Also in the News - Part 2

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

 

 

If that independent tweet is correct I’m amazed it got past whoever approves their social media stuff - no way has that been passed  by a lawyer. If I’m rylan then I’m straight into defamation legals 

[Innovindil]

12 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Absolutely. 

 

It also begs the question why hasn't the mother gone to the police, rather than the BBC and then the press.

 

Because 'nudes' should only be for people 18+

 

God forbid the family thought they could make a few quid out of it.

 

I hope they spend it wisely 

 

And not arguing with you @MPH

 

And again, just to reiterate, in no way do I condone any of this.

 

Having reportedly made the BBC aware of their concerns on 19 May, the family said they became frustrated when the presenter remained on air and they then decided to approach the Sun.

They made clear they wanted no payment for the story, the paper reported.

 

Sounds like they went to the sun because the BBC wasn't acting. A good call considering how fast things changed once they did. 

[Daggers]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

They should have used the shredded email as confetti instead.

...glued to bricks.

[MonkeyTennis?]

I mean, if I had the sort of concerns that this parent had about the TV presenter and their kid, I would go to the police first. The BBC are the employer, and they will have processes for dealing with harassment at work, and misconduct in relation to external police investigations, etc, but they're not generally in the business of investigating this sort of stuff themselves. It's a weird story. The parent went to the BBC then the Sun, but never once thought to call the cops or social services?

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, MonkeyTennis? said:

I mean, if I had the sort of concerns that this parent had about the TV presenter and their kid, I would go to the police first. The BBC are the employer, and they will have processes for dealing with harassment at work, and misconduct in relation to external police investigations, etc, but they're not generally in the business of investigating this sort of stuff themselves. It's a weird story. The parent went to the BBC then the Sun, but never once thought to call the cops or social services?

I guess it's whether a crime has been committed. If this teenager set up an only fans account and lied about their age (not saying they did, I just don't know how else a person goes about buying nudes) then the presenter has not technically done anything illegal. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

The Protection of Children Act 1978 is absolutely specific and applies to this situation. I can't understand some posts mentioning OnlyFans etc. The relevant law is clear. 

By tomorrow afternoon the Police must proceed with an arrest warrant and name the person. There must be also a deep investigation against BBC executives. It's a disgrace. 

The police is already a joke. It's about time they stop spending hours in Co-Op and Greggs and start acting because we'll stop paying for anything regarding their funding. We've had enough. 

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

The Protection of Children Act 1978 is absolutely specific and applies to this situation. I can't understand some posts mentioning OnlyFans etc. The relevant law is clear. 

By tomorrow afternoon the Police must proceed with an arrest warrant and name the person. There must be also a deep investigation against BBC executives. It's a disgrace. 

The police is already a joke. It's about time they stop spending hours in Co-Op and Greggs and start acting because we'll stop paying for anything regarding their funding. We've had enough. 

The reason why people mention onlyfans is because if the teen signed up and lied about their age then the person buying the images can reasonably have assumed they were of legal age to sell them. Whose responsibility is it to ensure the legality? The market place selling them is responsible for ensuring the legality of the images they sell. 

 

If you bought a porn mag and it turned out one of the girls in it was 17 it doesn't make you a peado.

[FoyleFox]

51 minutes ago, MonkeyTennis? said:

I mean, if I had the sort of concerns that this parent had about the TV presenter and their kid, I would go to the police first. The BBC are the employer, and they will have processes for dealing with harassment at work, and misconduct in relation to external police investigations, etc, but they're not generally in the business of investigating this sort of stuff themselves. It's a weird story. The parent went to the BBC then the Sun, but never once thought to call the cops or social services?

Indeed. Surely the police or social services would be your first call if you were the concerned parent.

 

If the person in question wasn't a BBC TV person, would the parents have gone to the employer of the alleged offender and the newspapers, one wonders?

 

I know the police are now involved, and we only have limited information on who did what and when. Likewise, how the pictures were sourced/supplied.

[Fear Of The Fox]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The reason why people mention onlyfans is because if the teen signed up and lied about their age then the person buying the images can reasonably have assumed they were of legal age to sell them. Whose responsibility is it to ensure the legality? The market place selling them is responsible for ensuring the legality of the images they sell. 

 

If you bought a porn mag and it turned out one of the girls in it was 17 it doesn't make you a peado.

Is there confirmation the underaged girl was a member of OnlyFans? If I'm not mistaken this company is very strict in documenting and verifying by law the age of the members. As law it's my profession I find it very difficult to believe there wasn't personal interaction. 

If this person was tricked into the situation (believing he was having sexual interaction with a 18+) there are thousands more in the same state surely? If that's the case OnlyFans or any OnlyFans equivalent must be closed down immediately tomorrow morning and the people running this "business" arrested and prosecuted by Tuesday afternoon. 

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Is there confirmation the underaged girl was a member of OnlyFans? If I'm not mistaken this company is very strict in documenting and verifying by law the age of the members. As law it's my profession I find it very difficult to believe there wasn't personal interaction. 

If this person was tricked into the situation (believing he was having sexual interaction with a 18+) there are thousands more in the same state surely? If that's the case OnlyFans or any OnlyFans equivalent must be closed down immediately tomorrow morning and the people running this "business" arrested and prosecuted by Tuesday afternoon. 

No confirmation they used onlyfans, I think a lot of people are jumping to that conclusion because how else do you buy nudes? Even if you're mega famous you don't just walk up to someone and pay them for nudes. 

 

I'm sure if it turns out they did use a platform like Onlyfans there will be a massive crackdown on regulating these sites. 

[st albans fox]

Good job the sun are standing up for exploited teenagers - imagine if they’d published photos of topless 16 year olds in the past ……….with questionable agreement of the kid and their family ….

[Fear Of The Fox]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

No confirmation they used onlyfans, I think a lot of people are jumping to that conclusion because how else do you buy nudes? Even if you're mega famous you don't just walk up to someone and pay them for nudes. 

 

I'm sure if it turns out they did use a platform like Onlyfans there will be a massive crackdown on regulating these sites. 

There are a lot other ways to buy nudes or approach young females when you're famous. So OnlyFans or whatever is only speculation. As it is, my initial post stands and there is a severe violation of Protection of Children Act 1978. Everything else is irrelevant. 

I've said already that I don't believe the people running these platforms are so naive and stupid not to implement heavy checks on members. If it turns out they have underaged members is massive and I don't care about post crime regulating. You close them down and each one of them running these platforms gets a 10yr sentence. Simple. 

[Zear0]

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Good job the sun are standing up for exploited teenagers - imagine if they’d published photos of topless 16 year olds in the past ……….with questionable agreement of the kid and their family ….

"Sam, 16 from London, quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels"

 

For those unaware, the above was not a joke.

 

Classy paper aren't they...

[Wymsey]

Am convinced that there's been a lot of dirt within the BBC for a long time (away from this and the Jimmy Savile incidents).

 

This allegation, if found to be true, could lead much of the public to move away from using them as a news etc, source.

 

This is going to be ground-breaking, as if it isn't already, for different reasons.

 

So many questions for the BBC to answer.

Edited 9 July 2023 by Wymsey

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

"Sam, 16 from London, quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels"

 

For those unaware, the above was not a joke.

 

Classy paper aren't they...

I remember when one day they were leading with articles about paedophiles, whilst they had a ready written article talking about how sexy Charlotte Church was that they posted on her 16th birthday.

Edited 9 July 2023 by Facecloth

[Wymsey]

 

[FoyleFox]

48 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Good job the sun are standing up for exploited teenagers - imagine if they’d published photos of topless 16 year olds in the past ……….with questionable agreement of the kid and their family ….

Not an unfair point, although they don't do it any more, so could claim they've seen the error of their ways. A girl I was at college with did page 3, she was a year below me, and I was 17 when I left. So she definitely wasn't 18. The Sun claiming the moral high ground with anything is laughable.

[marbles]

1 minute ago, kingkisnorbo said:

But where will you find news that you believe to be true? 

It’s not just about whether the news is true or not - it’s also what is reported, and what the spin is.

 

For example, here in the states liberal based media will cover murders of minorities by white individuals for days and even weeks.  Yet you rarely find coverage that goes against the agenda - white individuals murdered by minorities.

With right wing media, it’s the opposite.  If you only watched right wing sources, you would think immigrants do nothing but commit crimes.

[kyleolly]

Don't Get Done, Get Dom

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

It’s not just about whether the news is true or not - it’s also what is reported, and what the spin is.

 

For example, here in the states liberal based media will cover murders of minorities by white individuals for days and even weeks.  Yet you rarely find coverage that goes against the agenda - white individuals murdered by minorities.

With right wing media, it’s the opposite.  If you only watched right wing sources, you would think immigrants do nothing but commit crimes.

Do you accept that some editorials and journalists are objective, report with integrity and are committed to impartiality? 

[nnfox]

Making/distributing/possessing indecent images of under 18s is an offence and the allegation should be investigated by the police because, you know, this is a criminal matter.

 

The parents reporting the matter to the BBC and not the police is a little weird.

 

The BBC's comments eluded that the details were a little sketchy and they were struggling to get into contact with the parents.

 

The parents then, still not reporting it to the police, go to The Sun, which is a non standard way of reporting a crime.

 

The preaenter has now been suspended, which is a sensible thing whilst the police now get on with doing their impartial, objective, investigation.  Maybe they're guilty, maybe they're not 

 

What I absolutely hate is the trial by media and the groundless opinions and speculation that offered by many and adopted as fact by some.

[marbles]

25 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Do you accept that some editorials and journalists are objective, report with integrity and are committed to impartiality? 

Of course

Are they on major outlets?  No.

 

 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

There are a lot other ways to buy nudes or approach young females when you're famous. So OnlyFans or whatever is only speculation. As it is, my initial post stands and there is a severe violation of Protection of Children Act 1978. Everything else is irrelevant. 

I've said already that I don't believe the people running these platforms are so naive and stupid not to implement heavy checks on members. If it turns out they have underaged members is massive and I don't care about post crime regulating. You close them down and each one of them running these platforms gets a 10yr sentence. Simple. 

I feel like it would be easier to use your influence to seduce and sleep with people than pay them for nude pictures, unless said nudes were already for sale. Look at Schofield for example. 

 

I would hope that these platforms have strict age regulation. However the internet is not exactly renowned for its robust age checking and it is easy to get round age restrictions by hosting in countries with lax age regulations. It would not surprise me one bit if Onlyfans or a similar copycat site has nothing more than a tickbox stating you are over 18.

 

I obviously agree on the legality of distribution of indecent images, it is merely speculation on how this happened and why the parents might not have wanted to go to the police or were advised against it. If you look at the Gylfi Sigurddson case recently whilst he did do something categorically illegal he was acquitted because he was deceived into it. Similarly had the teen in question provided nudes through a platform with age verification it could be seen as deception.

[SpacedX]

10 minutes ago, marbles said:

Of course

Are they on major outlets?  No.

 

 

I assure you that some of them are, in a great many areas of journalism. 

[marbles]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I assure you that some of them are, in a great many areas of journalism. 

Not so sure I believe that.