You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
BBC.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
I read somewhere that the photos are of a male teenager. Presumably purchased by a male presenter, but who knows for sure? That's a lot of money by BBC presenter standards. Maybe something else is going on here, like hush money for something else.
A middle aged person has asked a younger person (who is still over the age of consent) to send some sexualised pictures in return for money, which he has happily done. For years. For money. Something which is extremely common.
Which rather begs the question-so what?
All this stuff about what the young man may or may not have spent the money on is neither here nor there.
This isn't exploitation. This is just a slightly sordid, but completely legal, financial transaction between 2 consenting people.
Unless there is some way the middle-aged man has abused his position within the BBC as part of this, I fail to see why this has anything to do with anybody.
A middle aged man soliciting sexualised photos from a teenager is just wrong.
A BBC star has been pulled off air after he allegedly paid a teen for sexual pictures.
The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
The alleged recipient’s mother said they had used the cash to fund a crack habit.
Here's everything you need to know about the star - who is now the focus of a BBC investigation.
Who is the BBC presenter accused of paying a teenager for sexual pictures?
The BBC star has not been named, but he is a familiar face who is known to millions.
Last night the presenter was off air while the BBC investigate the mother’s bombshell claims.
She said: "When I see him on telly, I feel sick. I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life.
"Taking my child’s innocence and handing over the money for crack cocaine that could kill my child."
The family complained to the BBC about his behaviour on May 19 and begged them to make the man “stop sending the cash”.
They had discovered that their child has been using the money to fund their spiralling addiction to crack cocaine.
The furious mother told how her child had gone from “a happy-go-lucky youngster to a ghost-like crack addict” in just three years.
They approached The Sun, making it clear they wanted no payment.
The mother said: “All I want is for this man to stop paying my child for sexual pictures and stop him funding my child’s drug habit.”
She told how her child, now 20, had shown her an online bank statement that had numerous deposits from the star.
Holding back tears, she added: “There were huge sums, hundreds, or thousands of pounds at a time.
“One time he had sent £5,000 in one lump. The money had been in exchange for sexually explicit photographs of my child.”
What is the BBC star accused of?
The unnamed top BBC star is off air while allegations he paid the teenager for sexual pictures are investigated.
Sleazy messages are alleged to have started in 2020, when the youngster was 17.
The family say the BBC presenter never hid his identity and even sent pictures of himself at work.
She said she was told the star requested “performances” and, heartbreakingly, her child said they would “get their bits out”.
A spokesman for the BBC said: “We treat any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to proactively deal with them.
"As part of that, if we receive information that requires further investigation or examination, we will take steps to do this.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22984178/who-bbc-presenter-everything-know-accused-teen-sex-pictures/
The question is whether someone who does this should be dismissed from his job.
There are some things that are normally a breach of an employment contract. So-for example-a Senior Employee entering into a relationship with a Junior employee. Particularly when the 2 of them clearly have very different ideas as to the seriousness of the relationship.
But where are you going to draw the line? Subscribing to Only Fans? A Sugar Daddy website? Seeking younger Partners on dating websites? Being Gay? Having a fetish? Being Welsh?
Meanwhile the moral guardian is the Sun. And Politicians. Sitting in glass houses. Throwing stones.
Just to remind you , recently Philip Scofield quit ITV
Seen tonight on Twitter...
"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
I think people tend to be less focused on been moral and more focused on their own self gain and looking decent etc. However there are a few decent people out there still.
The presenter is said to have paid a young person an awful lot of money for sexualised pictures. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17 - which is over the age of sexual consent.
But that's not the relevant law when it comes to allegedly indecent images.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share and possess indecent images of people under 18.
The maximum sentence is 10 years.
A person under the age of 18 cannot give their consent to the images being taken.
Seen a few Lawyers trying to get free advertising about all this. Let's start with some important points:-
1. The 1978 Act (as amended) you mention does indeed make it an offence to take, make and share "indecent" photographs of under-18s
2. Section 1(c) makes it an offence "to have in his possession such indecent photographs with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others". So-not mere possession then
3. There is a clear criminal offence here-committed by the 17-yr-old who took the pictures and sold them for money. Something his Mother should be aware of-he has taken and distributed the images
4. In the absence of such images being used for commercial gain, it is extremely rare for any prosecution to be brought. In 1978 such pictures were rare. Now the majority of 17-yr-olds have sent or received such pictures.
Ordinarily, this would go nowhere. However, due to the sensationalist reporting of the Sun, there will be considerable pressure on the Police to spend public money on this.
The Sun has a long and "proud" history of providing sexualised pictures of 16/17 year olds on Page 3 (because prior to 2003, the minimum age under the 1978 Act was 16, not 18). Lots of topless photos of Sam Fox before she was 18. Distributed to millions of people.