence.
Bloomberg loses landmark UK supreme court case on privacy
Media will find it harder to publish information about people in criminal investigations
That’s pretty big recent change in case law - the principle now (in cases where it could be that a crimes been committed) is a right to privacy during any investigation until / unless actually charged with an offence.
Similar threads
