"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
Exactly this ^^^^. It's like me paying a decorator £1,000 for doing some work and after paying him he decides not to go home to his wife but instead to go on a three day bender. After eventually returning home the wife throws him out and divorces him, so am I to be held responsible for the decorators situation? The way I see it is there are two consenting adults, one offering a service and the other willing to pay for the services.
Jeremy Vine becomes first major BBC star to call for under seige fellow presenter at the centre of '£35,000 sex pics scandal' to come forward publicly and name himself to stop 'yet more vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues'
Jeremy Vine tonight became the first major BBC star to call on the presenter at the centre of the '£35,000 sex pics scandal' to make their identity public - warning the fiasco has put the broadcaster 'on its knees'. Civil war effectively broke out at the channel as Vine's message was published and left little doubt of his fury at the ongoing storm. Describing 'vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues', the veteran broadcaster said the scandal was damaging the BBC the longer it went on. In a more conciliatory plea, Vine added: 'The BBC, which I'm sure he loves, is on its knees with this. But it is his decision and his alone.' His comments follow the emergence of new allegations that the unnamed presenter at the heart of the row sent abusive and menacing messages to a person in their 20s, after making contact with the individual on a dating app.
The claims and counter claims in BBC presenter sex pics scandal: How teen at centre of allegations insists star did 'nothing inappropriate or unlawful' - as parents stand by their story and say BBC bosses ignored their claims
Bombshell new claims about BBC star at centre of '£35k sex pics' scandal: Presenter 'sent abusive and menacing messages to SECOND young person - who threatened to name him after they met on dating app'
Bombshell new claims about BBC presenter at centre of '£35k sex pics scandal' The unnamed male BBC presenter at the heart of the row over alleged payment for sexually explicit photos sent abusive and menacing messages to a person in their 20s, it has been alleged. The new individual claims to have been contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app. They claim they were put under pressure to meet with the star but never did, the BBC reported. When they hinted online that they might name them, they allege they were sent abusive messages that were filled with expletives. The new claims raise further questions about the star's conduct less than a week after The Sun newspaper reported allegations that he paid a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit pictures, starting when they were 17. BBC Director General Tim Davie today denied it is 'odd' that he is yet to speak to the star.
"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
Exactly this ^^^^. It's like me paying a decorator £1,000 for doing some work and after paying him he decides not to go home to his wife but instead to go on a three day bender. After eventually returning home the wife throws him out and divorces him, so am I to be held responsible for the decorators situation? The way I see it is there are two consenting adults, one offering a service and the other willing to pay for the services.
I think that this is a terrible comparison. Maybe if there were 3 or 4 painters between the ages of 17, and say 25. They did the work during lockdown. You persuaded them to part with sexually explicit photos before paying them for the work.
A man who hides in the shadows while his friends and colleagues get accused of his misbehaviour is a coward.
No. Just the inevitable people hopping on the bandwagon.
Like the eejit coming forward with the "lockdown breach"-someone needs to tell him it is him that has just gone public with his criminal offence
I'm reminded of a story told to me many years ago by a (very) gay friend of mine.
He said that he was then in his late 30s. Which he said is a very trying time for many in the Gay Community. Transitioning from the good looking younger guy receiving gifts, to being the older one expected to be spending the money
"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
Exactly this ^^^^. It's like me paying a decorator £1,000 for doing some work and after paying him he decides not to go home to his wife but instead to go on a three day bender. After eventually returning home the wife throws him out and divorces him, so am I to be held responsible for the decorators situation? The way I see it is there are two consenting adults, one offering a service and the other willing to pay for the services.
I think that this is a terrible comparison. Maybe if there were 3 or 4 painters between the ages of 17, and say 25. They did the work during lockdown. You persuaded them to part with sexually explicit photos before paying them for the work.
A man who hides in the shadows while his friends and colleagues get accused of his misbehaviour is a coward.
It doesn't matter if there were 3,4 or 40 painters what they do with the money is entirely up to them,the same rules apply to consenting adults 'kinks', just because it may not fit with our own personal morality doesn't make it wrong. Who is to say that the suspect asked for the photo's first and that the 'young person' didn't offer them first ? I seem to recall the media hounding Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini and deeming them guilty without any clear evidence and they were eventually cleared of all suspicion. Would any of this came out if the parents were aware of what was going on and the money wasn't being spent on drugs but saved for the young persons future, I doubt it very much.
"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
Exactly this ^^^^. It's like me paying a decorator £1,000 for doing some work and after paying him he decides not to go home to his wife but instead to go on a three day bender. After eventually returning home the wife throws him out and divorces him, so am I to be held responsible for the decorators situation? The way I see it is there are two consenting adults, one offering a service and the other willing to pay for the services.
I think that this is a terrible comparison. Maybe if there were 3 or 4 painters between the ages of 17, and say 25. They did the work during lockdown. You persuaded them to part with sexually explicit photos before paying them for the work.
A man who hides in the shadows while his friends and colleagues get accused of his misbehaviour is a coward.
It doesn't matter if there were 3,4 or 40 painters what they do with the money is entirely up to them,the same rules apply to consenting adults 'kinks', just because it may not fit with our own personal morality doesn't make it wrong. Who is to say that the suspect asked for the photo's first and that the 'young person' didn't offer them first ? I seem to recall the media hounding Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini and deeming them guilty without any clear evidence and they were eventually cleared of all suspicion. Would any of this came out if the parents were aware of what was going on and the money wasn't being spent on drugs but saved for the young persons future, I doubt it very much.
That was the BBC. They had a helicopter up at Cliff Richards Villa.
I am just dont like the thought of our middle aged household names pitching teenagers for sexually explicit photos. If it was young girls we would be calling it grooming. I wonder how many more victims will be coming out of the woodwork.
"I’m curious, if the money was used for instance as a mortgage deposit would the family be quite so concerned?"
Exactly this ^^^^. It's like me paying a decorator £1,000 for doing some work and after paying him he decides not to go home to his wife but instead to go on a three day bender. After eventually returning home the wife throws him out and divorces him, so am I to be held responsible for the decorators situation? The way I see it is there are two consenting adults, one offering a service and the other willing to pay for the services.
I think that this is a terrible comparison. Maybe if there were 3 or 4 painters between the ages of 17, and say 25. They did the work during lockdown. You persuaded them to part with sexually explicit photos before paying them for the work.
A man who hides in the shadows while his friends and colleagues get accused of his misbehaviour is a coward.
It doesn't matter if there were 3,4 or 40 painters what they do with the money is entirely up to them,the same rules apply to consenting adults 'kinks', just because it may not fit with our own personal morality doesn't make it wrong. Who is to say that the suspect asked for the photo's first and that the 'young person' didn't offer them first ? I seem to recall the media hounding Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini and deeming them guilty without any clear evidence and they were eventually cleared of all suspicion. Would any of this came out if the parents were aware of what was going on and the money wasn't being spent on drugs but saved for the young persons future, I doubt it very much.
I dont know if you have any kids. I think most parents would be at least very annoyed with a middle aged man bribing their teenage child to take and send on sexually explicit photos. Some would insist on paying him a visit. The first lot of parents asked the BBC to stop him sending the money, so the drug problem wasnt exacerbated. He continued to send more money. What makes it worse is that he is a household name. Our TV stars can often exert influence over our youngsters. I dont think the presenter cared about what he did with the money, or about his wellbeing, he just wanted the photos. I cant defend him, whoever he is. I think his behaviour is indefensible, irrespective of whether or not he has broken the law.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bbc-presenter-faces-claims-second-154200807.html
Jeremy Vine tonight became the first major BBC star to call on the presenter at the centre of the '£35,000 sex pics scandal' to make their identity public - warning the fiasco has put the broadcaster 'on its knees'. Civil war effectively broke out at the channel as Vine's message was published and left little doubt of his fury at the ongoing storm. Describing 'vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues', the veteran broadcaster said the scandal was damaging the BBC the longer it went on. In a more conciliatory plea, Vine added: 'The BBC, which I'm sure he loves, is on its knees with this. But it is his decision and his alone.' His comments follow the emergence of new allegations that the unnamed presenter at the heart of the row sent abusive and menacing messages to a person in their 20s, after making contact with the individual on a dating app.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12288197/Jeremy-Vine-major-BBC-star-call-sex-pics-scandal-presenter-himself.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12285907/The-claims-counter-claims-BBC-presenter-sex-pics-scandal-revealed.html
Bombshell new claims about BBC presenter at centre of '£35k sex pics scandal'
The unnamed male BBC presenter at the heart of the row over alleged payment for sexually explicit photos sent abusive and menacing messages to a person in their 20s, it has been alleged. The new individual claims to have been contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app. They claim they were put under pressure to meet with the star but never did, the BBC reported. When they hinted online that they might name them, they allege they were sent abusive messages that were filled with expletives. The new claims raise further questions about the star's conduct less than a week after The Sun newspaper reported allegations that he paid a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit pictures, starting when they were 17. BBC Director General Tim Davie today denied it is 'odd' that he is yet to speak to the star.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12287503/BBC-presenter-sent-abusive-menacing-messages-person-20s.html
Maybe if there were 3 or 4 painters between the ages of 17, and say 25.
They did the work during lockdown.
You persuaded them to part with sexually explicit photos before paying them for the work.
A man who hides in the shadows while his friends and colleagues get accused of his misbehaviour is a coward.
Now painters are being dragged into this, they are having to deny any involvement and its affecting their day rate.
The sooner this person is named the better.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bbc-presenter-scandal-richard-bacon-jeremy-vine-085342641.html
Like the eejit coming forward with the "lockdown breach"-someone needs to tell him it is him that has just gone public with his criminal offence
I'm reminded of a story told to me many years ago by a (very) gay friend of mine.
He said that he was then in his late 30s. Which he said is a very trying time for many in the Gay Community. Transitioning from the good looking younger guy receiving gifts, to being the older one expected to be spending the money
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/extremely-angry-bbc-star-sex-124742664.html
They had a helicopter up at Cliff Richards Villa.
I am just dont like the thought of our middle aged household names pitching teenagers for sexually explicit photos.
If it was young girls we would be calling it grooming.
I wonder how many more victims will be coming out of the woodwork.
I think most parents would be at least very annoyed with a middle aged man bribing their teenage child to take and send on sexually explicit photos.
Some would insist on paying him a visit.
The first lot of parents asked the BBC to stop him sending the money, so the drug problem wasnt exacerbated.
He continued to send more money.
What makes it worse is that he is a household name.
Our TV stars can often exert influence over our youngsters.
I dont think the presenter cared about what he did with the money, or about his wellbeing, he just wanted the photos.
I cant defend him, whoever he is.
I think his behaviour is indefensible, irrespective of whether or not he has broken the law.
No criminal investigation.
Which determined he had done nothing illegal.
Meanwhile he is in a mental hospital. His wife and 5 kids are no doubt in turmoil.
Feel free to keep up with your moral crusade.
I am gutted.
That is the end of this thread for me.
Dressing up facts to suit itself. And ruining lives. To sell papers.