A BBC presenter has been accused of paying a teenager for sexually explicit photographs, beginning when they were 17, according to The Sun.
BBC star accused of paying teen for explicit photos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356
A BBC presenter has been accused of paying a teenager for sexually explicit photographs, beginning when they were 17, according to The Sun.
27 Comments
Rain3h@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 3y
Someone who's a beeb star isn't presenting their radio show tomorrow.
Makes you wonder.
noogie@lemmy.fmhy.ml · 6 pts · 3y
Who?
born2rune@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 3y
If it's Craig Charles, I'm going to be miffed.
FatLegTed@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 3y
Smeggin' 'ell!
It was Rimmer, he made me do it!
theory@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
Jeremy Vine only does weekdays right?
richyawyingtmv@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 3y
He's already stated on twitter he's back on Monday. It's not him.
Rain3h@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 3y
So they finally cought up to gordon the gopher huh?
About bloody time.
Unquote0270@programming.dev · 5 pts · 3y
This is legal isn't it if the victim was 17? What is there to investigate?
blackn1ght@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 3y
Age of consent is 16 but I think both parties need be 18+ for sharing explicit selfies.
SMURG@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 3y
Which is a pretty retarded law if you think about it.
Emperor@feddit.uk · -3 pts · 3y
As with Philip Scholfield, there is such a disparity in age and power that it becomes very iffy. I'm not sure there's anything illegal going on but it's morally problematic.
MuckleWiggles@feddit.uk · 10 pts · 3y
The problem with "moral" problems is, who sets the morals? The church has been setting them for years, but they are now regarded as outdated and, to be frank, not a shining example of good "morality".
SmahediPhone@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3y
So there’s an injunction I’m guessing and now it’s the whodunnit.
theory@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 3y
They say its a "household name", surely we can work this out
Emperor@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 3y
Mike Domestos?
ojmcelderry@lemmy.one · 4 pts · 3y
My money's on Mr Muscle
Nfamwap@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3y
Barry Scott off of Cillit Bang always gave me wrong 'un vibes.
richyawyingtmv@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 3y
No, he gets rid of the dirt. He does not add to it. Can't be my man bazza
drfugo@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
it's not even his real name, how can we trust him
Emperor@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
That seems too obvious.
snacks@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
Emperor@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
I didn't know his middle name! Definitely a wrong 'un.
damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 3y
If there's an injunction against publishing the name that means that the story is already out in public, but apparently only the Sun have it? Hummm.
FatLegTed@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3y
I don't mind paying a licence fee if it goes towards Sir David etc. But you've got to question wages that allow 'tens of thousands' to be splashed (oo-er) in only three years.
And BBC wonder why people complain about them.
ojmcelderry@lemmy.one · 5 pts · 3y
Wait a minute.. David Attenborough is a household name 🙊 surely not!?
FatLegTed@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 3y
Noooooooooooooo!
Warped@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 3y
Magnus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 3y
The guy inside the Mr Blobby suit?
Emperor@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 3y
There is no-one in the suit - the BBC's best kept secret.
snacks@feddit.uk · -3 pts · 3y