Gary Lineker, Rylan Clark and Jeremy Vine rule themselves out of being the latest BBC pervert

Who's left to choose from?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/229826...cused-off-air/

You're posting a link to The Sun. Don't you feel ashamed at all?

Who's everyone's money on then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Lung

You're posting a link to The Sun. Don't you feel ashamed at all?

---

It's the original source, so I went with that as they are responsible for the veracity of their story, and you are probably paying for this alleged kind of behaviour through your TV licence, so there is genuine public interest about what they are claiming.

BBC now reporting it too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Paget Flashman

Who's everyone's money on then?

---

Nicky Campbell has ruled himself out.

Here's a list of the top earners:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62133808

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Paget Flashman

Who's everyone's money on then?

---

Well…he’s Welsh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fingers

Well…he’s Welsh

---

I said Huw Edwards to the wife.

Someone said Graham Nortons bbc something or another had been removed. I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Paget Flashman

I said Huw Edwards to the wife.

---

The Twitterati are shouting it loud and clear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fingers

The Twitterati are shouting it loud and clear

---

All I seen is Vine who’s denied it?

Am I right in thinking they could have had sex with this person at 17 but not had nude pics? Is it illegal? Or just creepy.

Without speculating who it is, I would say the 35K is a big clue, as they'd probably be in the top half of the high earners at the BBC.

My money would be out of those three on Vine

If it turns out as the sun say, I hope whoever is responsible gets punished severely. But at the moment, there's a report from a gutter newspaper and people are getting their names dragged through the mud. In most cases, seemingly because people don't like their politics. Some of the stuff on twitter is vile. There'll be a few people losing lots of money in libel cases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

If it turns out as the sun say, I hope whoever is responsible gets punished severely. But at the moment, there's a report from a gutter newspaper and people are getting their names dragged through the mud. In most cases, seemingly because people don't like their politics. Some of the stuff on twitter is vile. There'll be a few people losing lots of money in libel cases

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

If it turns out as the sun say, I hope whoever is responsible gets punished severely. But at the moment, there's a report from a gutter newspaper and people are getting their names dragged through the mud. In most cases, seemingly because people don't like their politics. Some of the stuff on twitter is vile. There'll be a few people losing lots of money in libel cases

---

Totally agree, it's unfair to speculate without proof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Totally agree, it's unfair to speculate without proof

---

If there was proof it wouldn't be speculation.

#sound of freedom NCSWIC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2b2bdoo

Someone said Graham Nortons bbc something or another had been removed. I dunno.

---

Well, it doesn't mention whether the young person is male or female, so who knows?

The Sun is a twat of a newspaper

Read by arseholes

Name is all over Twitter.
Not difficult to work out.

Oh the irony of the rag which used to publish topless photos of a sixteen year old now getting all high and mighty about the emotional trauma being endured by a seventeen year old. That’s not to excuse the behaviour of whoever it is, but when a parent’s instinct is not to report it to the authorities, but to go running to the Sun to cash in on the story, my sympathy is somewhat limited.

The whole episode tends to sum up what the UK has “professed” into in the twenty first century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Former Labour leader

Name is all over Twitter.
Not difficult to work out.

---

There's plenty of names being mentioned on twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

There's plenty of names being mentioned on twitter

---

Well it seems he's not Welsh, Irish, ride's bikes or has white teeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2b2bdoo

Someone said Graham Nortons bbc something or another had been removed. I dunno.

---

Graham Norton show is always off every summer. His show starts back up later autumn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Oh the irony of the rag which used to publish topless photos of a sixteen year old now getting all high and mighty about the emotional trauma being endured by a seventeen year old.

---

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent.

It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent.

It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

---

It does not make it right but the 18 limit was introduced in 2003. For the first 25 years of the act under 16 was an offense which is how the sun was able to post pictures of a 16 year old child called Sam Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent.

It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

---

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

---

And some hard line Libertarians wouldn't have any censorship. Instead, they'd allow the people to regulate. Keep the old State interference to a minimum. The Free thinker in this thread is also posting BBC links, as well as The Sun. Aren't they mainstream? Are we not told by the gifted that we shouldn't believe these outlets, or is it only when something is written that they agree with? And i thought that i was a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

---

I don't think there is a law against getting your tits out in public, but I could be wrong about that. Giving your privates a fingering is a different story though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Oh the irony of the rag which used to publish topless photos of a sixteen year old now getting all high and mighty about the emotional trauma being endured by a seventeen year old.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I don't think there is a law against getting your tits out in public, but I could be wrong about that. Giving your privates a fingering is a different story though.

---

You mean you don't think the Sun publishing topless photos of a sixteen year old qualifies as

"Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent."

then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

The Free thinker in this thread is also posting BBC links, as well as The Sun. Aren't they mainstream? Are we not told by the gifted that we shouldn't believe these outlets, or is it only when something is written that they agree with? And i thought that i was a mess.

---

You seem to be a bit confused, the whole controversy involves the BBC and The Sun, so why should I post anything from another publication that is not involved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You mean you don't think the Sun publishing topless photos of a sixteen year old qualifies as

"Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent."

then?

---

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You seem to be a bit confused, the whole controversy involves the BBC and The Sun, so why should I post anything from another publication that is not involved?

---

This isn't how this 'Free Thinking' shit works though, is it?

Salacious gossip sells, always has always will. Whether that be politicians, film stars, footballers, soap stars, or BBC "stars"

Always a bit better for the papers when they can sight illegality or moral hypocrisy but it doesn't matter

If Prince Harry and his rich connected mates have their way they can carry on with impunity.

The gutter press has always been there to prick the establishment, left or right they do a job.

Public interest or interesting to the public, it pretty much dictates if you are likely to be part of the second group.

I have no idea what anyone does with the wild west of social media, that genie is well out of the bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

This isn't how this 'Free Thinking' shit works though, is it?

---

Depends if you want to convey facts or opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

---

Jeez, we're talking about a sixteen year old :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

---

This is better from you. You quote a section from an act (State led-But it enforces your view, so it'll do) And now you challenge it, because you're starting to **** yourself up again. This free thinking malarkey is hard work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Jeez, we're talking about a sixteen year old :facepalm:

---

Well pull up the relevant indecency laws. I already said I could be wrong, so speculating about it doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Depends if you want to convey facts or opinion.

---

Code for-Whatever suits my argument at any given moment in time. :hehe: