Page 14 | TV presenter allegations

JeandeServiette · 2023-07-08T22:54:49+00:00

Could we PLEASE have a thread that stays up? Meaning don't name anyone, or any programme or ask for initials or hint. I just would like to discuss how this is likely to unfold.

Postapocalypticcowgirl · 09/07/2023 11:48

Curiouscarla · 09/07/2023 11:37

@JeandeServiette why are you so hell bent on wanting this person exposed? He has not done anything illegal. Genuine question.

Again, if they have been in possession of indecent images of a 17yo, that is a crime under both Protection of Children Act 1978, and Criminal Justice Act 1988.

There may also be coercion or harassment involved, which can be a crime regardless of the ages of everyone involved.

It is very likely that he has done something illegal.

Ellmau · 09/07/2023 11:49

Comments on his insta have been suspended. Oh dear!

Well, I don't know who this refers to, but surely it just means they're getting speculation/accusations on their instagram based on peoples' guesses, not that they;re actually the person in the case.

Postapocalypticcowgirl · 09/07/2023 11:50

Samaritans999 · 09/07/2023 11:43

It's still an offence however they were generated. Making, possession and distribution.

Show quote history

Not if someone else took the photos of them, though.

Curiouscarla · 09/07/2023 11:50

Even if it's a boy it doesn't make Any difference.@Samaritans999 it is not Illegal. If money was willingly exchanged.

lovelydovely · 09/07/2023 11:50

From what I've read of the article online -sees the parent fails to take any responsibility if she saw images of the presenter etc and had some idea of what idea why react later then sooner. I'd be lost if my underage child was in that position to begin with - not excusing the presenter at all.

Original poster

JeandeServiette · 09/07/2023 11:51

adriftabroad · 09/07/2023 10:27

Ive not been on any of the threads apart from this one. I live in Spain, so it is not on the news.
I have, however, worked out who it is. Its easy.

Why do so many posters find such horror in speculating while on a thread which is inviting just that? (While saying otherwise)
Why the faux shock horror and condemnation of being interested in one of the top news items in the UK? It is the bigger picture that matters here too.
Why the constant need to deny you read the DM, having "just clicked on it by accident?" Who cares?

I am horrified that so any middle aged men behave like this. So many. I have a teenaged DD. THAT is why I am interested. Disgusting. Only Fans etc online porn, Tinder... it all makes me sick.
From what goes on in her school, I need to educate her, daily, it seems.

Speculation is potentially defamatory, which people do (understandably) sue for if their name is wrongly attached to a scandal.

When I started this thread last night, the previous thread had been hidden (presumably for those reasons) and I wanted to continue the discussion everyone had been having about how this will play out.

So not wanting to commit defamation and sued or deleted is the reason for the "horror" of speculating. Clear enough?

And how the hell you think you've "worked it out" IDK. Nothing is confirmed. A dozen men have been named on SM. Very few people are in a position to know if one of those names is accurate. You're guessing.

OP posts:

Samaritans999 · 09/07/2023 11:51

Postapocalypticcowgirl · 09/07/2023 11:50

Not if someone else took the photos of them, though.

Show quote history

True. There are a whole lot of variables to this and it's why speculation is harmful to all parties.

Postapocalypticcowgirl · 09/07/2023 11:53

Samaritans999 · 09/07/2023 11:51

True. There are a whole lot of variables to this and it's why speculation is harmful to all parties.

Show quote history

Agreed. It's also pretty concerning the number of people who don't know the law around this.

QueefQueen80s · 09/07/2023 11:54

Men are a constant source of disappointment.

Original poster

JeandeServiette · 09/07/2023 11:54

CwmYoy · 09/07/2023 11:48

I'm a bit confused. Has the person involved complained? S/he is 20 now so able to speak for him or herself.

Maybe this person didn't want it splashed all over the papers and wanted to keep it private and move on.

The parents have overstepped massively if this is the case.

IDK, if my 20 year old had been immersed in a world of crack cocaine addiction and selling explicit photos FOR THREE YEARS, I might be at the point of doing whatever I could think of to shock them out of it and also to expose predatory adults who exploit a youngster's need for cash to feed an addiction.

I think I'd be pretty shocked and revolted that an older public figure was paying my YA for sexual photos too. I don't see that that's necessarily a pose or self-serving.

OP posts:

Fightyouforthatpie · 09/07/2023 11:58

If the Sun has proper evidence they could name the person concerned. The fact they aren't suggests to me that they are just trying to make things more difficult for the BBC - which is not to excuse the BBC, but no-one is looking great in all this.

StarbucksSmarterSister · 09/07/2023 11:58

Comments on his insta have been suspended. Oh dear!

If you mean one person who has been widely suggested as the presenter, the comments are "limited", not suspended. Famous people often limit comments just to those who follow them, not to the general public. Unless it has changed in the last day, it means nothing.

Willmafrockfit · 09/07/2023 11:59

we need to remember these are real people being discussed.

Curiouscarla · 09/07/2023 12:00

Personally I think a lot of the moral outrage on here is because many wives and parents don't want to admit to themselves how prolific and popular the OF site is. It makes them have to question that maybe their own husbands or adult children may be on there. Labelling the whole thing as disgusting makes them feel morally safer.

Original poster

JeandeServiette · 09/07/2023 12:03

Curiouscarla · 09/07/2023 12:00

Personally I think a lot of the moral outrage on here is because many wives and parents don't want to admit to themselves how prolific and popular the OF site is. It makes them have to question that maybe their own husbands or adult children may be on there. Labelling the whole thing as disgusting makes them feel morally safer.

Or people just aren't fans of the model? Bringing the sex industry to teens' bedrooms isn't an obviously great idea, is it? Lots of people think the sex industry is a bad move for young people. It's not necessarily a pearl-clutching stance. There are lots of mums here.

Not that it's been confirmed that OF is part of the story...

OP posts:

Original poster

JeandeServiette · 09/07/2023 12:04

Willmafrockfit · 09/07/2023 11:59

we need to remember these are real people being discussed.

Meaning...?

OP posts:

Gnittensmum · 09/07/2023 12:05

I do know who it is. I work in the media and we all know. I’m happy to say who it isn’t.

NotTheOtherMother · 09/07/2023 12:05

DameMargaretofChalfont · 09/07/2023 10:23

For everyone stating that no criminal offence has been committed because the age of consent is 16

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 how did the The Sun get away with using 16 and 17 year old page 3 models? Is anyone going to prosecute the editors and photographer?

Original poster

JeandeServiette · 09/07/2023 12:08

So how did the The Sun get away with using 16 and 17 year old page 3 models? Is anyone going to prosecute the editors and photographer?

Because new laws were made for the internet age.

The Sun is grubby and page 3 was a revolting institution but we've moved on.

OP posts:

Endlesssummerof76 · 09/07/2023 12:08

Gnittensmum · 09/07/2023 12:05

I do know who it is. I work in the media and we all know. I’m happy to say who it isn’t.

I think it's fair to say most people do by now. One of my close friends is a BBC producer and is surprised it's taken so long.

drpet49 · 09/07/2023 12:10

lovelydovely · 09/07/2023 11:50

From what I've read of the article online -sees the parent fails to take any responsibility if she saw images of the presenter etc and had some idea of what idea why react later then sooner. I'd be lost if my underage child was in that position to begin with - not excusing the presenter at all.

I agree with this.

skyeisthelimit · 09/07/2023 12:10

Yesterday's article definitely said "my son", so presumably they have changed it to be more vague, which is pointless after "my son" has already been seen.

frustratednomad · 09/07/2023 12:11

I still have no clue who it is, am I the only one?

Gnittensmum · 09/07/2023 12:11

Endlesssummerof76 · 09/07/2023 12:08

I think it's fair to say most people do by now. One of my close friends is a BBC producer and is surprised it's taken so long.

Show quote history

I always find the super injunctions amazing or the BBC trying to keep it on the low down. There’s not really much point in them anymore - news just filters out anyway .

Goldfoot · 09/07/2023 12:12

NotTheOtherMother · 09/07/2023 12:05

So how did the The Sun get away with using 16 and 17 year old page 3 models? Is anyone going to prosecute the editors and photographer?

Show quote history

Because the law changed in 2009. Sam Fox was 16 in 1982. I don't think they were using under 18s in the final years of page 3?