BBC Presenter

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, Class of 75 said:

Just waiting for Holly to ask are you ok?

[Portable Badger]

5 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

People are going to gossip. It is the true purpose of social media. CEOs can talk all they want about connecting and networking but that is only part of what it get used for...People need to just get wise to what the internet and social media are all about and then either embrace it or reject it.

 

Personally I don't have social media other than on here and the Daily Mail site. Sometimes I write what I think, other times I press buttons for cheapies...

Like yourself my only SM account is this site.

While I agree gossip is one of the key drivers of sm it cannot be a place to make salacious accusations, that potentially could destroy their lives or livelihood, without any recourse.

I only knew about Nicky C pressing charges as it’s stated on the BBC website. I have no idea what was said on SM but I’m really glad Campbell is going after the accusers. I hope he wins and severe custodial sentences are handed out.

[JudyJudyJudy]

50 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well go and have a moan at them on Twitter then and give us some peace. I simply believe in free speech and do not like control freaks, particularly sanctimonious ones...

 

[Spellczech]

7 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Like yourself my only SM account is this site.

While I agree gossip is one of the key drivers of sm it cannot be a place to make salacious accusations, that potentially could destroy their lives or livelihood, without any recourse.

I only knew about Nicky C pressing charges as it’s stated on the BBC website. I have no idea what was said on SM but I’m really glad Campbell is going after the accusers. I hope he wins and severe custodial sentences are handed out.

Public figures get huge benefits from being public figures and there are also huge costs to being one, like having to defend your reputation if it matters to you...It is simply not possible to stop proactively, as there are not enough moderators in the World who could do this for Twitter alone. Suing for money doesn't help if the agitator has no money, so you just have to do what the likes of Vine and Clarke do and say "wuznae me" then appear on BBC1 the next day.

 

The interesting thing is that the presenter apparently admits it and so does the young woman. You have to think it will come out eventually who the person is, so they may as well put everyone who is not the person out of their misery...

 

The media have a strange way of pussy-footing around in specific instances. Like the why has nobody printed a photo of Andrew Flintoff since his accident? Clearly his face must've been pretty seriously messed up given that he has retired from presenting and retired from public. It seems editors do make decisions en masse even when the law is nowhere to be seen.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Spellczech

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

3 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Like yourself my only SM account is this site.

While I agree gossip is one of the key drivers of sm it cannot be a place to make salacious accusations, that potentially could destroy their lives or livelihood, without any recourse.

I only knew about Nicky C pressing charges as it’s stated on the BBC website. I have no idea what was said on SM but I’m really glad Campbell is going after the accusers. I hope he wins and severe custodial sentences are handed out.

Defamation cases are civil so don’t result in prison sentences. But they can cost the losing party huge amounts of money. Rooney v Vardy a good example.

 

It’s amazing that at this point, people still don’t realise that you can’t just randomly libel people on Twitter. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Public figures get huge benefits from being public figures and there are also huge costs to being one, like having to defend your reputation if it matters to you...It is simply not possible to stop proactively, as there are not enough moderators in the World who could do this for Twitter alone. Suing for money doesn't help if the agitator has no money, so you just have to do what the likes of Vine and Clarke do and say "wuznae me" then appear on BBC1 the next day.

It’s true that quite often the people who post this stuff have no money and aren’t worth the effort, but it’s probably important to at least make people think they’re at risk of being sued if they just post whatever.

 

There was the case recently of that celebrity doctor who libelled on Twitter some politician in Northern Ireland - Arlene whatever she’s called? That cost him a mint, and he ended up trying to crowd fund the damages. Don’t imagine he’ll have had much success with that 

[Portable Badger]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Defamation cases are civil so don’t result in prison sentences. But they can cost the losing party huge amounts of money. Rooney v Vardy a good example.

 

It’s amazing that at this point, people still don’t realise that you can’t just randomly libel people on Twitter. 

Thanks for the clarity of legal pursuit.

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

It’s true that quite often the people who post this stuff have no money and aren’t worth the effort, but it’s probably important to at least make people think they’re at risk of being sued if they just post whatever.

 

There was the case recently of that celebrity doctor who libelled on Twitter some politician in Northern Ireland - Arlene whatever she’s called? That cost him a mint, and he ended up trying to crowd fund the damages. Don’t imagine he’ll have had much success with that 

Clearly they do go after those who are financially worth going after, but everyone knows these are only rare instances. Same with when the police come knocking on trolls doors following the latest murder or whatever...

 

The internet is not a "nice" place. Personally I think the Govt should provide safe sites for under 16s. For the rest of us, it will always be the wild west and we have to be self-policing. I find it hard to believe that anyone places any faith in any of the names mentioned on this thread - you'd have to be pretty stupid to do so...and who cares what stupid people believe?  Just like you don't engage with the crazy people who spend their days talking to themselves near the Omni Centre...

[Ked]

15 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Public figures get huge benefits from being public figures and there are also huge costs to being one, like having to defend your reputation if it matters to you...It is simply not possible to stop proactively, as there are not enough moderators in the World who could do this for Twitter alone. Suing for money doesn't help if the agitator has no money, so you just have to do what the likes of Vine and Clarke do and say "wuznae me" then appear on BBC1 the next day.

 

The interesting thing is that the presenter apparently admits it and so does the young woman. You have to think it will come out eventually who the person is, so they may as well put everyone who is not the person out of their misery...

 

The media have a strange way of pussy-footing around in specific instances. Like the why has nobody printed a photo of Andrew Flintoff since his accident? Clearly his face must've been pretty seriously messed up given that he has retired from presenting and retired from public. It seems editors do make decisions en masse even when the law is nowhere to be seen.

I might be getting mixed up but isn't this because the presenter is under investigation regarding other offences.

 

[Portable Badger]

5 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Public figures get huge benefits from being public figures and there are also huge costs to being one, like having to defend your reputation if it matters to you...It is simply not possible to stop proactively, as there are not enough moderators in the World who could do this for Twitter alone. Suing for money doesn't help if the agitator has no money, so you just have to do what the likes of Vine and Clarke do and say "wuznae me" then appear on BBC1 the next day.

The principle of free speech is an anathema - you cannot have people just post absolute unfounded lies while hiding behind the defence of  ‘well they can go on SM & post “It wisnae me’.

 

I cant remember the guys name but he came up with the Westminster paedophilic ring & that one victim was killed.  It was all feckin lies but was championed by one MP along with SM & MSM.  Prominent people were named as perpetrators and absolutely hounded. One of the accused committed suicide and others, like Sir Leon Britton, died before it was confirmed to be absolute fiction.

[Spellczech]

Just now, Portable Badger said:

The principle of free speech is an anathema - you cannot have people just post absolute unfounded lies while hiding behind the defence of  ‘well they can go on SM & post “It wisnae me’.

 

I cant remember the guys name but he came up with the Westminster paedophilic ring & that one victim was killed.  It was all feckin lies but was championed by one MP along with SM & MSM.  Prominent people were named as perpetrators and absolutely hounded. One of the accused committed suicide and others, like Sir Leon Britton, died before it was confirmed to be absolute fiction.

I think his nom de guerre was "Nick". The problem with that case was that the police knew he was a fantasist or at least some police did and others failed to connect "Nick" to his history of BS..."Nick" himself ended up in prison, but you have to wonder about those policemen...

 

I take the view that very little which individuals say on the internet is true. It may be their opinion, it may be "their truth" (as Harry and Meghan would call it) but it's probably all garbage. I include myself in that. Sometimes I write my true opinion other times I just push peoples' buttons because I perhaps take a perverse delight in doing that - more on the Daily Mail website than on here if I'm honest...

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

Yeah but it is not a closed shop like JKB which has prompted Vine and Clark to say "Wuznae me" - It is Twitter, Threads etc.

 

Not wanting to weigh in to the overall debate, merely focussing on a single point, but in which way is JKB a closed shop?

 

All posts on this forum are publicly accessible. If someone on here were to defame someone else then the defamed person would be able to seek recourse in law if they so desired. The defamer might be able to argue that the "reach" of JKB is not that of a major social media site, but they wouldn't be able to argue that the defamation hadn't taken place in the public domain.

[Spellczech]

37 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

Surely he is just exercising his right to free speech by posting his dislike of it? 

Interesting concept - the exercise of free speech in shutting down others...

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Spellczech said:

Interesting concept - the exercise of free speech in shutting down others...

It's all the rage these days 

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Not wanting to weigh in to the overall debate, merely focussing on a single point, but in which way is JKB a closed shop?

 

All posts on this forum are publicly accessible. If someone on here were to defame someone else then the defamed person would be able to seek recourse in law if they so desired. The defamer might be able to argue that the "reach" of JKB is not that of a major social media site, but they wouldn't be able to argue that the defamation hadn't taken place in the public domain.

I meant that you are not addressing or hashtagging the very person you are suggesting as being a naughty boy... 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Spellczech

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Not wanting to weigh in to the overall debate, merely focussing on a single point, but in which way is JKB a closed shop?

 

All posts on this forum are publicly accessible. If someone on here were to defame someone else then the defamed person would be able to seek recourse in law if they so desired. The defamer might be able to argue that the "reach" of JKB is not that of a major social media site, but they wouldn't be able to argue that the defamation hadn't taken place in the public domain.

The last point is a good one. Quite often, Twitter defamation cases go after people who’ve retweeted or liked libellous posts too. Quite often pointless - loads of accounts are anonymous and Twitter isn’t usually great at supplying personal details - but the more a tweet is duplicated, the more aggravated the libel is.

 

JKB is so small that you could reasonably argue that very few people of significance would see the libel. But you’d still get landed with hefty legal costs getting to that stage.

[redjambo]

Just now, Spellczech said:

I meant that you are not addressing or hashtagging the very person you are accusing of being a naughty boy... 

 

Ah, ok. I'm sure that incorporating some form of "direct communication" doesn't matter with regards to defamation, but thanks for clarifying what you meant.

 

Purely for information purposes to everyone, and not as any form of argument:

 

https://www.lindsays.co.uk/news-and-insights/insights/the-new-scots-law-of-defamation-in-2021

 

Defamation is defined under the new Act as the publishing of a statement which has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of another, that is, if it tends to lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of ordinary persons. The defamatory statement must be published to someone other than the individual being defamed.  Notably, a statement is said to be ‘published’ when the recipient has seen or heard it.

 

...

 

The Act also sets out defences to defamation. They are:

1. That the statement made is true, or substantially true.
2. That the defamation was in the public interest, regardless of whether the statement was a fact or an opinion.
3. That the defamation was an honest opinion based on evidence.  In order for this defence to succeed, the court must determine that an honest person could have held the opinion conveyed by the statement on the basis of any part of the evidence referenced. The defence fails if it is determined that the defender did not genuinely hold the opinion conveyed by the statement.
4. The defence of qualified privilege also exists in a limited set of circumstances, for example, in peer reviewed academic writing.

[i wish jj was my dad]

13 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

The principle of free speech is an anathema - you cannot have people just post absolute unfounded lies while hiding behind the defence of  ‘well they can go on SM & post “It wisnae me’.

 

I cant remember the guys name but he came up with the Westminster paedophilic ring & that one victim was killed.  It was all feckin lies but was championed by one MP along with SM & MSM.  Prominent people were named as perpetrators and absolutely hounded. One of the accused committed suicide and others, like Sir Leon Britton, died before it was confirmed to be absolute fiction.

Indeed. The digital world has many benefits but it has enabled a culture that allows people to behave in a way that would never have been acceptable not that long ago which in extremes lead to the kind of example you have mentioned. Folk think they can say what they want because they are hiding behind a keyboard. What i would consider normal boundaries get crossed a lot more than they would have in the past.  At best, it erodes respectable debate. At worst it can ruin lives of people who have done nothing to deserve it.

It is also more than ironic that the greatest champions of free speech often lose their enthusiasm for it when called out for what they have said.  

[Spellczech]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Ah, ok. I'm sure that incorporating some form of "direct communication" doesn't matter with regards to defamation, but thanks for clarifying what you meant.

 

Purely for information purposes to everyone, and not as any form of argument:

 

https://www.lindsays.co.uk/news-and-insights/insights/the-new-scots-law-of-defamation-in-2021

 

Defamation is defined under the new Act as the publishing of a statement which has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of another, that is, if it tends to lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of ordinary persons. The defamatory statement must be published to someone other than the individual being defamed.  Notably, a statement is said to be ‘published’ when the recipient has seen or heard it.

 

...

 

The Act also sets out defences to defamation. They are:

1. That the statement made is true, or substantially true.
2. That the defamation was in the public interest, regardless of whether the statement was a fact or an opinion.
3. That the defamation was an honest opinion based on evidence.  In order for this defence to succeed, the court must determine that an honest person could have held the opinion conveyed by the statement on the basis of any part of the evidence referenced. The defence fails if it is determined that the defender did not genuinely hold the opinion conveyed by the statement.
4. The defence of qualified privilege also exists in a limited set of circumstances, for example, in peer reviewed academic writing.

? You are talking about defamation. I never mentioned it...I was talking about people posting denial tweets.

 

Defamation law, like much other law, is a blunt tool from another time (I have a law degree BTW)

Edited July 9, 2023 by Spellczech

[milky_26]

54 minutes ago, HamishMcGonagall said:

I've seen some of the reports word it as "bbc presenter faces fresh allegations" which suggests it could  be someone that's had allegations of misconduct against them previously.

the way i read those reports were, he has been accused of buying pictures from the 17 to 20YO and now there are further pictures of the accused in their underwear that they shared with the 17 to 20YO

[highlandjambo3]

I remember stopping off at a large town called Bo in Sierra Leone to pick up supplies, there were an unusual large number of people walking about in the town centre and, when I asked a local what was happening, he replied that a child had been knocked over and killed the previous day and, the towns people were carrying out an investigation 🤷‍♂️ strange world we like in.

[Portable Badger]

5 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Indeed. The digital world has many benefits but it has enabled a culture that allows people to behave in a way that would never have been acceptable not that long ago which in extremes lead to the kind of example you have mentioned. Folk think they can say what they want because they are hiding behind a keyboard. What i would consider normal boundaries get crossed a lot more than they would have in the past.  At best, it erodes respectable debate. At worst it can ruin lives of people who have done nothing to deserve it.

It is also more than ironic that the greatest champions of free speech often lose their enthusiasm for it when called out for what they have said.  

Maybe we come from a time when ‘Net-curtain twickers’, ‘voyeurs’ and ‘Gossipers’ were still a social embarrassment: these days it’s almost seen as a badge of honour. I personally detest programmes like Love Island, Big Bros, etc... as that’s all they promote in society.

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

? You are talking about defamation. I never mentioned it...I was talking about people posting denial tweets.

 

The thread has covered defamation as well as the fact that people tend to engage in idle speculation and gossip on social media. You mentioned your thought that JKB is a "closed shop". I am merely making the point, in general and to everyone, in case they may have thought otherwise, that JKB is not a closed shop as regards being an environment in which defamation can be committed by those engaged in speculation or gossip. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions, but it's always good to do so from a base of knowledge.

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

the way i read those reports were, he has been accused of buying pictures from the 17 to 20YO and now there are further pictures of the accused in their underwear that they shared with the 17 to 20YO

 

Was also my take on it.

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Maybe we come from a time when ‘Net-curtain twickers’, ‘voyeurs’ and ‘Gossipers’ were still a social embarrassment: these days it’s almost seen as a badge of honour. I personally detest programmes like Love Island, Big Bros, etc... as that’s all they promote in society.

Yep. It's pretty shit that it has become acceptable and even seen as normal. 

[henrysmithsgloves]

[Portable Badger]

2 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

Two sweet ones please. Not too keen on the salted ones.

Thanks

[henrysmithsgloves]

1 minute ago, Portable Badger said:

Two sweet ones please. Not too keen on the salted ones.

Thanks

But the salted ones are flavoured by an anonymous BBC presenter 😧

[Portable Badger]

Just now, henrysmithsgloves said:

But the salted ones are flavoured by an anonymous BBC presenter 😧

That’s why I don’t want them!!!!

 

😂

 

( I was going to make a similar comment when I replied but thought I’d better not)

[Lone Striker]

46 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

The principle of free speech is an anathema - you cannot have people just post absolute unfounded lies while hiding behind the defence of  ‘well they can go on SM & post “It wisnae me’.

 

I cant remember the guys name but he came up with the Westminster paedophilic ring & that one victim was killed.  It was all feckin lies but was championed by one MP along with SM & MSM.  Prominent people were named as perpetrators and absolutely hounded. One of the accused committed suicide and others, like Sir Leon Britton, died before it was confirmed to be absolute fiction.

Isn't that Carl Beech you're thinking of ?   Wasted thousands of hours of police time investigating a mythical paedo ring involving politicians, judges, celebs - even senior police.   His allegations were even championed in Parliament by Tom Watson & Zac Goldsmith      Ted Heath, Greville Janner, Leon Brittan,   Harvey Proctor and several high ranking Military folk all part of what Beech claimed included the killing of a a very young boy.

 

Took years for the truth to come out that Beech himself was the paedo, and he just invented all this act to feed his twisted need for victimhood attention rather than criminal attention.  

 

In this BBC presenter allegation, does the Sun actually claim to have seen evidence of the child's pics or texts from the BBC guy ?  Or are they just going on what the child's mum verbally alleges ?   

 

The Beech case does set a precedent for false allegations against the establishment.

[hughesie27]

16 hours ago, Craig_ said:

Osborne email:

 

https://pastebin.com/3DRZpzDP

TLDR anyone?

[Portable Badger]

1 minute ago, Lone Striker said:

Isn't that Carl Beech you're thinking of ?   Wasted thousands of hours of police time investigating a mythical paedo ring involving politicians, judges, celebs - even senior police.   His allegations were even championed in Parliament by Tom Watson & Zac Goldsmith      Ted Heath, Greville Janner, Leon Brittan,   Harvey Proctor and several high ranking Military folk all part of what Beech claimed included the killing of a a very young boy.

 

Took years for the truth to come out that Beech himself was the paedo, and he just invented all this act to feed his twisted need for victimhood attention rather than criminal attention.  

 

In this BBC presenter allegation, does the Sun actually claim to have seen evidence of the child's pics or texts from the BBC guy ?  Or are they just going on what the child's mum verbally alleges ?   

 

The Beech case does set a precedent for false allegations against the establishment.

That name sounds about right. The lives that whole episode destroyed and yet all you got from the MPs was a defensive ‘sorry it was wrong but.....’.  *******s.

 

In terms of today’s allegation I’m not sure. You would think that whoever broke the news would have done their journalistic homework before going to print.

[JudyJudyJudy]

48 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Ah, ok. I'm sure that incorporating some form of "direct communication" doesn't matter with regards to defamation, but thanks for clarifying what you meant.

 

Purely for information purposes to everyone, and not as any form of argument:

 

https://www.lindsays.co.uk/news-and-insights/insights/the-new-scots-law-of-defamation-in-2021

 

Defamation is defined under the new Act as the publishing of a statement which has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of another, that is, if it tends to lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of ordinary persons. The defamatory statement must be published to someone other than the individual being defamed.  Notably, a statement is said to be ‘published’ when the recipient has seen or heard it.

 

...

 

The Act also sets out defences to defamation. They are:

1. That the statement made is true, or substantially true.
2. That the defamation was in the public interest, regardless of whether the statement was a fact or an opinion.
3. That the defamation was an honest opinion based on evidence.  In order for this defence to succeed, the court must determine that an honest person could have held the opinion conveyed by the statement on the basis of any part of the evidence referenced. The defence fails if it is determined that the defender did not genuinely hold the opinion conveyed by the statement.
4. The defence of qualified privilege also exists in a limited set of circumstances, for example, in peer reviewed academic writing.

I went to a solicitor earlier this year regarding this issue . He stated exactly the above . 

[Armageddon]

Twitter witch-hunters demanding “Tell us who the nonce is”.  Whoever it is isn’t a nonce with a 17-20 year old 😂😂

 

Ok, what’s happened may be viewed and not ideal, but I don’t get the complete nosey drama.

 

Someone over the age of consent has been paid £35k for photos, Only Fans style, I’ll bet there’s a blackmail plot here that has dried up.

 

Theres a FAR bigger situation with the injunction granted in stopping the BBC reporting multiple sexual assault/abuse allegations against one of the biggest names in the UK.

[JudyJudyJudy]

44 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

I remember stopping off at a large town called Bo in Sierra Leone to pick up supplies, there were an unusual large number of people walking about in the town centre and, when I asked a local what was happening, he replied that a child had been knocked over and killed the previous day and, the towns people were carrying out an investigation 🤷‍♂️ strange world we like in.

Tasteless voyeurism 

41 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

Maybe we come from a time when ‘Net-curtain twickers’, ‘voyeurs’ and ‘Gossipers’ were still a social embarrassment: these days it’s almost seen as a badge of honour. I personally detest programmes like Love Island, Big Bros, etc... as that’s all they promote in society.

Hate love island it promotes all the wrong things 

28 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

I’ll have a large bucket please . Sweet . And a large hot dog , with lashings of mustard 

22 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

But the salted ones are flavoured by an anonymous BBC presenter 😧

😂

11 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Isn't that Carl Beech you're thinking of ?   Wasted thousands of hours of police time investigating a mythical paedo ring involving politicians, judges, celebs - even senior police.   His allegations were even championed in Parliament by Tom Watson & Zac Goldsmith      Ted Heath, Greville Janner, Leon Brittan,   Harvey Proctor and several high ranking Military folk all part of what Beech claimed included the killing of a a very young boy.

 

Took years for the truth to come out that Beech himself was the paedo, and he just invented all this act to feed his twisted need for victimhood attention rather than criminal attention.  

 

In this BBC presenter allegation, does the Sun actually claim to have seen evidence of the child's pics or texts from the BBC guy ?  Or are they just going on what the child's mum verbally alleges ?   

 

The Beech case does set a precedent for false allegations against the establishment.

Lots of people didn’t feel much empathy for the accused as they were mainly Tories . Harvey proctor had his life ruined really 

[Japan Jambo]

3 hours ago, jambo89 said:

Could be Attenbourgh

 

nah that'll involve animals 

 

(Joking obviously)

Edited July 9, 2023 by Japan Jambo

[Portable Badger]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

This sounds like an Only Fans type gig outside the under 18 part. 
 

 
 

 

In English please? Not sure I understand your point sorry

[henrysmithsgloves]

29 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

That’s why I don’t want them!!!!

 

😂

 

( I was going to make a similar comment when I replied but thought I’d better not)

🤣🤣 The sweet ones are flavoured by an anonymous diabetic ITV presenter 🤫😉

[Portable Badger]

Just now, henrysmithsgloves said:

🤣🤣 The sweet ones are flavoured by an anonymous diabetic ITV presenter 🤫😉

Is ITV still a thing?

[henrysmithsgloves]

1 minute ago, Portable Badger said:

Is ITV still a thing?

STD clinic seems to think so 🤫🤫🤫

Anyway after much detective work you can cross these two off the list😜😁

 

[Gundermann]

Does the BBC have more nonces than the Royal Family?

 

Surely a question for that bastion of impartiality, Question Time.

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

Twitter witch-hunters demanding “Tell us who the nonce is”.  Whoever it is isn’t a nonce with a 17-20 year old 😂😂

 

 

It's illegal to solicit indecent photos of under 18s, and as nonce just means sex offender, it's pretty factual

[Portable Badger]

1 minute ago, Gundermann said:

Does the BBC have more nonces than the Royal Family?

 

Surely a question for that bastion of impartiality, Question Time.

QT fae Hamilton?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

27 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

TLDR anyone?

yeah, 100 %

[Armageddon]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's illegal to solicit indecent photos of under 18s, and as nonce just means sex offender, it's pretty factual

Took 3 years and £35k to report.

[Portable Badger]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

Only Fans is an app/website where content owners are paid direct for their services by ‘fans’ 
 

It’s very popular amongst young women and men who sell varying degrees of adult content such as naked pictures, porn etc as a way to montenize their ‘skill’ set. 

 

https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/news-blogs/what-is-onlyfans-what-parents-need-to-know/#:~:text=OnlyFans is an online platform,order to monetise their profession.

 

If the women was over 18, (BIG IF, I accept) I’m not sure what the individual will have done wrong🤷🏻‍♂️ Not my cup of tea but legally they will have done nothing wrong. 
 

As this sort of shit take place on a mass scale on things like only fans everyday; as it’s perfectly legal. 
 

 

Got a link to the website itself? Asking for a friend 

 

😳

[Lone Striker]

1 minute ago, Armageddon said:

Took 3 years and £35k to report.

Aye.... slightly odd, that.    The mother says the "child" is a crack-head now and its the BBC's fault.  

 

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

Took 3 years and £35k to report.

 

Aye, I'm just saying

[Portable Badger]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Only Fans is an app/website where content owners are paid direct for their services by ‘fans’ 
 

It’s very popular amongst young women and men who sell varying degrees of adult content such as naked pictures, porn etc as a way to montenize their ‘skill’ set. 

 

https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/news-blogs/what-is-onlyfans-what-parents-need-to-know/#:~:text=OnlyFans is an online platform,order to monetise their profession.

 

If the women was over 18, (BIG IF, I accept) I’m not sure what the individual will have done wrong🤷🏻‍♂️ Not my cup of tea but legally they will have done nothing wrong. 
 

As this sort of shit take place on a mass scale on things like only fans everyday; as it’s perfectly legal. 
 

 

Thanks for that - had no friggin idea about sites like this existed. I say that and then I’ll say it doesn’t surprise me though these days.

 

Tell me then (anyone can answer) - if these sites exist then why has this person  allegedly paid £35k to one person? Surely there are photies of boys in pants for free on T’internet?

 

Back in the day friends would cut out pages with women modelling underwear from the Littlewoods catalogue or buy a magazine from the top shelf!!

[henrysmithsgloves]

9 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Only Fans is an app/website where content owners are paid direct for their services by ‘fans’ 
 

It’s very popular amongst young women and men who sell varying degrees of adult content such as naked pictures, porn etc as a way to montenize their ‘skill’ set. 

 

https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/news-blogs/what-is-onlyfans-what-parents-need-to-know/#:~:text=OnlyFans is an online platform,order to monetise their profession.

 

If the women was over 18, (BIG IF, I accept) I’m not sure what the individual will have done wrong🤷🏻‍♂️ Not my cup of tea but legally they will have done nothing wrong. 
 

As this sort of shit take place on a mass scale on things like only fans everyday; as it’s perfectly legal. 
 

 

Do you charge by the inch? If so, I'm scuppered with my "skill set" 😥