Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Sordid is quite a strong word
sordid /ˈsɔːdɪd/ adjective 1. involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Imagine the difference between you- a man of the world- and the average reader of the Mail, who is simultaneously outraged and titilated by curve-flaunting. Did you manage to expunge the Mail from your computer in the end?
I did. They snuck a tiny app (widget?) onto my PC. Once that was deleted, problem solved
Woman wears skirt and heels is in a similar PB vein as bloke eats bacon sarnie or man cries at funeral.
Mate, you’re talking to the guy who correctly identified the sexual significance of THE NECKLACE after fifteen seconds.
We are talking to the guy with a fetlife account who insists on posting online fetish-based analyses of female politicians based on evidence that may be exceedingly sparse. How would you characterise this behavior?
If Italy is the model for all future Western politics then it can't be long before we start getting porn star MPs.
Two points
* I imagine (and there is no way I'm going to look) that there are many AI-generated images of UK politicians of all stripes in various states of undress and poses. * The question of what to do with politicians discovered to have unusual sex with consenting adults has arisen before (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Contender_(2000_film) for a fictional example). I can't think of a specific UK example other than sex-with-prostitutes and the Profumo affair. I assume others will provide further examples if they exist
I suppose the most obvious one that springs to mind is the sad case of Stephen Milligan although of course that didn't involve anyone else.
It prompted a remarkable obituary from Auberon Waugh, in The Spectator.
Happy to believe you, but yet again Google refuses to provide me with a link. Either I've done something really weird, there are filters on the wifi I am not aware of, or the noted-by-others degradation of Google has reached a point where it's useless.
"Few of us would imagine that there was much fun to be had on a kitchen table alone with some electric flex, a dustbin liner and a satsuma fruit unless someone had told us. I have been around longer than Milligan and nobody ever told me about it. Nobody discussed these things at Oxford in my day. Was it in the House of Commons tea-room that Milligan learned such tricks, or in the alcohol-free canteens of the Sun day Times? Perhaps there are secret net works of AEA practitioners who hold conferences in provincial hotels and read each other papers.
In a way I hope not, because it would subtract from Milligan's contribution. If we ask ourselves whether, by his death, Milligan has contributed more to the gaiety of the nation or to its sorrows, the answer is unmistakable. Sorry as we are for the friends and relations, Stephen Milligan has made a massive contribution to the gaiety and happiness of us all at a rather gloomy time in the country's history. Nor do I believe that he made a socialist victory any more certain than it already was with Major as leader. But having commiserated with his various friends and relations, I must also admit that well-intentioned attempts to be solemn about his death succeed only in making it funnier. "
That's not very nice.
The past is truly another country. i am not going to look but I bet there's an active subreddit devoted to this hobby with a pinned "how to" to take you through the basics. The point is, it needs to be a lemon because you involuntarily bite on it and the sharpness of the juice wakes you up. A satsuma is hopeless. It has always mystified me how someone as bright as Milligan allegedly was did not understand this.
Auto-erotic asphyxiation is certainly one of the strangest ways to die.
Must be unbearable for the family - especially as plain 'suicide' is itself the obvious option, and in its way just as unbearable. Also very difficult for the police, coroner/fiscal, and pathologists to deal with sensitively.
In its way, it's like the man whose party trick was lighting fireworks from his arse. One day, he lit at the wrong end, a firework called Black Cat Thunderbolt, and it shot up his anus. At the point of impact, the temperature would have been about 2,000 degrees Centigrade.
The ambulance staff burst out laughing on arrival.
At least he survived, albeit with colonic burns.
This reminds me of a boy I knew at school (Eric Taylor). Around Bonfire Night we used to get hold of boxes of bangers and what he would do is light one in his mouth, like a cigarette, let it fizz for a short while, then take it out and lob it so it went BANG in midair. He was a legend. Gained far more kudos for doing that than I did for being good at Maths and Latin.
You should go to Madame Tussauds. It'll blow you away.
Midjourney and DALL-E (from OpenAI) are impressive, but the real cutting edge in terms of fidelity is I think with Stable Diffusion. Mainly because it is open, and so people are able to take the model and apply tools and new methods for tuning and enhanching the model. The best LoRA adaptations, which are basically a computationally simple way of steering model attention, so you can tune the output to your liking, are producing really convincing images now.
SDXL comes out soon, and I don't think it will be very long until most people are easily fooled by generated images.
I was kind of sceptical a year or so ago about the threat such tools posed, now I'm in the "it's too bloody late and going to be an absolute disaster" camp.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Imagine the difference between you- a man of the world- and the average reader of the Mail, who is simultaneously outraged and titilated by curve-flaunting. Did you manage to expunge the Mail from your computer in the end?
I did. They snuck a tiny app (widget?) onto my PC. Once that was deleted, problem solved
I would still advise some moderate caution -
1) shut your PC down. 2) unplug it 3) put it in an induction furnace at 5,000 C 4) drop the bagged ashes into the Marianas Trench 5) change your name and stow away on a tramp steamer to Singapore
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
As each organisation chooses to name him, the story continues to bubble along. Front page of the Sun tommorow maybe, they must be feeling emboldened by the other youngsters emerging from the woodwork.
You should go to Madame Tussauds. It'll blow you away.
Midjourney and DALL-E (from OpenAI) are impressive, but the real cutting edge in terms of fidelity is I think with Stable Diffusion. Mainly because it is open, and so people are able to take the model and apply tools and new methods for tuning and enhanching the model. The best LoRA adaptations, which are basically a computationally simple way of steering model attention, so you can tune the output to your liking, are producing really convincing images now.
SDXL comes out soon, and I don't think it will be very long until most people are easily fooled by generated images.
I was kind of sceptical a year or so ago about the threat such tools posed, now I'm in the "it's too bloody late and going to be an absolute disaster" camp.
One thing for certain, it that this BBC man isn’t too popular with his colleagues, and the BBC management don’t appear to be too popular with the newsroom either.
Given that none of the activity mentioned so far appears to be illegal, except for possibly an underage person signing up for an ‘adult’ website, the reporting appears to be related to the reputation of the individual and the organisation.
Think Angus Deayton scandal, which IIRC also led the news for weeks.
Mr. grss, "Man commits legal activity" isn't a great story.
Sure, therefore it shouldn't be the front page news for multiple papers. If the Sun has taken the parents' side at face value and ignored the version told by the individual involved, and no legal wrongdoing is found, there should be repercussions. If the BBC figure has done something illegal, but not what the Sun alleged, there should still be repercussions (like the breaking of lockdown that was not mentioned in the original article and only came out since). It seems pretty clear to me this is about attacking the BBC as a whole from the pov of a Murdoch owned entity that hates the existence of the Beeb. I have huge issues with the BBC, don't watch it and don't watch any TV so I don't have to pay the TV license for it, but that doesn't mean I want it torn apart for the benefit of private media business on the basis of this kind of flimsy nonsense. MPs and ministers immediately started saying they would investigate and the BBC needed to get it's house in order, etc. yet I don't think any have suggested that the Sun should behave more responsibly when reporting things - especially considering that the Leveson Report is only just coming up to it's 11th birthday.
Oh, in that case maybe two years before we start to get leering reports about the Report in the relevant newspapers.
Mortgage payments to rise for 4 million households over next three years
The Bank of England has warned of the growing pressures facing household finances, highly leveraged businesses and buy-to-let landlords as interest rates continue to rise — and says that almost every mortgage in the country will be affected by the end of 2026.
The Bank said in its latest financial stability report that although the UK economy “has so far been resilient to interest rate risk” it will “take time for the full impact of higher interest rates to come through”.
Ignorant science teacher in the middle of marking question:
How much does this feed into published inflation figures? Government optimists are talking about how inflation is set to fall over the rest of the year, in which case pay rises will exceed inflation and all will be well again.
In practice, mortgage interest rises will blow that out of the water for people coming off fxed rates, especially if they have a chunky sum outstanding. Is that going to manifest in published inflation falling more slowly, or in a huge data-reality gap?
Housing costs (including utility bills) are weighted at 14% of CPI.
The reason for the low weighting is that half of home owners have no mortgages, and many of the rest have small mortgages.
And yet according to the ONS even before interest rates started rising again, 17% of household expenditure was already on housing.
Transport was second highest at 14% and food and non-alcoholic drink was 12%
And that's even with the ridiculous notion of only measuring expenditure as 'net' expenditure on housing and the myth that paying for housing is paying for an asset rather than paying for a roof over your head - a myth that suddenly [and rightly] vanishes when it comes to paying Capital Gains Tax on that asset.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Sordid is quite a strong word
sordid /ˈsɔːdɪd/ adjective 1. involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
I mean the act of payment itself could be considered sordid, no? Sex work is considered to be contemptable and morally distasteful to most people.
Mortgage payments to rise for 4 million households over next three years
The Bank of England has warned of the growing pressures facing household finances, highly leveraged businesses and buy-to-let landlords as interest rates continue to rise — and says that almost every mortgage in the country will be affected by the end of 2026.
The Bank said in its latest financial stability report that although the UK economy “has so far been resilient to interest rate risk” it will “take time for the full impact of higher interest rates to come through”.
Ignorant science teacher in the middle of marking question:
How much does this feed into published inflation figures? Government optimists are talking about how inflation is set to fall over the rest of the year, in which case pay rises will exceed inflation and all will be well again.
In practice, mortgage interest rises will blow that out of the water for people coming off fxed rates, especially if they have a chunky sum outstanding. Is that going to manifest in published inflation falling more slowly, or in a huge data-reality gap?
Housing costs (including utility bills) are weighted at 14% of CPI.
The reason for the low weighting is that half of home owners have no mortgages, and many of the rest have small mortgages.
And yet according to the ONS even before interest rates started rising again, 17% of household expenditure was already on housing.
Transport was second highest at 14% and food and non-alcoholic drink was 12%
And that's even with the ridiculous notion of only measuring expenditure as 'net' expenditure on housing and the myth that paying for housing is paying for an asset rather than paying for a roof over your head - a myth that suddenly [and rightly] vanishes when it comes to paying Capital Gains Tax on that asset.
The bitter joke that “I live in a tiny flat in London to have the job that pays for a tiny flat in London which allows me to have a job in London that pays.. “
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Sordid is quite a strong word
sordid /ˈsɔːdɪd/ adjective 1. involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
I mean the act of payment itself could be considered sordid, no? Sex work is considered to be contemptable and morally distasteful to most people.
In the era of Onlyfans, and kids instantly sending nudes, I’m not sure that’s true
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Sordid is quite a strong word
sordid /ˈsɔːdɪd/ adjective 1. involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
I mean the act of payment itself could be considered sordid, no? Sex work is considered to be contemptable and morally distasteful to most people.
In the era of Onlyfans, and kids instantly sending nudes, I’m not sure that’s true
I mean, I agree, but I think the papers likely don't, nor do most readers of papers
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
About three hours.
Though that was different. That was holding off until everything was done in the right order. This is holding off until the lawyers are sure there is no alternative.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
A few hours? But this name has been flittering around since the story came out - I saw the name being reported by this outlet shared online on the first day. That doesn't make it more or less likely to be true, but still
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Sordid is quite a strong word
sordid /ˈsɔːdɪd/ adjective 1. involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
I mean the act of payment itself could be considered sordid, no? Sex work is considered to be contemptable and morally distasteful to most people.
In the era of Onlyfans, and kids instantly sending nudes, I’m not sure that’s true
Give it a decade, when some of today’s 20-year-old OnlyFans ‘models’ decide to stand for Parliament.
At the next election, there will be many people standing who have had an iPhone for a decade, since they were students.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
++++++
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
I wonder if his significant other knew about it all.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
++++++
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
The most surprising detail, is that the ‘household name’ didn’t use an alias!
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
I think we all knew that she was dying just by reading between the lines. The news stations weren’t able to come out and say it but they had obviously been briefed what was going on and to prepare for an announcement (lots of talk of “concern” etc etc). The fact the family were rushing up to Balmoral was also a telling point.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
++++++
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
What was the line?
“Women and bookmakers - the amateur professional is especially rapacious”
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
I wonder if his significant other knew about it all.
As I pointed out, the other day, the world is full of people making insane choices that they can easily pay to avoid.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
Leon asks how something can be sordid if not illegal. Here is a possible test. Can you think of ways of making a living in lawful employment which you think your 20 y.o. daughter should be allowed to reject on the grounds of personal moral objection ("it's sordid") without being sanctioned by the benefits system for refusing it?
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
Political lite - who they? - had better be right on their name or they will be in a whole world of trouble.
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish. Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
++++++
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
Two generic points, that apply whoever X is.
First, you don't get to the top in tellyland without being a bit of a risk taker. If you are really that risk averse, you go and do something more boring and more secure instead.
Second, as Sir Humphrey put it (there's always a Yes, Minister quote) those who are active in one walk of life tend to be active in others as well.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
Leon asks how something can be sordid if not illegal. Here is a possible test. Can you think of ways of making a living in lawful employment which you think your 20 y.o. daughter should be allowed to reject on the grounds of personal moral objection ("it's sordid") without being sanctioned by the benefits system for refusing it?
I can.
Working for a political party they disagree with. Working for a charity whose aims or fundraising means they disagree with. Working for a religious organisation they disagree with.
All seem matters of conscience rather than sordid to me.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Two girls one cup springs to mine, it was actually chocolate ice cream but....euw
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
Leon asks how something can be sordid if not illegal. Here is a possible test. Can you think of ways of making a living in lawful employment which you think your 20 y.o. daughter should be allowed to reject on the grounds of personal moral objection ("it's sordid") without being sanctioned by the benefits system for refusing it?
I can.
Working for a political party they disagree with. Working for a charity whose aims or fundraising means they disagree with. Working for a religious organisation they disagree with.
All seem matters of conscience rather than sordid to me.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
One of the most famous quotes to feature the word.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
Leon asks how something can be sordid if not illegal. Here is a possible test. Can you think of ways of making a living in lawful employment which you think your 20 y.o. daughter should be allowed to reject on the grounds of personal moral objection ("it's sordid") without being sanctioned by the benefits system for refusing it?
I can.
Working for a political party they disagree with. Working for a charity whose aims or fundraising means they disagree with. Working for a religious organisation they disagree with.
All seem matters of conscience rather than sordid to me.
Working as a waiter in a pub where the female staff have to wear uniforms like something out of a 1950s soft porn mag owner's chain of nightclubs.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
On Thread. Can you imagine A PM calling a GE over Christmas? People voting in the darkest days of January! How many extra Con MPs would lose their seats. Ten, twenty, thirty? They would go in May 2024 if the background wasn't so awful. If the locals give any encouragement then they will go straight after them. If not - it will be after a rousing (?) conference.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Bestiality is still legal in finland, hungary and romania...does that mean its not sordid if done there?
*goes right off ready-made goulash*
Don't think paprika comes into it however there is a custom in denmark where they strap single 25 year olds to lamp posts and get pelt them with cinnamon so probably shouldn't eat apple pie either
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Bestiality is still legal in finland, hungary and romania...does that mean its not sordid if done there?
*goes right off ready-made goulash*
Don't think paprika comes into it however there is a custom in denmark where they strap single 25 year olds to lamp posts and get pelt them with cinnamon so probably shouldn't eat apple pie either
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
Semi-attached figures. AIUI, the stories have been carefully written to keep "sordid pictures" and "seventeen year old" decently separated. If readers carelessly connect them, that's their own filthy imagination.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal, though, does it? I agree it's not really a word anyone outside of tabloid journalists use any more. It's just code for 'sex is involved somehow' and 'we think you'll enjoy disapproving of this'.
But this is exactly the problem. Sordid doesn't even necessarily mean nude - suggestively eating a banana can be sordid - and whilst I would be highly concerned if a 17 year old was sending that to a middle aged man, I don't think it would necessarily be illegal (although certainly a safeguarding concern).
Two girls one cup springs to mine, it was actually chocolate ice cream but....euw
One of the most remarkable things about that was its title - the fact that they only used one cup - or that a cup was involved at all - was by some way the least remakable thing about it all.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
Potentially the most serious criminal charge to come of this story, and it’s something that’s been investigated by the media before - is that websites that provides amateur adult content, are often less than perfect with regard to their age verification of models who appear on their sites.
The more professional adult industry got smashed by this a couple of decades ago, and are really careful that they’re not looking at the ID of an older sibling, or similar. Because they’re liable for serious punishment if they make a single mistake.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
The allegations from the parents is that the illegal actions happened below the age of consent, and those are the allegations that the individual has denied. That's what I'm finding difficult - if the individual said "yes, those things happened when I was underage but I still disagree with my parents' framing of this" sure, but the only statement we've had from the individual's lawyer is an outright denial of the parents' framing, so we have a second hand allegation of illegal actions.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Bestiality is still legal in finland, hungary and romania...does that mean its not sordid if done there?
*goes right off ready-made goulash*
Don't think paprika comes into it however there is a custom in denmark where they strap single 25 year olds to lamp posts and get pelt them with cinnamon so probably shouldn't eat apple pie either
Goulash doesn't have pork in it? Crivvens.
Goulash can have many meats in it or indeed no meat at all, the common thread linking all goulashs across space and time is paprika
On Thread. Can you imagine A PM calling a GE over Christmas? People voting in the darkest days of January! How many extra Con MPs would lose their seats. Ten, twenty, thirty? They would go in May 2024 if the background wasn't so awful. If the locals give any encouragement then they will go straight after them. If not - it will be after a rousing (?) conference.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
The January 2025 scenario is that Sunak refuses to call an election.
If Sunak calls an early election, he will either need the support of his cabinet or the iron will to simply go to the palace and dare them to intervene. If chunks of the cabinet and whole swathes of the parliamentary party are going to lose their seats in said early election, there is a big incentive not to do so.
Alternatively, simply let this parliament expire. Legally it ceases to be after 5 years, the civil service will then advise on the date, and the party that ran "enemies of the people" at the judiciary can spin that the people's parliament is being forced to stop due to woke leftist lawyers in the blob.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
The allegations from the parents is that the illegal actions happened below the age of consent, and those are the allegations that the individual has denied. That's what I'm finding difficult - if the individual said "yes, those things happened when I was underage but I still disagree with my parents' framing of this" sure, but the only statement we've had from the individual's lawyer is an outright denial of the parents' framing, so we have a second hand allegation of illegal actions.
Those getting paid for sexual services (or anything, come to that) tend not to go dobbing their clients in.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Bestiality is still legal in finland, hungary and romania...does that mean its not sordid if done there?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal. Eg there'll be millions of people voting Tory at the general election - quite openly in many cases - and none of them will do a single day of jailtime.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
The allegations from the parents is that the illegal actions happened below the age of consent, and those are the allegations that the individual has denied. That's what I'm finding difficult - if the individual said "yes, those things happened when I was underage but I still disagree with my parents' framing of this" sure, but the only statement we've had from the individual's lawyer is an outright denial of the parents' framing, so we have a second hand allegation of illegal actions.
Those getting paid for sexual services (or anything, come to that) tend not to go dobbing their clients in.
I suspect my take that the parents are mostly after money will end up being true.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
The allegations from the parents is that the illegal actions happened below the age of consent, and those are the allegations that the individual has denied. That's what I'm finding difficult - if the individual said "yes, those things happened when I was underage but I still disagree with my parents' framing of this" sure, but the only statement we've had from the individual's lawyer is an outright denial of the parents' framing, so we have a second hand allegation of illegal actions.
When it comes to child pornography or child abuse, very often second-hand allegations of illegal actions is how investigations began.
Children can be remarkably uncooperative when it comes to acknowledging or reporting their own abuse.
Again, part of the reason why an age of consent exists.
Had this been post-age of consent, then what the alleged victim has to say should be critical, but since this was allegedly before it, its not.
Re the BBC scandal. The original claim is that presenter X asked Y for “sordid images”
What the f are “sordid images”?!
Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
Bestiality is still legal in finland, hungary and romania...does that mean its not sordid if done there?
Sordid doesn't mean illegal. Eg there'll be millions of people voting Tory at the general election - quite openly in many cases - and none of them will do a single day of jailtime.
I was challenging leons assertion which was...Unless X asked for something illegal - bestiality etc - how can they be “sordid”?
I suspect some on here would say bestiality is always sordid whether legal or not
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
I can tell you the Queen was fully intending to return from Balmoral so it took many insiders by surprise also.
On Thread. Can you imagine A PM calling a GE over Christmas? People voting in the darkest days of January! How many extra Con MPs would lose their seats. Ten, twenty, thirty? They would go in May 2024 if the background wasn't so awful. If the locals give any encouragement then they will go straight after them. If not - it will be after a rousing (?) conference.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
I mean, lower turnout supposedly helps incumbents, and a Jan GE would likely have lower turnout. Also a campaign over the Christmas period would see less coverage, so less scrutiny for the Tories. I can see them being all for that, really.
I imagine it has to be May when the locals are or Jan - calling it at the same time as the locals is reasonable logistically, and calling it before Jan but after May is just a waste of money (although, again, would reduce turnout). I also don't know how much the Tory party cares about protecting its councils - I imagine some local Tories would hold councils if the locals were on their usual low turnout, but lose them at a GE turnout because people are less likely to split their vote.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
Potentially the most serious criminal charge to come of this story, and it’s something that’s been investigated by the media before - is that websites that provides amateur adult content, are often less than perfect with regard to their age verification of models who appear on their sites.
The more professional adult industry got smashed by this a couple of decades ago, and are really careful that they’re not looking at the ID of an older sibling, or similar. Because they’re liable for serious punishment if they make a single mistake.
There was a site in the US that was criminally uninterested in such details. Got taken down and owners jailed, IIRC. They were truly nasty.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
You're trying to blame the Conservative Party for this? What about Schofield - was that the Tories too?
On Thread. Can you imagine A PM calling a GE over Christmas? People voting in the darkest days of January! How many extra Con MPs would lose their seats. Ten, twenty, thirty? They would go in May 2024 if the background wasn't so awful. If the locals give any encouragement then they will go straight after them. If not - it will be after a rousing (?) conference.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
The January 2025 scenario is that Sunak refuses to call an election.
If Sunak calls an early election, he will either need the support of his cabinet or the iron will to simply go to the palace and dare them to intervene. If chunks of the cabinet and whole swathes of the parliamentary party are going to lose their seats in said early election, there is a big incentive not to do so.
Alternatively, simply let this parliament expire. Legally it ceases to be after 5 years, the civil service will then advise on the date, and the party that ran "enemies of the people" at the judiciary can spin that the people's parliament is being forced to stop due to woke leftist lawyers in the blob.
Two potential problems with that.
First is that the 2017-19 Parliament was clearly constipated and a General Election was needed to somehow purge the system. We can argue about who was culpable for that blockage, but there was clearly a big thing that needed resolving that Parliament couldn't resolve. Part of the Cummings strategy in the autumn was to wind up the sense of crisis-stasis.
What we have now is a party with a chunky Commons majority, that (depressingly) has no trouble winning votes, even for awful stuff. Nothing is getting done, because they have no idea what to do, and handing them another majority isn't going to change that. And if that feeling is bad now, it's going to be worse in 18 months time. (Imagine. Another year and a half of zombie government.)
More importantly, and I hesitate in saying this, but... Part of the CON-RefUK drift recently has been because Sunak is, let's face it, not of White British heritage. Not Understanding Christmas (by making us think about politics) could get some traction with enough Conservative-curious voters to be a drag.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
Potentially the most serious criminal charge to come of this story, and it’s something that’s been investigated by the media before - is that websites that provides amateur adult content, are often less than perfect with regard to their age verification of models who appear on their sites.
The more professional adult industry got smashed by this a couple of decades ago, and are really careful that they’re not looking at the ID of an older sibling, or similar. Because they’re liable for serious punishment if they make a single mistake.
There was a site in the US that was criminally uninterested in such details. Got taken down and owners jailed, IIRC. They were truly nasty.
That was a site called GirlsDoPorn. They did actually check IDs, but the people running it were basically doing the “interview” porn genre, for real rather than staged. Didn’t pay the girls and suggested to many teenagers that the industry was just as it was decades ago.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
You're trying to blame the Conservative Party for this? What about Schofield - was that the Tories too?
The right's obsession with moral outrage at lefties and luvvies? Yeah. They want to persuade people that its right to be so hardened to basic human decency that you will cheer on Jenrick wanting to make traumatised children stay traumatised.
This is the war against woke - literally their social agenda.
I thought the Matrix was all about Trans and not really virtual reality at all? Red Pill = Hormones etc etc etc.
/Ducks
Gnnngkt, I know what you mean (and it's a view with increasing traction, especially with what happened with the Wachowskis and it being what they actually intended), but if you'll forgive me coming over all "Death of the Author" for the moment, I think it works better as a slavery/AfricanAmerican experience metaphor, and certainly served more people with that reading. If you want a trans metaphor, I'd go with "Blade Runner".
Would you mind expanding more on both metaphors, as you see them?
The Matrix. The originals occupiers of a land are taken against their will by people originally thought of as friends and used as farm animals for their labour whilst being fed false testimony designed to keep them happy and compliant, and hunted down by implacable white men if they try to escape. Some, having freed themselves of their literal and metaphorical chains, realise the true facts and devote themselves to the overthrow of their overseers and the system that imprisons them.
Blade Runner. Five(I know) people who are not genetically male/female escape from their subcultures and attempt to fit into the normal world, co-opting the experiences of cisgender men and women to pass as normal. One of them who works as a stripper inflames a cop to the point that he kills her instead of deal with his attraction. After a murder spree he reconciles to his sexuality and rides off with one of his intended victims into the future.
The Swimmer. In a sincere but ill-advised attempt to live the American dream, a middle-aged white executive flits from job to job, pursuing success to the neglect of his wife and children. Realising his mistake he attempts to return but finds his happy home in a state of disrepair, with only himself to blame.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Two older gay men each fall in love with a younger man,who they use as a sexual lure to gain wealth. They argue and can no longer regain their happy relationship, and the resultant fight terminates their relationship. The older man takes the younger man away to build a new relationship but the younger man was injured by the conflict and dies, because it's the 1970s and Kill Your Gays. Chastened the older man, having lost his chances at happiness due to his lust and infidelity, is left alone.
Juggernaut.1970s Britain, having overspent and a shadow of its former self, is threatened by a bombing campaign. Its inhabitants desperately try to remain jolly whist grim faced men try to defuse the bombs.
Minority Report. One of the characters explicitly says that his prisoners are fed subconscious fantasies whilst imprisoned, just before the hero is imprisoned therein. The rest of the film is not the real events but his electronically induced lived fantasy.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
You're trying to blame the Conservative Party for this? What about Schofield - was that the Tories too?
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
Getting very messy in BBC presenter story. Now have current BBC presenters saying they must reveal themselves and they are never coming back in the building (and bbc news making a huge deal of this) and ex-bbc presenters going into bat for unnamed presenter saying they spoke to them and they are angry, its all a sun stitch up.
I am reminded of the spiderman meme, where all the spidermen are pointing at one another.
I mean, as it stands atm, do we have any actual accusation of illegal action? From my understanding the young person in question in the first accusation may have been 17 when first contacted, but the lawyer for that young person seems to have come out actively saying the account from the parents is wrong - so it looks like maybe a young person who does sex work (OF, camming, private / online escort work, whatever) who was getting money from a famous person and the parents not liking that and the fact the young person spent that money on drugs. The second account has essentially been "I talked to this person and they came across as desperate and needy" which may be unattractive to a potential partner and a bad way to have a relationship, but is not illegal. And the only other allegation I have seen is a person saying they may have approached another 17 year old at some point about something - again, it isn't known about what or if anything illegal happened.
Is it a bit cringe for a middle aged BBC presenter to be talking to / sexting / whatever with younger men? Sure. Is it illegal. No. Should it be front page news on the Sun? Also no. Should the other papers then put it on all of their front pages? Definitely no.
This story seems to be an attempt to do to some BBC news presenter what happened with Schofield, and continuing the increasing conflation between any same sex relationships with paedophilia. Obviously if the BBC employee in question did anything illegal, they should be investigated and punished. But all those people who argued that the court of public opinion was so unfair for the likes of Johnson or any other right winger, and hate it when people get "cancelled", seem to be dancing with glee at this story.
Do we have firm evidence of illegal activity? No.
Do we have an allegation of illegal activity? Yes.
So it should like any allegation be investigated seriously, bearing in mind both that criminal activity may have occurred and that innocent until proven guilty applies.
Does the fact that the alleged victim denies criminal activity happened mean it didn't? No.
People involved in wrongdoing, including victims, deny wrongdoing all the time.
The whole point of the age of consent is that the victim can't consent and can't say that a crime didn't happen if it did. The fact they're now an adult doesn't change that if a crime did occur when they were a child.
The homophobia thing is as interesting take on it.
What would happen, do you think, for allegations that a celebrity sent 5 figures to an opposite sex teenager for... services?
I think the whole story would be treated exactly the same, personally. The reporting has been conspicuously gender neutral.
The number of celebrities who openly have relationships with barely legal opposite gender partners, such as Leo DiCaprio, is very much normalised. People comment, and maybe joke, but it's not front page news. I don't think it would be front page news if this was male BBC presenter having relationship with 17 - 20 year old girl / woman.
Its against the law to have indecent images of a 17 year old whether male or female, so yes, gender is not relevant.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
I agree, but we don't know the nature of the relationship when the individual was 17 - that's part of the problem with this story; the Sun relies on the parents telling of what happened and the individual, who is now in their early 20s, denies that. So all we have is speculation from second hand sources that disagree with the first hand source.
It doesn't matter than the individual now in their 20s denies it. If actions happen below the age of consent [which is 18 for photos, not 16], then they are illegal, even if the person concerned approves of it (or covers it up), whether the victim is underage or has subsequently passed the age of consent.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
The allegations from the parents is that the illegal actions happened below the age of consent, and those are the allegations that the individual has denied. That's what I'm finding difficult - if the individual said "yes, those things happened when I was underage but I still disagree with my parents' framing of this" sure, but the only statement we've had from the individual's lawyer is an outright denial of the parents' framing, so we have a second hand allegation of illegal actions.
When it comes to child pornography or child abuse, very often second-hand allegations of illegal actions is how investigations began.
Children can be remarkably uncooperative when it comes to acknowledging or reporting their own abuse.
Again, part of the reason why an age of consent exists.
Had this been post-age of consent, then what the alleged victim has to say should be critical, but since this was allegedly before it, its not.
As someone else pointed out, though, we do not know if the pictures were sent under the age of consent and the stories have been worded in such a way that that is not what is technically alleged. Only that their kid and the BBC personality met when their kid was 17 and, separately, that their kid had sold pictures to that BBC personality. Not that they did that when they were 17 - that's left to the reader to infer. Again, that's my concern - the unreliability of what has actually been alleged considering the Sun's writing, the parents' viewpoint and the individual involved denying things. If that all did happen - sure, criminal action and should be treated as such. If that didn't happen, it matters that the individual involved denied the nature of the story.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
I can tell you the Queen was fully intending to return from Balmoral so it took many insiders by surprise also.
I work at a bank that has a good view of the roof of the Bank of England. At around midday, some men in hi-viz plus a chap in a suit were checking the arrangements for hauling the flag up/down on their flagpole.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
Far be it from me to defend The Sun, but they are (as you rightly report) a commercial entity. Don't you think it's likelier that they just saw this as a big money-making story? Apart from anything else, the culture war credentials of the Murdoch empire are, I would suggest, fairly ambiguous to say the least these days.
Regarding person X, surely this one is now beyond whether the alleged actions were illegal. It is now about the tenability of their job to do what they do. As this hatchet job was entirely about attacking the BBC (and with it the "leftie woke blob") the BBC-hating-for-commercial-reasons outlet pushing this story doesn't care if the supposed victim denies it.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
You've completely jumped the shark. Do you think the Mirror is working for the Tories?
On Thread. Can you imagine A PM calling a GE over Christmas? People voting in the darkest days of January! How many extra Con MPs would lose their seats. Ten, twenty, thirty? They would go in May 2024 if the background wasn't so awful. If the locals give any encouragement then they will go straight after them. If not - it will be after a rousing (?) conference.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
The January 2025 scenario is that Sunak refuses to call an election.
If Sunak calls an early election, he will either need the support of his cabinet or the iron will to simply go to the palace and dare them to intervene. If chunks of the cabinet and whole swathes of the parliamentary party are going to lose their seats in said early election, there is a big incentive not to do so.
Alternatively, simply let this parliament expire. Legally it ceases to be after 5 years, the civil service will then advise on the date, and the party that ran "enemies of the people" at the judiciary can spin that the people's parliament is being forced to stop due to woke leftist lawyers in the blob.
Two potential problems with that.
First is that the 2017-19 Parliament was clearly constipated and a General Election was needed to somehow purge the system. We can argue about who was culpable for that blockage, but there was clearly a big thing that needed resolving that Parliament couldn't resolve. Part of the Cummings strategy in the autumn was to wind up the sense of crisis-stasis.
What we have now is a party with a chunky Commons majority, that (depressingly) has no trouble winning votes, even for awful stuff. Nothing is getting done, because they have no idea what to do, and handing them another majority isn't going to change that. And if that feeling is bad now, it's going to be worse in 18 months time. (Imagine. Another year and a half of zombie government.)
More importantly, and I hesitate in saying this, but... Part of the CON-RefUK drift recently has been because Sunak is, let's face it, not of White British heritage. Not Understanding Christmas (by making us think about politics) could get some traction with enough Conservative-curious voters to be a drag.
I think the Tories would be crazy not to call an election at their conference and go in the autumn. But the scenario posed is where they keep going. All I am saying is that a scenario where not calling an election would be seen as preferable.
You are absolutely right though about the growth in Fuk voters. Tories bang on about foreign invaders, and fan the racist flames by giving support to "whats wrong with Golliwog" supporters. That the PM and some ministers suffer from funny tinge doesn't negate the basic bigotry of so many of their voters. Or former voters when tinge isn't just sinking the scrounger boats as all right minded people think should happen.
I see Politicalite has opted to run with a naming article.
WARNING - This isn't a reason to name the individual on PB.
Although the other 8 individuals confidently named by thousands of Twitter uses presumably are already limbering up to sue?
The person has been named. It’s done
I wonder how long from 'named on politicalite' to 'named by BBC'? Three hours?
How long did it take from everyone knowing the Queen had died, to someone from the BBC reporting that the Queen has died?
I don't know who you mean by "everyone". The PA announcement at 12.30pm that day suggested something was wrong and the end was near but it wasn't until the formal announcement most people knew.
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
I can tell you the Queen was fully intending to return from Balmoral so it took many insiders by surprise also.
I work at a bank that has a good view of the roof of the Bank of England. At around midday, some men in hi-viz plus a chap in a suit were checking the arrangements for hauling the flag up/down on their flagpole.
Comments
sordid
/ˈsɔːdɪd/
adjective
1.
involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.
I guess the age gap alone could be seen as “dishonourable” - especially if the younger person is under 18
If it’s not that then I struggle to imagine where “sordid” comes in. But then I am probably a tad more libertine than the average
SDXL comes out soon, and I don't think it will be very long until most people are easily fooled by generated images.
I was kind of sceptical a year or so ago about the threat such tools posed, now I'm in the "it's too bloody late and going to be an absolute disaster" camp.
1) shut your PC down.
2) unplug it
3) put it in an induction furnace at 5,000 C
4) drop the bagged ashes into the Marianas Trench
5) change your name and stow away on a tramp steamer to Singapore
Given that none of the activity mentioned so far appears to be illegal, except for possibly an underage person signing up for an ‘adult’ website, the reporting appears to be related to the reputation of the individual and the organisation.
Think Angus Deayton scandal, which IIRC also led the news for weeks.
Along with the Japanese PM they are the only right of centre leaders in the G7 at present
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12290767/Rishi-Sunak-shares-laugh-Giorgia-Meloni-Italian-PM-shows-phone-NATO-summit.html
It was the name I was told 2 days ago and no one seems to be exactly shocked. With modern media it is really remarkable this lasted so long.
Look at these clowns in Glasgow:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1678132968353673216
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/bulletins/familyspendingintheuk/april2021tomarch2022
Transport was second highest at 14% and food and non-alcoholic drink was 12%
And that's even with the ridiculous notion of only measuring expenditure as 'net' expenditure on housing and the myth that paying for housing is paying for an asset rather than paying for a roof over your head - a myth that suddenly [and rightly] vanishes when it comes to paying Capital Gains Tax on that asset.
Has been around a long while.
What gets me is it was hot favourite right from start and I was extremely sceptical and thought it was rubbish.
Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
Though that was different. That was holding off until everything was done in the right order. This is holding off until the lawyers are sure there is no alternative.
At the next election, there will be many people standing who have had an iPhone for a decade, since they were students.
Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
++++++
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
Still hard to believe people in those positions get themselves into such messes.
I wonder if his significant other knew about it all.
"“You do well to love cricket, for it is more free from anything sordid, anything dishonourable, than any game in the world. To play it keenly, honourably, generously, self-sacrificingly, is a moral lesson in itself and the classroom is God’s air and sunshine. Foster it, my brothers, so that it may attract all who can find time to play it; protect it from anything that would sully it, so that it may grow in favour with all men.”
Lord Harris former English Test Cricketer and Governor of Bombay, 1931."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/mar/17/spirit-of-cricket-lives-in-suburban-grounds
I get the impression some on here have access to lines of communication denied the vast majority.
Having a consensual relationship above the age of consent, and having illegal images under child pornography laws, are two remarkably different issues.
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
What was the line?
“Women and bookmakers - the amateur professional is especially rapacious”
For some reason I’m remembering Dorothy L Sayers…
As I pointed out, the other day, the world is full of people making insane choices that they can easily pay to avoid.
Leon asks how something can be sordid if not illegal. Here is a possible test. Can you think of ways of making a living in lawful employment which you think your 20 y.o. daughter should be allowed to reject on the grounds of personal moral objection ("it's sordid") without being sanctioned by the benefits system for refusing it?
I can.
Imagine you are paid £500,000 a year. There’s only so many times you can redo your kitchen. Eventually you will want to spend that money on ‘real’ fun
However the details here are still surprising. Lots of money for mere pictures?
Two generic points, that apply whoever X is.
First, you don't get to the top in tellyland without being a bit of a risk taker. If you are really that risk averse, you go and do something more boring and more secure instead.
Second, as Sir Humphrey put it (there's always a Yes, Minister quote) those who are active in one walk of life tend to be active in others as well.
Working for a charity whose aims or fundraising means they disagree with.
Working for a religious organisation they disagree with.
All seem matters of conscience rather than sordid to me.
The report is that illegal actions happened below the age of consent. If that is the truth, then it is a crime, and it is a crime even if the victim is unwilling to press charges or co-operate. That's the whole point of the age of consent.
A January election would be an historically bad call. But then this is the current Con Party and bad calls are their USP
Sizzle not sausage.
The more professional adult industry got smashed by this a couple of decades ago, and are really careful that they’re not looking at the ID of an older sibling, or similar. Because they’re liable for serious punishment if they make a single mistake.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/11/bbc-salary-list-huw-edwards-pay-rise-gary-lineker-zoe-ball/ (£££)
If Sunak calls an early election, he will either need the support of his cabinet or the iron will to simply go to the palace and dare them to intervene. If chunks of the cabinet and whole swathes of the parliamentary party are going to lose their seats in said early election, there is a big incentive not to do so.
Alternatively, simply let this parliament expire. Legally it ceases to be after 5 years, the civil service will then advise on the date, and the party that ran "enemies of the people" at the judiciary can spin that the people's parliament is being forced to stop due to woke leftist lawyers in the blob.
Children can be remarkably uncooperative when it comes to acknowledging or reporting their own abuse.
Again, part of the reason why an age of consent exists.
Had this been post-age of consent, then what the alleged victim has to say should be critical, but since this was allegedly before it, its not.
I suspect some on here would say bestiality is always sordid whether legal or not
I imagine it has to be May when the locals are or Jan - calling it at the same time as the locals is reasonable logistically, and calling it before Jan but after May is just a waste of money (although, again, would reduce turnout). I also don't know how much the Tory party cares about protecting its councils - I imagine some local Tories would hold councils if the locals were on their usual low turnout, but lose them at a GE turnout because people are less likely to split their vote.
Legality doesn't matter. They simply want to hurt the BBC. And do not tell me this isn't part of the Tory election strategy. We saw that ConHome piece posted a little earlier, which itself ties into the "Sunak let off Saville" smear.
The Tories - the party of painting over Mickey Mouse - want to play the moral majority card. The only thing they have left is to persuade people that the real story this week is person X and the evil BBC leftie management, and definitely not Boris! refusing to comply with the Covid enquiry into why he killed your granny.
First is that the 2017-19 Parliament was clearly constipated and a General Election was needed to somehow purge the system. We can argue about who was culpable for that blockage, but there was clearly a big thing that needed resolving that Parliament couldn't resolve. Part of the Cummings strategy in the autumn was to wind up the sense of crisis-stasis.
What we have now is a party with a chunky Commons majority, that (depressingly) has no trouble winning votes, even for awful stuff. Nothing is getting done, because they have no idea what to do, and handing them another majority isn't going to change that. And if that feeling is bad now, it's going to be worse in 18 months time. (Imagine. Another year and a half of zombie government.)
More importantly, and I hesitate in saying this, but... Part of the CON-RefUK drift recently has been because Sunak is, let's face it, not of White British heritage. Not Understanding Christmas (by making us think about politics) could get some traction with enough Conservative-curious voters to be a drag.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/jane-does-v-girlsdoporn-how-22-millennial-women-brought-down-a-porn-empire/
The guy in charge got 20 years,pretty much a rape sentence.
This is the war against woke - literally their social agenda.
Blade Runner. Five(I know) people who are not genetically male/female escape from their subcultures and attempt to fit into the normal world, co-opting the experiences of cisgender men and women to pass as normal. One of them who works as a stripper inflames a cop to the point that he kills her instead of deal with his attraction. After a murder spree he reconciles to his sexuality and rides off with one of his intended victims into the future.
The Swimmer. In a sincere but ill-advised attempt to live the American dream, a middle-aged white executive flits from job to job, pursuing success to the neglect of his wife and children. Realising his mistake he attempts to return but finds his happy home in a state of disrepair, with only himself to blame.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Two older gay men each fall in love with a younger man,who they use as a sexual lure to gain wealth. They argue and can no longer regain their happy relationship, and the resultant fight terminates their relationship. The older man takes the younger man away to build a new relationship but the younger man was injured by the conflict and dies, because it's the 1970s and Kill Your Gays. Chastened the older man, having lost his chances at happiness due to his lust and infidelity, is left alone.
Juggernaut.1970s Britain, having overspent and a shadow of its former self, is threatened by a bombing campaign. Its inhabitants desperately try to remain jolly whist grim faced men try to defuse the bombs.
Minority Report. One of the characters explicitly says that his prisoners are fed subconscious fantasies whilst imprisoned, just before the hero is imprisoned therein. The rest of the film is not the real events but his electronically induced lived fantasy.
NEW THREAD
You are absolutely right though about the growth in Fuk voters. Tories bang on about foreign invaders, and fan the racist flames by giving support to "whats wrong with Golliwog" supporters. That the PM and some ministers suffer from funny tinge doesn't negate the basic bigotry of so many of their voters. Or former voters when tinge isn't just sinking the scrounger boats as all right minded people think should happen.