This BBC presenter issue

[archie]

Is it just me who feels this is all a bit odd? It appears to me that what is reported I really sleazy. And I appreciate that there may be issues with the young person's age if they were under 18. But it seems to me that the story is that guy accesses Only Fans, pays money for pics from a young person who it turns out is a drug addict. Young person's mother goes to the press to blame presenter for the young person's drug addiction.

Apart from the potential that the young person was 17 (surely an issue for Only Fans) what is illegal here? Sleazy - for sure, but illegal?

To anyone who manages staff out there, if you got this report about a staff member, what would you do? I think you would have to look at HR policies, but is it any business what someone does in their private life if it is legal?

Then we get the government weighing in. What business is it of theirs? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66147003

I really don't like what has happened and anyone who reads my posts will no I'm not a fan of the 'sex work is work' mantra. But outside the salacious thud and blunder, what is the issue here.

BTW don't speculate on who the presenter is. Some Internet users are going to get some awkward mail in the next day or so.

[He's here!]

Is it just me who feels this is all a bit odd? It appears to me that what is reported I really sleazy. And I appreciate that there may be issues with the young person's age if they were under 18. But it seems to me that the story is that guy accesses Only Fans, pays money for pics from a young person who it turns out is a drug addict. Young person's mother goes to the press to blame presenter for the young person's drug addiction.

Apart from the potential that the young person was 17 (surely an issue for Only Fans) what is illegal here? Sleazy - for sure, but illegal?

To anyone who manages staff out there, if you got this report about a staff member, what would you do? I think you would have to look at HR policies, but is it any business what someone does in their private life if it is legal?

Then we get the government weighing in. What business is it of theirs? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66147003

I really don't like what has happened and anyone who reads my posts will no I'm not a fan of the 'sex work is work' mantra. But outside the salacious thud and blunder, what is the issue here.

BTW don't speculate on who the presenter is. Some Internet users are going to get some awkward mail in the next day or so.

Unrelated to your point, but what I don't understand when stories about the BBC surface is that the BBC News reports them as though talking about a third party, even saying things like 'we have approached the BBC for comment'. Just seems bizarre when it's one and the same organisation.

[Since90+2]

Where has the only fans link came from? Has it been confirmed that's how they made contact?

[Pretty Boy]

If there has been a complaint then the BBC will have to conduct an Investigation to establish the full facts.

I suppose there is concern that a bit like Schofield there was potentially a pre existing relationship before the now 17 year old was 16 and that throws up the issue of grooming. I'd imagine point of 1st contact will be at least one of the issues being investigated.

Tbh from a PR perspective I'm not sure that the difference between illegal and immoral matters all that much. Post Yewtree an older male paying a 17 year old for suggestive pictures is toast in terms of their career.

[Ozyhibby]

And is the Sun newspaper now against paying teenagers to strip off? So hard to keep up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Where has the only fans link came from? Has it been confirmed that's how they made contact?

I read it in one of the reports. Can't vouch for accuracy.

[Just Alf]

And is the Sun newspaper now against paying teenagers to strip off? So hard to keep up.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkHow times change... I remember they were doing a daily count down on when Sam Fox, I think, was going to turn 16. day of her 16th birthday her topless pic was all over their page 3.

So, in the week leading up to it they were publishing (clothed) pics of a 15 year old busy crowing about the great unveiling.
And, now that I think about it... the actual picture must have been taken when she was under age!

[Since90+2]

I read it in one of the reports. Can't vouch for accuracy.

Can you link the report?

[archie]

Can you link the report?

If I can find it!

[Since90+2]

If I can find it!

Ok...

[DH1875]

How times change... I remember they were doing a daily count down on when Sam Fox, I think, was going to turn 16. day of her 16th birthday her topless pic was all over their page 3.

So, in the week leading up to it they were publishing (clothed) pics of a 15 year old busy crowing about the great unveiling.
And, now that I think about it... the actual picture must have been taken when she was under age!

Did they not do similar with Jordan?

[Mon Dieu4]

Did they not do similar with Jordan?

Dunno about Jordan but the Sun 100% did a countdown to Charlotte Church being 16

Edit, that could be pish but keeping it on here

[lapsedhibee]

Is it just me who feels this is all a bit odd?

Not at all odd.
Doing down the BBC is part of Tory culture wars.
Press owners are pro-Tory.
Hence press does down BBC whether or not there's anything much in it.

[archie]

Not at all odd.
Doing down the BBC is part of Tory culture wars.
Press owners are pro-Tory.
Hence press does down BBC whether or not there's anything much in it.

I'm not one for conspiracies, but if this hadn't been the big story the George Osborne allegations would have been

[DH1875]

The woman is now 20 and a crack addict. Why has her mum gone to the press now? I'm not sure if the guy in question deserves to keep his job or not but how can folk be demanding prison time for him if she was 17 when it started.

[Moulin Yarns]

I am wondering how he hasn't been named, John Leslie was named and shamed from day one.

[Pretty Boy]

I am wondering how he hasn't been named, John Leslie was named and shamed from day one.

He definitely wasn't.

Matthew Wright 'leaked' that 'the gossip' was Leslie was the man that Ulrika Johnson referenced in her book weeks down the line and it snowballed from there.

Wright done Leslie dirty albeit the name would have come out regardless but the manner of it, on a tabloid Channel 5 chat show, caused a feeding frenzy as all the competition felt they had missed out so had to get the next big scoop on him.

[Since90+2]

I'm not one for conspiracies, but if this hadn't been the big story the George Osborne allegations would have been

You're a big one for sources, yet have claimed it was via Only Fans but have now said you are struggling to find that source.

[Pretty Boy]

The woman is now 20 and a crack addict. Why has her mum gone to the press now? I'm not sure if the guy in question deserves to keep his job or not but how can folk be demanding prison time for him if she was 17 when it started.

I think the BBC are playing it right with a suspension and an investigation to 'establish the facts'.

If they feel there is criminality then it will be referred to the Police and dealt with accordingly. If they feel it's immoral rather than illegal then there will likely be employment consequences.

There seems nowhere near enough information in the public domain for people to be making any kind of judgment either way currently. It doesn't make great reading but there are so many variable no one really knows.

[Moulin Yarns]

You're a big one for sources, yet have claimed it was via Only Fans but have now said you are struggling to find that source.

I think the word of the week is "Unsourced" 😉

[archie]

You're a big one for sources, yet have claimed it was via Only Fans but have now said you are struggling to find that source.

Hold on. I'm not big on celeb gossip or only fans. I saw it mentioned in a report which I can't find. The reference to only fans appears to have touched a nerve. I have no idea why?

[Since90+2]

I think the word of the week is "Unsourced" 😉

Ha. If only that certain poster showed consistency across threads...

[Moulin Yarns]

Ha. If only that certain poster showed consistency across threads...

Dream on. 😁

[archie]

Ha. If only that certain poster showed consistency across threads...

Taking that as a reference to me, sorry if I have fallen down on the celebrity gossip. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but why are people getting so exercised about only fans?

[archie]

Dream on. 😁

Why not address points to me directly?

[Moulin Yarns]

Why not address points to me directly?

What? So you can selectively quote me as you have done previously 🤔

[DH1875]

Hold on. I'm not big on celeb gossip or only fans. I saw it mentioned in a report which I can't find. The reference to only fans appears to have touched a nerve. I have no idea why?

I don't get the point to it but there must be tens of thousands of folk who use only fans in the UK. Mental.

[Since90+2]

Taking that as a reference to me, sorry if I have fallen down on the celebrity gossip. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but why are people getting so exercised about only fans?

They might have met on Only Fans, I just asked you to let the rest of us know where you seen that.

You said you can't back that statement up, which is absolutely fine, I'm just pointing out that consistency across threads would be good.

You could be proven right in time, but you can't just be saying things without backing it up at that time, surely?

[archie]

What? So you can selectively quote me as you have done previously 🤔

?

[archie]

They might have met on Only Fans, I just asked you to let the rest of us know where you seen that.

You said you can't back that statement up, which is absolutely fine, I'm just pointing out that consistency across threads would be good.

You could be proven right in time, but you can't just be saying things without backing it up at that time, surely?

Hands up. I can't find the reference. Which you're right, is most unlike me. I must work harder on celeb gossip.

[Since90+2]

Hands up. I can't find the reference. Which you're right, is most unlike me. I must work harder on celeb gossip.

👍

[neil7908]

I'm really struggling to see why this is getting big headlines, except for the usual right wing desire to trash the BBC any chance they get.

It obviously sounds pretty grubby and potentially illegal. But what does that have to do with the BBC? Did they know about it?

[blackpoolhibs]

What is only fans?:confused:

[tamig]

I'm really struggling to see why this is getting big headlines, except for the usual right wing desire to trash the BBC any chance they get.

It obviously sounds pretty grubby and potentially illegal. But what does that have to do with the BBC? Did they know about it?

If the girl was over 16, where does illegality come into it? Maybe I’m missing something 🤔

[Col2]

Another story to catch the nations attention while the government continue to destroy the nation and watch as people become poorer and poorer. Also conveniently keeps George Osborne away from the limelight 👀

[Since90+2]

Another story to catch the nations attention while the government continue to destroy the nation and watch as people become poorer and poorer. Also conveniently keeps George Osborne away from the limelight 👀

Yup.

A good proportion of the population are literally starving whilst this gets headline news.

[He's here!]

I'm really struggling to see why this is getting big headlines, except for the usual right wing desire to trash the BBC any chance they get.

It obviously sounds pretty grubby and potentially illegal. But what does that have to do with the BBC? Did they know about it?

Judging by the diverse views on the BBC on here (which range from an entire thread on how biased against the SNP they are to them being trashed at every opportunity by the right wing) it would seem they are getting their 'politically neutral' stance about right.

[He's here!]

If the girl was over 16, where does illegality come into it? Maybe I’m missing something 🤔

I get the impression it was a boy, not a girl, although the media are being careful not to clarify either way.

[Sloop67]

If the girl was over 16, where does illegality come into it? Maybe I’m missing something 🤔
From what I've read it's 16 for a sexual relationship, but 18 for photos if they involve explicit images

[Moulin Yarns]

I get the impression it was a boy, not a girl, although the media and being careful not to clarify either way.

Yep

I mentioned this to my wife, couldn't remember the social media app but she said that there was no mention of the gender. So probably right.

[He's here!]

He definitely wasn't.

Matthew Wright 'leaked' that 'the gossip' was Leslie was the man that Ulrika Johnson referenced in her book weeks down the line and it snowballed from there.

Wright done Leslie dirty albeit the name would have come out regardless but the manner of it, on a tabloid Channel 5 chat show, caused a feeding frenzy as all the competition felt they had missed out so had to get the next big scoop on him.

There was a recent documentary on Leslie which, while weighted rather heavily in favour of his friends/allies, made the point that for all the times he's ended up in court over allegations he's walked away cleared of all charges every time.

It was the pics of him snorting coke which emerged days after the first set of allegations which saw him kicked off This Morning IIRC.

[He's here!]

If there has been a complaint then the BBC will have to conduct an Investigation to establish the full facts.

I suppose there is concern that a bit like Schofield there was potentially a pre existing relationship before the now 17 year old was 16 and that throws up the issue of grooming. I'd imagine point of 1st contact will be at least one of the issues being investigated.

Tbh from a PR perspective I'm not sure that the difference between illegal and immoral matters all that much. Post Yewtree an older male paying a 17 year old for suggestive pictures is toast in terms of their career.

This is what it boils down to. The fact whoever it was thought acting like this was something worth risking. Madness for anyone with what appears to be a very high media profile.

[tamig]

From what I've read it's 16 for a sexual relationship, but 18 for photos if they involve explicit images

Ok thanks. Although I think they are meant to be over 18 to have a page on that platform anyway. So a user would need to assume the person they’re engaging with would meet that criteria. Its a bit of a minefield though and where do you draw the line?

[w pilton hibby]

What is only fans?:confused:

From Wikipedia

OnlyFans is an internet content subscription service based in London, United Kingdom. The service is used primarily by sex workers who produce pornography, but it also hosts the work of other content creators, such as physical fitness experts and musicians.

[archie]

Ok thanks. Although I think they are meant to be over 18 to have a page on that platform anyway. So a user would need to assume the person they’re engaging with would meet that criteria. Its a bit of a minefield though and where do you draw the line?

I can't recall where I read the reference to only fans, but I do wonder if it was only fans, that their process failure would get the person off the hook. If possession is illegal it's illegal. Might be mitigation, but they still have the photos.

[Kato]

Does this go here or in the BBC are bias thread?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/18/bbc-drops-panorama-inquiry-into-claims-of-sexual-harassment-by-mps


A*BBC*Panorama*documentary commissioned to look into the internal handling of claims of widespread sexual harassment inside the Palace of Westminster has been dropped for the foreseeable future, the*Observer*understands, despite months of research.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cammy1969]

I get the impression it was a boy, not a girl, although the media are being careful not to clarify either way.

Yeah this is my take on it as well and think they were 17 years old, seen someone on social media saying it’s a boy but they could just be guessing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DH1875]

What is only fans?:confused:

A waste of money 😄.

[grunt]

Judging by the diverse views on the BBC on here (which range from an entire thread on how biased against the SNP they are to them being trashed at every opportunity by the right wing) it would seem they are getting their 'politically neutral' stance about right.
Yeah sure.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321

The potential criminality involved is explained here.

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321

The potential criminality involved is explained here.You posted the link, so presumably you read it. So when it says:


A central question that has bounced around newsrooms this weekend is whether the person they want to point a finger at has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in relation to the facts of the story.

Since a major Supreme Court ruling in 2022, a right to privacy covers people who are under investigation by a law enforcement agency - meaning the stage before they have been formally charged with a crime and sent to the courts.

The rationale for that protection is that if the police drop the case, they would have suffered untold unjustifiable damage to their reputation by being identified in the media. Not all claims made against people in the public eye lead to provable evidence of wrongdoing. Sometimes a complainant has an ulterior motive or, sadly, is unwell.I wonder how you reconcile this with your earlier comment, here:


... it would seem they (the BBC) are getting their 'politically neutral' stance about right.

[He's here!]

You posted the link, so presumably you read it. So when it says:

I wonder how you reconcile this with your earlier comment, here:

What's to reconcile? The earlier post was just an observation that we have views among posters on here ranging from the BBC being Tory sympathisers to being hated by the Tories.

The link I posted simply answers the questions being posed earlier in the thread re whether there is any potential illegality in the alleged behaviour of the presenter.

The posts are unrelated in their subject matter.

[lapsedhibee]

The earlier post was just an observation that we have views among posters on here ranging from the BBC being Tory sympathisers to being hated by the Tories.

That's not really a range of views. The current BBC are Tory sympathisers, which is good for the party getting their propaganda out, and also hated by some Tories, which is good for stoking their culture wars. Labour object to the BBC for the first reason, and the Tories object to the BBC for the second reason. It doesn't at all mean the BBC are 'getting it about right'.

[He's here!]

That's not really a range of views. The current BBC are Tory sympathisers, which is good for the party getting their propaganda out, and also hated by some Tories, which is good for stoking their culture wars. Labour object to the BBC for the first reason, and the Tories object to the BBC for the second reason. It doesn't at all mean the BBC are 'getting it about right'.

What you've just outlined seems a good example of a range of views.

[lapsedhibee]

What you've just outlined seems a good example of a range of views.
It's the BBC being used and abused by the Tory party for its own political purposes, that's all. The idea that because Labour criticise it, and the Tories also criticise it, therefore it's providing a good balanced output, is just delusional.

[SHODAN]

Does this go here or in the BBC are bias thread?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/18/bbc-drops-panorama-inquiry-into-claims-of-sexual-harassment-by-mps


A*BBC*Panorama*documentary commissioned to look into the internal handling of claims of widespread sexual harassment inside the Palace of Westminster has been dropped for the foreseeable future, the*Observer*understands, despite months of research.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Not really surprising, the BBC only investigate employees if they're under suspicion of holding left wing views.

[JeMeSouviens]

What you've just outlined seems a good example of a range of views.

The allegation is that the beeb is biased toward an establishment, centre-right, "mainstream Tory" position. Because people to the right and also to the left of that position complain about the bias does not mean it isn't there. In fact, if anything, it adds more weight.

[He's here!]

The allegation is that the beeb is biased toward an establishment, centre-right, "mainstream Tory" position. Because people to the right and also to the left of that position complain about the bias does not mean it isn't there. In fact, if anything, it adds more weight.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

If anything folk seem to think it's more biased towards a left-leaning position but most reckon it's pretty neutral.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

If anything folk seem to think it's more biased towards a left-leaning position but most reckon it's pretty neutral.

But you weren't talking about "most" randomers, you were talking about those who think it's biased.

[WeeRussell]

I can't recall where I read the reference to only fans, but I do wonder if it was only fans, that their process failure would get the person off the hook. If possession is illegal it's illegal. Might be mitigation, but they still have the photos.

Maybe that’s why people were getting ‘exercised’ about the (as yet) unsourced reference to Only Fans.

I heard that paying an under 18 yo for photos of that nature is indeed illegal. As alluded to above, if they were using a website which suggests the paid content was for an over 18.. it will change matters at least somewhat in most people’s minds.

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

If anything folk seem to think it's more biased towards a left-leaning position but most reckon it's pretty neutral.
That's very much based on a post-thatcher/neo-liberal interpretation of the word 'left'.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Ok thanks. Although I think they are meant to be over 18 to have a page on that platform anyway. So a user would need to assume the person they’re engaging with would meet that criteria. Its a bit of a minefield though and where do you draw the line?

Would that matter?

If you had sex with a 15 year old who was in a nightclub you wouldn’t get away with it on the basis the night club should have stopped her getting in I don’t think.

[Ozyhibby]

Would that matter?

If you had sex with a 15 year old who was in a nightclub you wouldn’t get away with it on the basis the night club should have stopped her getting in I don’t think.

The nightclub isn’t selling sex at all. The website is dealing in porn though so I suspect the responsibilities would be different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

The nightclub isn’t selling sex at all. The website is dealing in porn though so I suspect the responsibilities would be different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They’re not selling sex but they’re still selling a service aimed at 18 and over, much like Only Fans.

I’d be surprised if someone would get away with paying for underage porn by using the excuse that the website had a disclaimer on it.

[Lendo]

Well it’s seems like the cats out of the bag over on Twitter with some supposed pictures being posted of the accused.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well it’s seems like the cats out of the bag over on Twitter with some supposed pictures being posted of the accused.

The photo looks a bit fake, it's pretty poor quality. Time will tell I guess.

[Pretty Boy]

Some of the Twitter rumours makes me think it would be better for all concerned if the individual was named. If they are exonerated then a career is salvageable, look at someone like Matthew Kelly.

Thus far I have seen at least 5 names mentioned as 'definitely' the person in question and now a seriously suspect photo as some kind of proof. If you worked for the BBC you'd be terrified to go on holiday this week in case half the population thought you were a nonce by Thursday.

[Lendo]

The photo looks a bit fake, it's pretty poor quality. Time will tell I guess.

I guess we can’t trust anything in the world if AI/deepfakes but the picture I saw was so ridiculous that I’m not sure any AI would be stupid enough to come up with it.

[Mon Dieu4]

They’re not selling sex but they’re still selling a service aimed at 18 and over, much like Only Fans.

I’d be surprised if someone would get away with paying for underage porn by using the excuse that the website had a disclaimer on it.

Pretty sure the onus would be on the website to ensure that anyone on their platform is over the age of 18 rather than the end user so to speak

"The minimum age for OnlyFans users is 18. To open a creators account, users must provide a photo of themselves (a “selfie”) along with a form of photo ID to confirm their age."

[He's here!]

That's very much based on a post-thatcher/neo-liberal interpretation of the word 'left'.

In other words a contemporary interpretation, which I'd suggest makes sense when conducting a poll on how today's punters view the BBC.

Asking them to respond from a pre-Thatcher perspective (ie half a century ago) would have rather limited the range of respondents.

[He's here!]

But you weren't talking about "most" randomers, you were talking about those who think it's biased.

And according to that poll, the majority of those who think it's biased think it's more biased towards the left - underlining that when all's said and done it just comes down to a matter of a opinion.

Presenting the news from an objective perspective that doesn't tally with the way you (not you specifically) perceive objectivity doesn't equate to bias.

[Kato]

Culturally I reckon the BBC leans to the left.

The newsrooms are on the right, as in they don't ask nearly enough awkward questions when the Tories are in power.

It's not a homogenised institution and different depts have different aspects.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It’s def biased towards the union though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Culturally I reckon the BBC leans to the left.

Is there much coming out of it just now in the spirit of Cathy Come Home/Boys From The Blackstuff/Our Friends In The North though? There may well be and I haven't noticed it.

[Since90+2]

Pretty sure the onus would be on the website to ensure that anyone on their platform is over the age of 18 rather than the end user so to speak

"The minimum age for OnlyFans users is 18. To open a creators account, users must provide a photo of themselves (a “selfie”) along with a form of photo ID to confirm their age."

If they've been in contact for 3 years you'd imagine it's possibly likely they started engaging directly outwith that platform and through WhatsApp ect. How that ties in legally with the Only Fans age restriction I've no idea.

[Kato]

Is there much coming out of it just now in the spirit of Cathy Come Home/Boys From The Blackstuff/Our Friends In The North though? There may well be and I haven't noticed it.Seems not.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ElginHibbie]

Twist in the tale

Lawyer for young person in BBC presenter row says mother’s account of events is “rubbish” and “nothing inappropriate” happened (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=DA98E13A-1F43-11EE-8C78-57DBD89D5CC3&at_format=link&at_link_type=web_link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking)

[Ozyhibby]

Twist in the tale

Lawyer for young person in BBC presenter row says mother’s account of events is “rubbish” and “nothing inappropriate” happened (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=DA98E13A-1F43-11EE-8C78-57DBD89D5CC3&at_format=link&at_link_type=web_link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking)

The Sun printing nonsense surely isn’t a twist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElginHibbie]

The Sun printing nonsense surely isn’t a twist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point, reality setting in more accurate take?

[cabbageandribs1875]

the horrible Sun newspaper could end up looking really silly here(again) Claims against BBC presenter are ‘rubbish’, says letter from young person’s lawyer, BBC reports – latest updates (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-metropolitan-police-say-no-investigation-at-this-time-into-suspended-presenter-latest-updates/ar-AA1dEVRk)

[DH1875]

Some of the quotes from the mother don't make much sense and like I said earlier, why has she waited so long to come forward with the story.

[cabbageandribs1875]

pleasing

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358398735_6468782539845189_5119110598188205376_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=663R22qkIycAX_D5miv&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDo42FBFGZVEtlkmTFXiB5nYE_QNaj7CyRQtk-i6oPGOw&oe=64B1FDC1

[Since90+2]

pleasing

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358398735_6468782539845189_5119110598188205376_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=663R22qkIycAX_D5miv&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDo42FBFGZVEtlkmTFXiB5nYE_QNaj7CyRQtk-i6oPGOw&oe=64B1FDC1

If they haven't named him how could they be held liable for libel?

[Hibbyradge]

If they haven't named him how could they be held liable for libel?

They can't.

[Ozyhibby]

If they haven't named him how could they be held liable for libel?

They will have named him to his employers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LewysGot2]

No idea, like most folk, what the bottom line is here but it's interesting timing the story broke. The same time as Boris Johnson missed the deadline to release his WhatsApp messages...convenient, huh?

[Since90+2]

If it turns out nothing illegal has went on, I think whoever it is could have a case against the Sun for loss of earnings.

Even if nothing illegal has went on you'd imagine their career is going to be finished anyway.

[Hibbyradge]

If it turns out nothing illegal has went on, I think whoever it is could have a case against the Sun for loss of earnings.

Even if nothing illegal has went on you'd imagine their career is going to be finished anyway.

They've not been named and the claims have been rubbished anyway. Why would their career be finished?

[Since90+2]

They've not been named and the claims have been rubbished anyway. Why would their career be finished?

Public opinion most likely.

They have not been named officially, but it seems obvious to me who it is.

[Ged]

No idea, like most folk, what the bottom line is here but it's interesting timing the story broke. The same time as Boris Johnson missed the deadline to release his WhatsApp messages...convenient, huh?

Do you genuinely think that the whole thing has been made up to give Boris Johnson breathing space?

[greenlex]

Twist in the tale

Lawyer for young person in BBC presenter row says mother’s account of events is “rubbish” and “nothing inappropriate” happened (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=DA98E13A-1F43-11EE-8C78-57DBD89D5CC3&at_format=link&at_link_type=web_link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking)
Confused here. If nothing inappropriate happened why is a lawyer involved in the first place?

[Hibbyradge]

Public opinion most likely.

They have not been named officially, but it seems obvious to me who it is.

I have absolutely no idea who it is.

[Ozyhibby]

I have absolutely no idea who it is.

I’m pretty sure I do and it’s all over social media. I think it will be easy for a court to decide identification has taken place. The Sun could be in fairly big trouble here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tamig]

If they've been in contact for 3 years you'd imagine it's possibly likely they started engaging directly outwith that platform and through WhatsApp ect. How that ties in legally with the Only Fans age restriction I've no idea.

The point I was making was purely in reference to OnlyFans. Creators need to be 18 - as the other user mentioned earlier in the thread. I wasn’t talking about any other means of interaction between the two. I think what you’ve guessed about direct engagement has probably happened the opposite way around I’d have thought.

[Smartie]

Confused here. If nothing inappropriate happened why is a lawyer involved in the first place?

Is there not a suggestion that the "offspring" may have been blackmailing the celebrity? Or that they may have fraudulently claimed to have been older than they were in order to sell their wares online?

If the parent is suggesting that either thing (or both) has happened then the "offspring" would be very well advised to be receiving legal representation.

They might be more concerned about ending up in court themselves and being an inadvertent victim of their parents' misadventures rather than anything that has happened to them at the hands of the presenter.

[LewysGot2]

Do you genuinely think that the whole thing has been made up to give Boris Johnson breathing space?

No but I'm saying that Rupert Murdoch's publication chose to go with it at a certain time.

[Kato]

Do you genuinely think that the whole thing has been made up to give Boris Johnson breathing space?Good timing to go to press though. Not a peep about the George Osborne allegations either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Is there not a suggestion that the "offspring" may have been blackmailing the celebrity? Or that they may have fraudulently claimed to have been older than they were in order to sell their wares online?

If the parent is suggesting that either thing (or both) has happened then the "offspring" would be very well advised to be receiving legal representation.

They might be more concerned about ending up in court themselves and being an inadvertent victim of their parents' misadventures rather than anything that has happened to them at the hands of the presenter.

Or, if as the mother claims, her child is a crack addict in need of regular funds, has the presenter paid them to say nothing happened? All sorts of possibilities here and it will continue to remain speculation until the full story comes out. As things stand the overwhelming majority of folk commenting on the story have no idea what the true story is.

[Ozyhibby]

Or, if as the mother claims, her child is a crack addict in need of regular funds, has the presenter paid them to say nothing happened? All sorts of possibilities here and it will continue to remain speculation until the full story comes out. As things stand the overwhelming majority of folk commenting on the story have no idea what the true story is.

And if your child has a drug problem, your first stop should be the Sun newspaper.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

And if your child has a drug problem, your first stop should be the Sun newspaper.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who knows what the dynamic is there? Latest reports indicate the 20 year old 'child' is estranged from their mother. Bitter family feud, badly treated child, predatory presenter or broken-hearted parent? Or elements of all those? Some daft or desperate folk do daft things when they think they see a media opportunity (eg Shannon Matthews family trying to piggy back on the back of the Madeleine McCann case by 'kidnapping' their own daughter). I have no more idea than you what's at the heart of this.

[Tyler Durden]

Or, if as the mother claims, her child is a crack addict in need of regular funds, has the presenter paid them to say nothing happened? All sorts of possibilities here and it will continue to remain speculation until the full story comes out. As things stand the overwhelming majority of folk commenting on the story have no idea what the true story is.

The Sun clearly should have stated in the original story that the minor denied it.

[Tyler Durden]

They can't.

Yes they can apparently.

McAlpine vs Newsnight being a precedent. Basically if the person can be identified without being named, you’re still liable for libel.

[Fiddich]

It’s def biased towards the union though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not called the BBC for no reason. Used by Thatcher and Blair for their own purposes. Every cross through the heart of midlothianism is all good. We need to be free here in Scotland of divide and rule. We require rule of good for all of us. Get rid of westminster division. :aok:

[Jack]

You only need to look up who has been placed in the very senior roles to see where the BBCs loyalties lie.

[neil7908]

It’s def biased towards the union though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The BBC are the definition of 'establishment'. They have no desire to see any change to the status quo, or do anything to rock the boat.

It makes sense unfortunately when you see how the current government treats them - the BBC are walking a tightrope, knowing one misstep and they will be absolutely hammered.

[heretoday]

I love when The Sun tries to occupy the high moral ground.

The family involved may find themselves in a tangled web at the end of the day.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

The Sun might find themselves in real trouble over this story. It has fallen apart really quickly and appears to lack a basic element of investigative journalism, which is factual evidence.

[Hibernian Verse]

The Sun clearly should have stated in the original story that the minor denied it.

They're 20 now

[overdrive]

They're 20 now

Which makes you wonder. Why now? Has the mother just found out about it? Has she sat on it until now (well until a few months ago when she made the initial complaint)?

[Ozyhibby]

Which makes you wonder. Why now? Has the mother just found out about it? Has she sat on it until now (well until a few months ago when she made the initial complaint)?

Why would the Sun publish when there is no complaint from the affected now adult?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tyler Durden]

They're 20 now

Yes, even more reason not to trust a parents word over that of an adult daughter.

[Hibernian Verse]

Yes, even more reason not to trust a parents word over that of an adult daughter.

My colleagues seem to think it's a lad?

[DH1875]

Which makes you wonder. Why now? Has the mother just found out about it? Has she sat on it until now (well until a few months ago when she made the initial complaint)?

Because the guy in question stopped paying them money and told the child (a 20 year old 😕) to stop contacting him.

She added of the presenter: “Earlier this year I heard him on the phone saying to my child, ‘I told you not to f***ing ring me’.

Why was she sitting listening to the phone conversation? It also a total contradiction of why she has come out with the story which was apparently to stop the presenter from contacting the child (again a 20 year old). Had nothing to do with the sun paying her for the story.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Pretty sure the onus would be on the website to ensure that anyone on their platform is over the age of 18 rather than the end user so to speak

"The minimum age for OnlyFans users is 18. To open a creators account, users must provide a photo of themselves (a “selfie”) along with a form of photo ID to confirm their age."

Again though, that same onus would be on a nightclub to ensure everyone is over 18 and provide photo ID to prove as much.

As far as I’m aware though that wouldn’t get you off having sex with someone underage.

[Mon Dieu4]

Again though, that same onus would be on a nightclub to ensure everyone is over 18 and provide photo ID to prove as much.

As far as I’m aware though that wouldn’t get you off having sex with someone underage.

I get what you are saying but I see it as two different scenarios, I think any half decent lawyer would be able to argue that if someone is creating content on a website designed for over 18s and that they ask for photo ID to prove that then the burden of blame falls on the website rather than the user

[overdrive]

Again though, that same onus would be on a nightclub to ensure everyone is over 18 and provide photo ID to prove as much.

As far as I’m aware though that wouldn’t get you off having sex with someone underage.

I thought there was a case in Edinburgh where the guy “got off” with the statutory rape of a minor because they met in a nightclub and he reasonably believed she was overage.

Just searched for it and it must be this case but my memory of it isn’t correct as it wasn’t a nightclub. The guy met her in a taxi queue late at night and thought she was 16 when she was in fact 12…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/student-who-admitted-rape-12-10045698

[Pretty Boy]

The Traci Lords scandal in the US came close to toppling the entire industry. She used fake ID to get acting roles at 16 when the legal age was and is 18. She even appeared in a 'mainstream' publication like Penthouse. Sex shops and the like we're quite literally throwing videos featuring her on bonfires to avoid being investigated for being in the supply of child pornography.

Iirc a few actors who appeared with her where charged but the charges were subsequently dropped as they had reasonable grounds to believe she was 18 or over. A couple of producers were charged and convicted and others accepted plea bargains. The appeals of those convinced were still going through the US appeals system in the late 00s.

If the OnlyFans involvement is true I suspect there will have been a few nervous people in meetings over the last few days.

[H18 SFR]

I thought there was a case in Edinburgh where the guy “got off” with the statutory rape of a minor because they met in a nightclub and he reasonably believed she was overage.

Just searched for it and it must be this case but my memory of it isn’t correct as it wasn’t a nightclub. The guy met her in a taxi queue late at night and thought she was 16 when she was in fact 12…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/student-who-admitted-rape-12-10045698

All things considered, I think the correct outcome was achieved.

[Scouse Hibee]

I thought there was a case in Edinburgh where the guy “got off” with the statutory rape of a minor because they met in a nightclub and he reasonably believed she was overage.

Just searched for it and it must be this case but my memory of it isn’t correct as it wasn’t a nightclub. The guy met her in a taxi queue late at night and thought she was 16 when she was in fact 12…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/student-who-admitted-rape-12-10045698

Absolutely correct decision in my opinion.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

A second person has now come forward with allegations about the BBC presenter.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

A second person has now come forward with allegations about the BBC presenter.

So this is BBC News investigating their own presenter? :confused:

[He's here!]

So this is BBC News investigating their own presenter? :confused:

I never really understood the way these things work with the BBC. In recent days we've had the farcical sight of a BBC News presenter 'going live' to a BBC News reporter standing outside the BBC and stating that they are still awaiting a comment from the BBC. What's with the facade that this is somehow an issue they can report on as just another news agency? If it was an employee of a national newspaper involved the paper itself wouldn't be reporting on it in this way.

[Ozyhibby]

So this is BBC News investigating their own presenter? :confused:

There is nothing the BBC enjoys more than talking about itself. That and attacking the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onceinawhile]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

A second person has now come forward with allegations about the BBC presenter.

So they never met up with them, then they threatened to out them and got a bit of abuse back?

Am I missing something, because this doesn't seem like a huge deal to me?

Maybe I'm just underselling it though.

[Ozyhibby]

So they never met up with them, then they threatened to out them and got a bit of abuse back?

Am I missing something, because this doesn't seem like a huge deal to me?

Maybe I'm just underselling it though.

I just listening to that on the tv. It amounted to ‘when I threatened him, he threatened me back’? [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

The whole thing stinks.

A 'concerned' mother going to the employer at least 2 years after the dodgy goings on started and only then after the 'mark' says no more money! And with there being no more money coming in then going to a newspaper of ill repute to sell a story that's all over the place.

Surely a concerned mother would have gone directly to the police and probably long before the money dried up!

[Lendo]

The whole thing stinks.

A 'concerned' mother going to the employer at least 2 years after the dodgy goings on started and only then after the 'mark' says no more money! And with there being no more money coming in then going to a newspaper of ill repute to sell a story that's all over the place.

Surely a concerned mother would have gone directly to the police and probably long before the money dried up!

100% being trying to shakedown the presenter and he’s stopped playing ball. Hopefully it all comes out they’ve been attempting to blackmail him.

[Jack]

100% being trying to shakedown the presenter and he’s stopped playing ball. Hopefully it all comes out they’ve been attempting to blackmail him.

... and possibly the BBC.

[Col2]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

[Ozyhibby]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

I only told my mum today so possibly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

I only clicked when I saw someone suggest it would be incredible if the BBCs reporting of the death of the queen has been 'Benoited'. WWE fans will know the score.

[McSwanky]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?Nope, I have no idea either

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

Sorry, don't know.

[CropleyWasGod]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

Definitely not.

Most people I know don't really care about what "celebrities" do with their private lives, and even less about what The Sun et al tells us what we should care about.

[Hibbyradge]

Am I the only person who doesn’t know the name of the (alleged) BBC presenter?

I don't know either.

[HNA2]

We appreciate the fact that nobody has been naming people on this thread and would like that to continue. :aok:

[cabbageandribs1875]

*** also broke lockdown rules to meet a young stranger he met on a dating site, meeting the person in another county, not that that's the main issue right enough


he really needs to come clean me thinks and stop hiding so other presenters are not getting the finger pointed at them

BBC presenter suspended over sex claims 'broke lockdown rules to meet young stranger' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-bbc-presenter-suspended-over-30444630)

[neil7908]

The whole thing stinks.

A 'concerned' mother going to the employer at least 2 years after the dodgy goings on started and only then after the 'mark' says no more money! And with there being no more money coming in then going to a newspaper of ill repute to sell a story that's all over the place.

Surely a concerned mother would have gone directly to the police and probably long before the money dried up!

Agreed. It all goes sound a bit nasty, even if nothing illegal actually happened.

But sooooo many questions still unanswered. And the Sun have just grabbed any excuse to attack the BBC, in a clearly orchestrated attack with the UK govt.

With the mortgage rate now higher than when Liz Truss was in charge, there has to be something to distract us right?

[greenlex]

I never really understood the way these things work with the BBC. In recent days we've had the farcical sight of a BBC News presenter 'going live' to a BBC News reporter standing outside the BBC and stating that they are still awaiting a comment from the BBC. What's with the facade that this is somehow an issue they can report on as just another news agency? If it was an employee of a national newspaper involved the paper itself wouldn't be reporting on it in this way.
It’s a farcical example of the BBC doing their best to look impartial. Could you imagine the reaction if it was say TASS reporting along these lines out of Russia?

[Pretty Boy]

The issue the BBC have when reporting on this is that they are still bound by the same libel and defamation laws as any other news outlet whilst also having the added weight of HR and employment law hanging over them.

The BBC news team can no more say 'Mr X is the alleged perpetrator' than any other news source can. Officially the BBC news team will know no more than anyone else and will have to go through the same channels for official comment. Unofficially the jungle drums will have been beating of course but knowing and being able to say you know are 2 different things.

For all the BBCs faults they regularly report negative stories about themselves which is something that can't be said for every news source, particularly the printed press.

[Paul1642]

*** also broke lockdown rules to meet a young stranger he met on a dating site, meeting the person in another county, not that that's the main issue right enough


he really needs to come clean me thinks and stop hiding so other presenters are not getting the finger pointed at them

BBC presenter suspended over sex claims 'broke lockdown rules to meet young stranger' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-bbc-presenter-suspended-over-30444630)

Assuming this second young person is of legal age this is just a nothing story.

Went on a date? So what.

Broke lockdown rules? So did half the county including most of the government who were setting the rules.

Seems to me like this is almost turning into a witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt with no real wrongdoing having actually occurred.

[Callum_62]

Assuming this second young person is of legal age this is just a nothing story.

Went on a date? So what.

Broke lockdown rules? So did half the county including most of the government who were setting the rules.

Seems to me like this is almost turning into a witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt with no real wrongdoing having actually occurred.Keep in mind though - it was a STRANGER!

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Assuming this second young person is of legal age this is just a nothing story.

Went on a date? So what.

Broke lockdown rules? So did half the county including most of the government who were setting the rules.

Seems to me like this is almost turning into a witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt with no real wrongdoing having actually occurred.

I think now that these big media organisations are feeling a bit exposed regarding their conduct and need to sacrifice someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Assuming this second young person is of legal age this is just a nothing story.

Went on a date? So what.

Broke lockdown rules? So did half the county including most of the government who were setting the rules.

Seems to me like this is almost turning into a witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt with no real wrongdoing having actually occurred.


and now a 4th steps up with allegations


as i've already said he needs to stop hiding, i bet his colleagues are very angry

[DH1875]

I'll give you the first person even though their 20 but.....why is everyone else being referred to as young person or youngster when their in their 20s. Its as if the press are insinuating its kids that are involved when its full grown ass adults.

[Ozyhibby]

and now a 4th steps up with allegations


as i've already said he needs to stop hiding, i bet his colleagues are very angry

I don’t think he does. I haven’t seen a single allegation that warrants any police action?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[H18 SFR]

I'll give you the first person even though they’re 20 but.....why is everyone else being referred to as young person or youngster when they’re in their 20s. It’s as if the press are insinuating its kids that are involved when its full grown ass adults.

16-24 = young person. Certainly does professionally within my sector.

[Since90+2]

16-24 = young person. Certainly does professionally within my sector.

Surely once you reach 22/23/24 ect you are an adult. You are in the eyes of the law and have been for at least 4 years.

[DH1875]

16-24 = young person. Certainly does professionally within my sector.

Come on. A 16 year old and a 24 year old are nowhere near the same, especially when it comes to relationships and dating. I had 2 kids a house and a long-term relationship at 24 FFS.

[Since90+2]

Come on. A 16 year old and a 24 year old are nowhere near the same, especially when it comes to relationships and dating. I had 2 kids a house and a long-term relationship at 24 FFS.

Agreed, not even close in terms of life maturity.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I don’t think he does. I haven’t seen a single allegation that warrants any police action?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


that's not what i'm meaning, all appear to be over 16 so they can do what they/he want as far as i'm concerned :) but he's hiding and letting other presenters get all the fingers of suspicion pointed at them, it's getting worse for him the longer all this goes on, it ain't going away

[Jack]

Jeez! It was eye popping enough when the perp spent 35 grand on one 'fling'. Now there's 4!!!!

We can now add gullible and idiot to what we know about him.

A fool and their money and all that!

[Hibs4185]

I still don’t know who it is

[DH1875]

that's not what i'm meaning, all appear to be over 16 so they can do what they/he want as far as i'm concerned :) but he's hiding and letting other presenters get all the fingers of suspicion pointed at them, it's getting worse for him the longer all this goes on, it ain't going away

Maybe its men he has been messaging and he's not ready to come out yet or let the world know his sexuality. Could be that's why he threatened the 2nd person after they said they were gonna out him.

[Paul1642]

Surely once you reach 22/23/24 ect you are an adult. You are in the eyes of the law and have been for at least 4 years.

Scottish law (wrongly IMO) has different sentencing for under 25s which much more lenient court disposals for under 25s.

[Hibernian Verse]

Scottish law (wrongly IMO) has different sentencing for under 25s which much more lenient court disposals for under 25s.

That's due to them supposedly being more responsive to rehabilitation rather than because they're not adults.

[LaMotta]

I still don’t know who it is

It's all over Twitter for anyone who really wants to know.

[lapsedhibee]

I still don’t know who it is

It's not important, except as an excellent example of how Murdoch poisons national discourse.

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64aeda506439480d586b8978%26No%20furthe r%20police%20action%20-%20Met%20police%262023-07-12T16%3A53%3A26.691Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:bd93a459-c7e2-4054-97e0-cb514b19b695&pinned_post_asset_id=64aeda506439480d586b8978&pinned_post_type=share

[Just Alf]

And there we go....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1%26Huw%20Edwar ds%20named%20as%20presenter%20by%20his%20wife%2620 23-07-12T16%3A57%3A48.663Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:71f9c445-8409-466c-9d95-7ca83dce498d&pinned_post_asset_id=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1&pinned_post_type=share

Named by his wife


Regardless of the legality of it all it will be Huw Edwards family getting impacted as well

[Aldo]

Surely once you reach 22/23/24 ect you are an adult. You are in the eyes of the law and have been for at least 4 years.

Correct.
16-18 young person anything above 18 and you are an adult!

[DH1875]

Wife? Well that'll be why he didn't want it all to come out.
Police saying NO criminal act committed and no further police action to be taken. Another life ruined by false aligations.

[cabbageandribs1875]

so it's now public Huw it is, phew

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/peston/status/1679173233281581076?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Met say no evidence of criminal offence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Police say no crime, Huw taken into hospital for mental support. Oh what a nation we are

[Kato]

Gives a new meaning to "coming down the mall."

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Police say no crime, Huw taken into hospital for mental support. Oh what a nation we are

We’ll all move on to something else now. There will be no consequences for the Sun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

We’ll all move on to something else now. There will be no consequences for the Sun.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNo sign of the telly reporting on the allegations of George Osborne, not a mention of Johnsons dillydallying over his magically inaccessible phone. A total dead cat.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

No sign of the telly reporting on the allegations of George Osborne, not a mention of Johnsons dillydallying over his magically inaccessible phone. A total dead cat.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Next time someone says how do the Tories get away with it, how come Michelle Mone hasn’t been arrested? We can all think back to the 5 days the whole nation spent on a homophobic quest to find out Huw Edwards was gay and cheating on his wife.
It’s clear the UK deserves to be in the state it’s in and Scotland deserves to be stuck in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Sounds like he has had a breakdown. Although this has been all over the news, I'm not overly sure what has actually happened.

[wookie70]

Sounds like he has had a breakdown. Although this has been all over the news, I'm not overly sure what has actually happened. Nothing criminal and none of our business imo. The Sun yet again will get away with ruining lives in the pursuit of profit for a man who couldn't spend all he has in the time he has left and to protect politicians that protect them.

[WoreTheGreen]

Totally deflection by the Tory owners the right wing media to deflect the Johnstone inquiry into the Covid report

[Since90+2]

Next time someone says how do the Tories get away with it, how come Michelle Mone hasn’t been arrested? We can all think back to the 5 days the whole nation spent on a homophobic quest to find out Huw Edwards was gay and cheating on his wife.
It’s clear the UK deserves to be in the state it’s in and Scotland deserves to be stuck in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has it been confirmed it was a male Edwards was in contact with?

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

Wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear that Huw Edwards has killed himself in the next year or two, this country’s media is a joke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

The staff at The Sun doing what they do best. Ruining people's lives for financial gain.

[Bristolhibby]

Huw Edwards effectively spends £35k on Onlyfans in his own private time. Police confirm no criminality.

Yet has been hounded into a mental hospital.

The Sun really is the ****miest of the gutter press.

You really need to have a look at yourself if you read this “paper”.

J

[Smartie]

Without wishing to let the Sun off the hook for their role in it... I have a serious issue with "leverage" culture.

Folk whose prospects in life are so pish that hoodwinking, bribing or luring celebrities or high profile people into traps becomes fair game.

The Sun have to take a healthy share of responsibility. Their brand isn't a strong one any more and this might even be the sort of thing that finishes them off, there is greater revulsion with them nowadays than at any point before.

Folk who think this is an acceptable way to behave need to take responsibility too though. It'll be interesting to hear the full story (and I hope it comes out) behind whatever the initial story to break was. It seems to me like a feeding frenzy between members of the same family who ended up sacrificing their cash cow.

It might even be that Edwards isn't entirely innocent in the whole affair.

A sorry, sorry mess.

[Colr]

We’ll all move on to something else now. There will be no consequences for the Sun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Journalists are vermin. Its up to the ones that think they aren’t to show that they’re not.

[Pretty Boy]

It's not a great look for Edwards regardless of the legality. However he's not in a position of moral authority, he's a TV presenter, so if he wants to pay some young guy to send him nudes then it's really no one's business but his and now his wives.

If there is any truth in the inappropriate emails and comments to colleagues then that is arguably more problematic for him and the BBC as his employers.

[Irish_Steve]

I have to say I absolutely despise The Sun.

Hopefully more people will now see what a despicable rag it is and stop buying it, consigning it to a slow, painful demise.

Huw Edwards may have been spectacularly naive but as the Police said, no crime has been committed yet he has been hounded out of his job and into hospital for treatment.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1679207974433091588?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElginHibbie]

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1679207974433091588?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They've done their damage and now can just wash their hands of the whole thing

[Hibrandenburg]

It's not a great look for Edwards regardless of the legality. However he's not in a position of moral authority, he's a TV presenter, so if he wants to pay some young guy to send him nudes then it's really no one's business but his and now his wives.

If there is any truth in the inappropriate emails and comments to colleagues then that is arguably more problematic for him and the BBC as his employers.

My god, didn't realise he was also a bigamist.

[archie]

They've done their damage and now can just wash their hands of the whole thing

And be sanctimonious with it.

[One Day Soon]

When Rupert Murdoch dies I will celebrate with a glass of the very best malt I can afford. Utter ****.

[grunt]

When Rupert Murdoch dies I will celebrate with a glass of the very best malt I can afford. Utter ****.
https://twitter.com/BarnabyEdwards/status/1677626070823043072?s=20

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

When Rupert Murdoch dies I will celebrate with a glass of the very best malt I can afford. Utter ****.

Yep, dirty horrible **** rat *******.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haymaker]

When Rupert Murdoch dies I will celebrate with a glass of the very best malt I can afford. Utter ****.Yep.

Sent from my SM-A426U1 using Tapatalk

[Pagan Hibernia]

https://twitter.com/BarnabyEdwards/status/1677626070823043072?s=20


Clough usually did talk sense. Not always, but usually.

[ekhibee]

I'm a bit confused, are we talking about the illegality of Edwards towards the 1st teenager (not proven at all) or the threatening and bullying behaviour he used on other teenagers that were mentioned later, or is that fictitious as well? I'm not a Sun reader and never will be, and it looks like technically Edwards wasn't breaking the law with respect to the first incident, but that doesn't excuse bullying or threats if that is what took place subsequently with other teenagers.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm a bit confused, are we talking about the illegality of Edwards towards the 1st teenager (not proven at all) or the threatening and bullying behaviour he used on other teenagers that were mentioned later, or is that fictitious as well? I'm not a Sun reader and never will be, and it looks like technically Edwards wasn't breaking the law with respect to the first incident, but that doesn't excuse bullying or threats if that is what took place subsequently with other teenagers.

The others weren’t teenagers I don’t think and his harsh words to them appeared to be in response to their attempts to blackmail him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EH6 Hibby]

That's due to them supposedly being more responsive to rehabilitation rather than because they're not adults.

It’s actually because scientists believe the human brain is not fully grown until 25.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/brain-not-fully-developed-until-age-25-research-reveals/

[Hibernian Verse]

It’s actually because scientists believe the human brain is not fully grown until 25.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/brain-not-fully-developed-until-age-25-research-reveals/

I'm 31 and I think I fall into that category :greengrin

[J-C]

It's not a great look for Edwards regardless of the legality. However he's not in a position of moral authority, he's a TV presenter, so if he wants to pay some young guy to send him nudes then it's really no one's business but his and now his wives.

If there is any truth in the inappropriate emails and comments to colleagues then that is arguably more problematic for him and the BBC as his employers.
Has it been confirmed it was a male who sent pics?

Talking about papers, in particular the Sun ruining lives, just take a look at our own John Lesley, hounded for years, never been found guilty and yet will have the stigma of being a sleazy bloke for the rest of his life.

[J-C]

I'm a bit confused, are we talking about the illegality of Edwards towards the 1st teenager (not proven at all) or the threatening and bullying behaviour he used on other teenagers that were mentioned later, or is that fictitious as well? I'm not a Sun reader and never will be, and it looks like technically Edwards wasn't breaking the law with respect to the first incident, but that doesn't excuse bullying or threats if that is what took place subsequently with other teenagers.

I think the 2nd person threatened to expose Edwards, who then threatened that person.

[mayo hibee]

Has it been confirmed it was a male who sent pics?

Talking about papers, in particular the Sun ruining lives, just take a look at our own John Lesley, hounded for years, never been found guilty and yet will have the stigma of being a sleazy bloke for the rest of his life.

That was let slip by BBC journalists and presenters multiple times in the last few days while covering the story. Various references to "he", "the boy" etc.

Predictably gutless by the S*n to withhold their front page last night from the media round of front page publications that are always issued around 10pm.

[JeMeSouviens]

Has it been confirmed it was a male who sent pics?

Talking about papers, in particular the Sun ruining lives, just take a look at our own John Lesley, hounded for years, never been found guilty and yet will have the stigma of being a sleazy bloke for the rest of his life.

Does it matter?

I take the view that if Huw wants to do whatever with whoever, it's all legal, everybody's willing and nobody's being lied to, then crack on. If he's been lying to his wife and family and leading a life of hypocrisy then that's wrong and I do feel sorry for them, albeit for someone of his age I can easily see how a gay man could've ended up going down that road.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Nothing criminal and none of our business imo. The Sun yet again will get away with ruining lives in the pursuit of profit for a man who couldn't spend all he has in the time he has left and to protect politicians that protect them.

Looks very much like The Sun's position is to take the credit for lighting the fuse but no accountability for the following explosion.

[lapsedhibee]

alan rusbridger
@arusbridger
Famous person uses dating app. Links up with an adult. Nothing comes of it, they never meet. The adult threatens to write about it online. Famous person is very angry - lead item on
@BBCNews



Has Johnson been arrested yet?

[Jack]

alan rusbridger
@arusbridger
Famous person uses dating app. Links up with an adult. Nothing comes of it, they never meet. The adult threatens to write about it online. Famous person is very angry - lead item on
@BBCNews



Has Johnson been arrested yet?

Has George Osborne been interviewed by the police yet?

[Pretty Boy]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

[lapsedhibee]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

Also, perhaps if newsreaders weren't treated as 'stars' and paid half a million quid a year for reading out the news they might be less likely to behave like dicks.

[Rumble de Thump]

Every aspect of the story needs to be treated with extreme skepticism. It's a story that's come from a 'newspaper' renowned for publishing lies. The story had massive holes in it when it was first published and it has only got worse. The police have said no crime has taken place, the 'victim' says they were never a victim and that they had already explained this to The Sun prior to publishing. The story is crumbling fast. Considering this, I wouldn't be keen to judge the morality of anyone involved. Maybe the truth will eventually be revealed. People will probably have lost interest by then.

[Mon Dieu4]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

You've pretty much summed up my views on it and similar situations to be fair

[He's here!]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

No, I don't think you're the only one who thinks such behaviour is inappropriate.

[Ozyhibby]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

I think everyone could probably agree it’s creepy sleazy behaviour. Just not criminal or worthy of being splashed across the newspapers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J-C]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

I agree, spending thousands on some dodgy pics from whoever when you're married with 5 kids is a bit creepy. Add in the fact he's a well known celebrity and his naivety is startling. Saying now he has mental problems due to this, well sorry Huw you brought that on yourself with your own actions.

[AgentDaleCooper]

When Rupert Murdoch dies I will celebrate with a glass of the very best malt I can afford. Utter ****.

Yup. Him and Mckenzie are up there with Saville and Glitter IMO. Poison incarnate.

[lapsedhibee]

I agree, spending thousands on some dodgy pics from whoever when you're married with 5 kids is a bit creepy. Add in the fact he's a well known celebrity and his naivety is startling. Saying now he has mental problems due to this, well sorry Huw you brought that on yourself with your own actions.

It's possible that he spent the thousands trying to prevent his wife and five kids becoming involved, rather than on the pics. Don't think details/facts are much known yet. And he has a history of mental health issues, didn't just start last week.

[SHODAN]

Has George Osborne been interviewed by the police yet?

All crime is legal if you're a Tory mate.

[Jack]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

What you're describing is what I would say is what normal people would think, perhaps those whose values were formed before influencers, tiktok etc and an unhealthy need for money and likes through social media.

I get the feeling there's a subculture has formed where the above has become entwined with the oldest profession in the world and onlyfans is the result. I don't know from personal experience (honest :-) but I'd expect a huge age difference has been quite common throughout the ages.

So I don't think anything new has happened, just a new way of doing old things.

And history is littered with 'courtesans' spilling the beans.

[500miles]

I daresay I will get grief for this but am I the only one who still feels a man then in his late 50s soliciting sexual imagery from a 17 year old is inappropriate and weird behaviour regardless of the legality? If it was my son or daughter then I'd be all for knocking the guy out and would get more satisfaction from that than a few quid in the bank.

Of course it's not really anyone's business but now it's out there then it's arguably fair for comment. My feeling is it's a shame for all concerned but Edwards has been naive if I'm being kind or a bit of an idiot if I wasn't. He must have suspected that with his profile and with the skeletons in the closet at the BBC that this wasn't going to remain a private matter for ever.

I have a friend who has a 16 year old daughter. If I ever approached her for a date or asked her for a suggestive picture then I'd fully expect the friendship to be killed stone dead and a punch in the jaw for good measure because it's wholly inappropriate behaviour on my part as the responsible adult. I genuinely wonder how many people would be OK if their own child was the target of his affections? It seems a bit of a tragic case all round.

So I'm not sure how widely this has been picked up, but the young person involved has denied that this is the case, made it known to the sun, who ran with the parents claims anyway.

I'd suggest we likely have an Onlyfans situation here - which is a porn site and should only have over 18s models on it, where the customer pays the model directly. Or even a Grindr situation, which is a gay hookup app, for over 18s.

The accusations of bullying I have read so far have surrounded people who have threatened to publicly out Edwards, which is a pretty vile thing to do to a closeted gay man, especially of his age, with what he'll have experienced in his youth.

This is not like Schofield, who had personal contact with a boy from a very young age, and could be accused of grooming over a course of years, as well as abusing his position as a donor and then an superior in his workplace.

[H18 SFR]

Come on. A 16 year old and a 24 year old are nowhere near the same, especially when it comes to relationships and dating. I had 2 kids a house and a long-term relationship at 24 FFS.

I totally agree with you but what I said is accurate.

[Colr]

So I'm not sure how widely this has been picked up, but the young person involved has denied that this is the case, made it known to the sun, who ran with the parents claims anyway.

I'd suggest we likely have an Onlyfans situation here - which is a porn site and should only have over 18s models on it, where the customer pays the model directly. Or even a Grindr situation, which is a gay hookup app, for over 18s.

The accusations of bullying I have read so far have surrounded people who have threatened to publicly out Edwards, which is a pretty vile thing to do to a closeted gay man, especially of his age, with what he'll have experienced in his youth.

This is not like Schofield, who had personal contact with a boy from a very young age, and could be accused of grooming over a course of years, as well as abusing his position as a donor and then an superior in his workplace.

£35k for pics? More like her OF site netted her that. Journalists deal in half truths and this doesn’t stack. He’s been pretty naive if he’s been online there as himself, though. Mind you, maybe a manifestation of his mental health issues.

I suspect the parents are on a grift with this.

[WhileTheChief..]

Seems like folk are saying it’s sleazy purely down to the age gap?

There are plenty of young guys and girls into older guys these days.

Exchanging pics and sexting is very much the norm between people. There’s nothing sleazy about it in the slightest.

[J-C]

Seems like folk are saying it’s sleazy purely down to the age gap?

There are plenty of young guys and girls into older guys these days.

Exchanging pics and sexting is very much the norm between people. There’s nothing sleazy about it in the slightest.


I think the age gap makes it very iffy, he's low 60's and the people he's been dealing with are late teens early 20's, that's a fairly big age gap.

[WhileTheChief..]

I think the age gap makes it very iffy, he's low 60's and the people he's been dealing with are late teens early 20's, that's a fairly big age gap.

If he was hounding and pestering them then yeah, I’d say that’s sleazy.

If they approached him first and they continued communicating, then absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m gay. It wasn’t that long ago that me going with any other guy was seen as sleazy. Still is to some folks.

[Mon Dieu4]

If he was hounding and pestering them then yeah, I’d say that’s sleazy.

If they approached him first and they continued communicating, then absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m gay. It wasn’t that long ago that me going with any other guy was seen as sleazy. Still is to some folks.

I'm 50/50 on this kind of age gap when it's someone so old and someone so young, if a 40 year old was dating a 60 year old I couldn't care less, not sure if it's to do with the lived experience and in my head they are less likely to be taken advantage of than someone in their late teens or early twenties

part of me thinks if everything is all above board and consenting then knock yourself out, the other part of me thinks that a 60 year old chatting up someone in their teens/early 20s is creepy as ****

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm 50/50 on this kind of age gap when it's someone so old and someone so young, if a 40 year old was dating a 60 year old I couldn't care less, not sure if it's to do with the lived experience and in my head they are less likely to be taken advantage of than someone in their late teens or early twenties

part of me thinks if everything is all above board and consenting then knock yourself out, the other part of me thinks that a 60 year old chatting up someone in their teens/late 20s is creepy as ****

I read once someone came up with the rule of thumb of (half the other party's age + 7) being the line. So for a 60 year old down to 37. For a 26 year old, 20. For a 20 year old, 17. It kind of works.

That said, if both parties are adults and neither of them find it sleazy, wtfdik?

[JeMeSouviens]

If he was hounding and pestering them then yeah, I’d say that’s sleazy.

If they approached him first and they continued communicating, then absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m gay. It wasn’t that long ago that me going with any other guy was seen as sleazy. Still is to some folks.

Hounding and pestering, or using power and influence to get your way is always out of order for any age with any age. We don't know if any of that's the case here though.

[Mon Dieu4]

I read once someone came up with the rule of thumb of (half the other party's age + 7) being the line. So for a 60 year old down to 37. For a 26 year old, 20. For a 20 year old, 17. It kind of works.

That said, if both parties are adults and neither of them find it sleazy, wtfdik?

That makes sense to me, I work with a bunch of girls who are around 20 odd, if I asked them if they would date, chat or sext someone their dad or closer to their granddad's age I know what their response would be(not that I'm going to ask them as since I'm old enough to be their dad I feel that question in itself would come across creepy as haha)

[overdrive]

I'm 50/50 on this kind of age gap when it's someone so old and someone so young, if a 40 year old was dating a 60 year old I couldn't care less, not sure if it's to do with the lived experience and in my head they are less likely to be taken advantage of than someone in their late teens or early twenties

part of me thinks if everything is all above board and consenting then knock yourself out, the other part of me thinks that a 60 year old chatting up someone in their teens/late 20s is creepy as ****

I'm kind of with you on this one. When I was on the dating apps, I had the settings to filter out anyone 10+ years younger than me as even in my early/mid 30s I thought it was creepy AF chatting up 18/19/20/21 year olds but maybe that was just me. I was looking for something more than something casual and I don't think I'd have much in common in terms of short/medium/longer-term life goals with someone of that age but even I was looking for something more casual, I wouldn't be going after that age range.

Without meaning to sound demeaning to anyone of that age, there is still a lot maturing and growing up to do in your late teens, early-mid 20s (in most cases, I appreciate not all) that I think makes it different from an age gap where the younger person is a bit older than that.

[Hibrandenburg]

I really couldn't care a fig what consenting adults do in their own time. That said, I will never understand older men who fall for really young partners, it's hard for me to believe that a 50 year old could have much in common with a 20 year old in a relationship other than maybe mutual attraction.

[Hibby70]

I really couldn't care a fig what consenting adults do in their own time. That said, I will never understand older men who fall for really young partners, it's hard for me to believe that a 50 year old could have much in common with a 20 year old in a relationship other than maybe mutual attraction.

My partner is 2 years older than me and I have nothing in common with her at all😂

[Hibrandenburg]

My partner is 2 years older than me and I have nothing in common with her at all😂

:greengrin

[500miles]

I really couldn't care a fig what consenting adults do in their own time. That said, I will never understand older men who fall for really young partners, it's hard for me to believe that a 50 year old could have much in common with a 20 year old in a relationship other than maybe mutual attraction.

In the age of online hookup culture, what does that really matter?

[Rumble de Thump]

If there's one thing that Paula Abdul has taught me it's that you don't really need to have anything in common with someone to be in a relationship with them.

[Colr]

In the age of online hookup culture, what does that really matter?

Did they hook up?

As far as I can make out, he’s gone onto some young, junkie birds Only Fans. The junkies’ parents have found out and tried to make a few bucks out of it.

[Hibrandenburg]

In the age of online hookup culture, what does that really matter?

Depends what you're hooking up to do. If you're hooking up for a **** and nothing else then fill yer boots, but I wouldn't recommend sharing a home and building a family with someone who has nothing in common with you.

[DH1875]

Depends what you're hooking up to do. If you're hooking up for a **** and nothing else then fill yer boots, but I wouldn't recommend sharing a home and building a family with someone who has nothing in common with you.

I'd be surprised if 60 year olds and 20 year olds are hooking up to start families 😆.

[500miles]

Depends what you're hooking up to do. If you're hooking up for a **** and nothing else then fill yer boots, but I wouldn't recommend sharing a home and building a family with someone who has nothing in common with you.

Even then, I don't really care. We send 18 year olds to war, they can decide for themselves if they want a parter who dribbles a quarter pint after every pish or not!

[Hibrandenburg]

Even then, I don't really care. We send 18 year olds to war, they can decide for themselves if they want a parter who dribbles a quarter pint after every pish or not!

Didn't say I cared, just can't get my head round it.

[neil7908]

Some pretty serious accusations doing the rounds about GB News presenter and former Sun journalist Dan Wotton - I wonder if we'll see the same kind of coverage from his former paper?

[overdrive]

Some pretty serious accusations doing the rounds about GB News presenter and former Sun journalist Dan Wotton - I wonder if we'll see the same kind of coverage from his former paper?

No idea if the rumours are true but I can't stand this guy. Comes across as really sleazy and a bit of a bully.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66215539

2nd top story from BBC Scotland today. Tiny minority group of healthcare workers want masks back and say SG is playing ‘Russian roulette’ with staff safety.
Good work from the beeb in amplifying their attack on the SG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk