Seat68 Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 (edited) What about this. The person who was creating pictures for cash was doing it via Only Fans and the BBC star was one of many sending money? I am just adding to the conversation, not bringing any knife wielding dogs, purely "could this potentially, be the case"? Edited July 9, 2023 by Seat68 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 I hope if convicted these paedos get the same treatment that andrew tates received Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 9, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Seat68 said: What about this. The person who was creating pictures for cash was doing it via Only Fans and the BBC star was one of many sending money? I am just adding to the conversation, not bringing any knife wielding dogs, purely "could this potentially, be the case"? need to be 18 for an onlyfans (presumably?) so i'm guessing not...sounds very much like a private arrangement between the two parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted July 9, 2023 Author Share Posted July 9, 2023 6 minutes ago, tomav84 said: need to be 18 for an onlyfans (presumably?) so i'm guessing not...sounds very much like a private arrangement between the two parties I don't have experience of it but do you have to prove your age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 9, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2023 1 minute ago, Seat68 said: I don't have experience of it but do you have to prove your age? ditto - but i would hope so? same as when you set up a gambling account you have to take a photo of your ID - i always assumed the same to be the case with any form of online sex work 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Seat68 Posted July 9, 2023 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2023 27 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I hope if convicted these paedos get the same treatment that andrew tates received Not a paedophile, age of consent is 16, explicit photos is 18, paedophilia is pre pubescent. Andrew Tate is being investigated for rape and human trafficking. They aren't the same at all. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 9, 2023 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2023 A 17 year old does not a paedophile make Inappropriate behaviour, morally wrong, yes most definitely but not a paedophile. It wouldn’t have been illegal if these two people had actual physical sex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 9, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, bickster said: A 17 year old does not a paedophile make Inappropriate behaviour, morally wrong, yes most definitely but not a paedophile. It wouldn’t have been illegal if these two people had actual physical sex. it's weird because you're absolutely right, if they had physical sex no law would've been broken. however the allegation is that videos/photos were exchanged in which case a law would've been broken as the indecent images law applies to under 18. it's a pretty big inconsistency that probably needs aligning...a 17 year old couple could have all the sex they wanted but if they ever exchanged nudes they break the law 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 11 minutes ago, Seat68 said: Not a paedophile, age of consent is 16, explicit photos is 18, paedophilia is pre pubescent. Andrew Tate is being investigated for rape and human trafficking. They aren't the same at all. Your right i didnt look at age rookie mistake by me. Suckered into headline without reading the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 9 minutes ago, bickster said: A 17 year old does not a paedophile make Inappropriate behaviour, morally wrong, yes most definitely but not a paedophile. It wouldn’t have been illegal if these two people had actual physical sex. Cant see any mention of any grooming in the article so no crimes been commited as you said legal age is 16. Dont know why this is even a story tbh as you say its morally wrong only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 9, 2023 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, tomav84 said: it's weird because you're absolutely right, if they had physical sex no law would've been broken. however the allegation is that videos/photos were exchanged in which case a law would've been broken as the indecent images law applies to under 18. it's a pretty big inconsistency that probably needs aligning...a 17 year old couple could have all the sex they wanted but if they ever exchanged nudes they break the law I don’t see how you can have an age of consent lower for physical sex than you can for images. It’s utterly inconsistent and illogical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 Can be married at 16 legally with parental consent so you can be arrested for filming having legal sex with your wife the only logical choice is to allow nude pictures at 16/17 with parental consent 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 9, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bickster said: I don’t see how you can have an age of consent lower for physical sex than you can for images. It’s utterly inconsistent and illogical. you wonder if a high profile case such as this will start a parliamentary debate. however which direction to you go? lower the age for indecent images or make the age of consent 18? either way you're in a position that could potentially lose you voters edit: for the record i'd vote for the latter... Edited July 9, 2023 by tomav84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted July 9, 2023 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2023 27 minutes ago, tomav84 said: you wonder if a high profile case such as this will start a parliamentary debate. however which direction to you go? lower the age for indecent images or make the age of consent 18? either way you're in a position that could potentially lose you voters edit: for the record i'd vote for the latter... Personally, I think there should be a standard age of consent, which should be consistent with the age you can vote and an awful lot of other age restricted things. I'm also not sure it should be up to politicians what that age is. It’s perfect referendum material. It’s not like the country would be being asked to make a decision that requires complex economic / political knowledge, it’s a question of what the country feels is morally acceptable 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 54 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Can be married at 16 legally with parental consent Not anymore in England and Wales. The law changed in February, it's 18 in all cases now. Still 16 in Scotland. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 9 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Not anymore in England and Wales. The law changed in February, it's 18 in all cases now. Still 16 in Scotland. Perfect ammo for another Indy ref Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Cant see any mention of any grooming in the article so no crimes been commited as you said legal age is 16. Dont know why this is even a story tbh as you say its morally wrong only Well the timing of its release has certainly been beneficial to George Osborne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 BBC story says payments started when the person was 17, pictures could have been before then. It also does not mention onlyfans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 9, 2023 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2023 14 minutes ago, Genie said: BBC story says payments started when the person was 17, pictures could have been before then. It also does not mention onlyfans. The BBC story quotes the parents saying the payments started when he was 17, it also states that although they tried to contact them they haven’t replied. On its own the parents comments aren’t evidence of anything It also doesn’t appear that there is police involvement as yet but strangely there is a newspaper story The OnlyFans thing was a hypothetical question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted July 9, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2023 45 minutes ago, bickster said: Personally, I think there should be a standard age of consent, which should be consistent with the age you can vote and an awful lot of other age restricted things. I'm also not sure it should be up to politicians what that age is. It’s perfect referendum material. It’s not like the country would be being asked to make a decision that requires complex economic / political knowledge, it’s a question of what the country feels is morally acceptable I agree it should not be left to politicians, because if it was, it would be 12 or lower 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts