bickster Posted July 10, 2023 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: The Sun have said: "We have seen evidence that supports their concerns" The Sun could tell me the sun was out and I'd look out of the window to check.They clearly haven’t looked out of their own window 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, KentVillan said: it’s hard to see what the public interest case is, nor really what the star has done wrong morally or legally besides an interest in gay porn. As the former editor of the Sun just said on the TV, given the particular position that this person holds at the BBC, they will never appear on air again because it will be deemed that they have acted immorally. They also let slip that this is not a daughter. I was also surprised that they said the Sun's biggest mistake was not printing the webcam screenshot many of us have seen. They must think it isn't fake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: As the former editor of the Sun just said on the TV, given the particular position that this person holds at the BBC, they will never appear on air again because it will be deemed that they have acted immorally. They also let slip that this is not a daughter. I was also surprised that they said the Sun's biggest mistake was not printing the webcam screenshot many of us have seen. They must think it isn't fake. That’s because The Sun has a version of morality that is hypocritical horse shit, and the BBC are terrified of the Tories. Do we really think people in the media aren’t allowed to look at paid-for gay porn? Or are they suggesting a much more serious offence has happened? I’m really confused by what the accusation is here. The police don’t appear to have seen anything untoward so far. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, KentVillan said: That’s because The Sun has a version of morality that is hypocritical horse shit, and the BBC are terrified of the Tories. Do we really think people in the media aren’t allowed to look at paid-for gay porn? Or are they suggesting a much more serious offence has happened? I’m really confused by what the accusation is here. The police don’t appear to have seen anything untoward so far. I can't answer this without pointing to the star's identity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: I can't answer this without pointing to the star's identity. I mean we all know the star’s identity ffs, that still means absolutely **** nothing in the context of whether he’s allowed to pay for gay porn and present the thing that rhymes with the plural form of his name. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, KentVillan said: I mean we all know the star’s identity ffs, that still means absolutely **** nothing in the context of whether he’s allowed to pay for gay porn and present the thing that rhymes with the plural form of his name. Ok. I'm a married man and I work in a position of responsibility and I'm a buddhist. So if screenshots of me on a webcam appeared with me naked and apparently wanking over a young lad, I'm sure my wife and employer would consider my actions immoral. And many people would consider me a hypocrite if I'd been expounding buddhist teachings. And my employer wouldn't want me to continue leading big events where we open our doors to the public. I think I'm going to go back to the Villa pages now. I'm not sure why I got drawn into this. I think I'm having a crazy day. Edited July 10, 2023 by Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post KentVillan Posted July 10, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: Ok. I'm a married man and I work in a position of responsibility and I'm a buddhist. So if screenshots of me on a webcam appeared with me naked and apparently wanking over a young lad, I'm sure my wife and employer would consider my actions immoral. And many people would consider me a hypocrite if I'd been expunding buddhist teachings. Err ok, but you are projecting your own life and religious beliefs onto someone else, while ignoring privacy laws, human rights, and employment law. Being in a straight marriage doesn’t suddenly make gay porn immoral, and doesn’t make wanking a sackable offence. We have no idea what the actual background to all this is re the family, but the whole thing looks like a stitch up. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post djdabush Posted July 10, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: Ok. I'm a married man and I work in a position of responsibility. So if screenshots of me on a webcam appeared with me naked and apparently wanking over a young lad, I'm sure my wife and employer would consider my actions immoral. What's it got to do with your employer unless you are prosecuted for commiting a criminal offence? How 'immoral' do you have to be to get sacked? If you have an affair should you get the boot? What if it wasn't gay porn, is that still immoral enough to sack you? Employers aren't the morality police and nor should they be. 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 So because the Sun didn't name anyone in their story they're probably protected to a degree from libel action. What we really haven't ascertained yet. Is if anything illegal has actually taken place. I assume if the pictures were sent when the person was 17 it's illegal thus a case for the Police. If as might have been suggested it was via OnlyFans or something where they have rules around age then that's probably a reasonable defence. If contact while the person was 18 and then no pictures sent until the person was an adult then this is a private matter and the persons parents have legally no role in their childs decisions once the person is legally an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 7 hours ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: Ok. I'm a married man and I work in a position of responsibility and I'm a buddhist. So if screenshots of me on a webcam appeared with me naked and apparently wanking over a young lad, I'm sure my wife and employer would consider my actions immoral. And many people would consider me a hypocrite if I'd been expounding buddhist teachings. And my employer wouldn't want me to continue leading big events where we open our doors to the public. I think I'm going to go back to the Villa pages now. I'm not sure why I got drawn into this. I think I'm having a crazy day. People should be allowed do whatever they like if it's legal regardless of what others think is immoral. This is just simply tolerance of others. Employers only have grounds to fire you if you breached their code of conduct and that code doesn't infringe on your legal rights. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 1 hour ago, CVByrne said: So because the Sun didn't name anyone in their story they're probably protected to a degree from libel action. There are precedents where such a narrow group of potential suspects are identified that defamation is still possible. The classic case is when an unnamed male detective at Banbury C.I.D. was accused publicly of raping a woman. That narrowed it down to 10 men and they sued. This case seems similar, since the finger has clearly been pointed at a very high earning male BBC employee, and the number of potential alleged culprits is similar. Hence all the attention on the same few names we’ve seen over the last few days. The story does seem to be falling apart now. Eg the estranged parents claim they were ignored by the BBC, but also claim they were allowed to put their case for an hour. Whole thing is a mess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 I read somewhere that the reason the dad(?) went to the Sun, is because he went first to the police who said there's no evidence of anything illegal. The whole thing stinks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 So there’s the mum, the dad, the son and the lawyer all contradicting each other. Then the Sun writing things that some of them disagree with. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 Are we comfortable with a person of that (assumed) age doing this with a 17 year old? Would we feel differently if this was Piers Morgan or someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 3 minutes ago, bobzy said: Are we comfortable with a person of that (assumed) age doing this with a 17 year old? Would we feel differently if this was Piers Morgan or someone? Doing what? Bear in mind the young man is now 20 years old, and this seems to have largely (or entirely?) happened when he was an adult. It’s not a Philip Schofield type situation afaics, but more of an online transaction … porn, webcams, that kind of thing. No suggestion he was groomed or that they even met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, bobzy said: Are we comfortable with a person of that (assumed) age doing this with a 17 year old? Would we feel differently if this was Piers Morgan or someone? I don’t think anyone has any idea what happened at this stage. On one hand the family were apparently angry that he remained on air despite their complaint and then in the last day or 2 the same family, or part of it is saying the presenter did nothing wrong. Complete mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 I bet the Sun are making a fortune in paper sales and ad revenue on the website. It’s like the Harry and Meghan stuff, regardless of the truth the papers will be raking it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, KentVillan said: Doing what? Bear in mind the young man is now 20 years old, and this seems to have largely (or entirely?) happened when he was an adult. It’s not a Philip Schofield type situation afaics, but more of an online transaction … porn, webcams, that kind of thing. No suggestion he was groomed or that they even met. There’s an (assumed) very large age gap between a person requesting (?) indecent images of a 17 year old. We’re cool with that? Edited July 11, 2023 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 Debates about the ethical nature of a separate age of consent vs the legal age to take sexual videos/photos aside, if they were 17, and he knew they were 17, it's a crime, simple as that. Given the fluid nature of this story I'd probably hold out on judging anyone just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, bobzy said: There’s an (assumed) very large age gap between a person requesting (?) indecent images of a 17 year old. We’re cool with that? Do you go into a corner shop to buy some beer and question if the young member of staff is over 18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts