This Just In!

[Mr Celine]

Nothing can top Frank Bough

Snort!

 

[theclaud]

Snort!

It was an underrated post.

 

[lazybloke]

Was fairly surprised by the name I've seen on Twitter.
I'm not repeating it, so you can go look yourself... although there are far better things to do with your time on a Saturday night.

 

[Beebo]

I’ve never understood why anyone would spend £30k on photos when porn is basically a free commodity on the internet.

 

[BoldonLad]

I see things are moving on, according to BBC itself, unnamed presenter now suspended.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I see things are moving on, according to BBC itself, unnamed presenter now suspended.

Heard something about that this morning. As he was already off air how is suspension different though I suppose it means he's barred from BBC premises

 

[bobzmyunkle]

How much further can the BBC disappear up it's own arse reporting this without naming the presenter? The BBC, we'll miss it when it's gone.

 

[Deleted member 121]

How much further can the BBC disappear up it's own arse reporting this without naming the presenter? The BBC, we'll miss it when it's gone.

Can they name the presenter at this stage? There is police involvement. But it is not going to remain a secret for long, they'll be a journalist in every tree and bush surrounding the premises of all BBC presenters right now.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Can they name the presenter at this stage? There is police involvement. But it is not going to remain a secret for long, they'll be a journalist in every tree and bush surrounding the premises of all BBC presenters right now.

I just despair at the hand wringing (with reports from a least one, usually two special presenters). This morning 'the allegations could not be more serious'. Of course they could, nobody's suggested genocide took place.

 

[BoldonLad]

I just despair at the hand wringing (with reports from a least one, usually two special presenters). This morning 'the allegations could not be more serious'. Of course they could, nobody's suggested genocide took place.

Surely every presenter will want to get their face on the screen, just to show it is not them, ie, they are not suspended

 

[Beebo]

I just despair at the hand wringing (with reports from a least one, usually two special presenters). This morning 'the allegations could not be more serious'. Of course they could, nobody's suggested genocide took place.

The Sun are such a two faced paper. How often do they run stories about celebrities selling pictures on Only Fans.
It’s not even clear that a crime has taken place.
It isn’t a crime to buy pictures off the internet.
The only crime will be if he knowingly paid for under age photos, but this child was 17 so it’s a grey area for sexual matters. And they may well have lied about their age.

 

[Deleted member 121]

Surely every presenter will want to get their face on the screen, just to show it is not them, ie, they are not suspended

Vine and Lineker did or at least ruled themselves out but then the daily mail plastered their faces next to the article headline (they knew what they were doing). Both are universally hated there so, that inevitably spilled over into other social media platforms. The DM did originally run the headline that it was a top gear presenter but then changed it. Not known for their accuracy, it is hard to say whether that has any bearing on who it may or may not be.

 

[mudsticks]

The Sun are such a two faced paper. How often do they run stories about celebrities selling pictures on Only Fans.
It’s not even clear that a crime has taken place.
It isn’t a crime to buy pictures off the internet.
The only crime will be if he knowingly paid for under age photos, but this child was 17 so it’s a grey area for sexual matters. And they may well have lied about their age.

Can we stop with the 'but it might have been technically legal' wriggling about to somehow make these actions acceptable in any way shape or form - if the basic premise of the story is true.

A media presenter in a position of social and economic power pays young vulnerable person for explicit pictures.

If they were eighteen, or nineteen, whatever, that would all be lovely right??

The fact that there's lots of 'free*' 🙄 porn on the internet so why would you bother to pay, just adds to the overall sad state of affairs.

*Very rarely free of objectification, coercion, misogyny and or exploitation, though.

 

[spen666]

Can we stop with the 'but it might have been technically legal' wriggling about to somehow make these actions acceptable in any way shape or form - if the basic premise of the story is true.

A media presenter in a position of social and economic power pays young vulnerable person for explicit pictures.

If they were eighteen, or nineteen, whatever, that would all be lovely right??

The fact that there's lots of 'free*' 🙄 porn on the internet so why would you bother to pay, just adds to the overall sad state of affairs.

*Very rarely free of objectification, coercion, misogyny and or exploitation, though.

So lets not allow people to be not guilty of an offence because they have not committed a crime. There is no getting off on a technicality. You are either guilty or not. If EVERY element of the crime is not made out, then you are entitled to be found not guilty. That is not a technicality. That is how the law works

Self appointed arbiter of facts Mudsticks decides they don't like a media presenter, therefore they are guilty of a crime they may not have committed?


Yep ...this sounds like a perfectly fair system of a society to run on.


If people have committed a crime then they deserve to be punished. If they have not committed a crime, no matter how much you or I may dislike their actions they should not be punished


Perhaps its timely to point out Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

/

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

b to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

c to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

e to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Note it applies to everyone, not everyone except categories of persons Mudsticks takes umbrage with. The rights apply to everyone

 

[icowden]

If they were eighteen, or nineteen, whatever, that would all be lovely right??

It wouldn't be a great look, but it would be legal. (See Schofield for more details).