The stench of homophobia hanging around this story is vile.
All today’s newspaper front pages (except The Star that ran something about Klingons travelling to Mars?) decided this is the biggest thing going on in the cuntry today. Meanwhile, Bank of England tells us that 1 million households will be paying an additional £500 a month on their mortgages and that it’s ok because the banks will be able to deal with all the defaults on payments.
I still haven’t seen where it was said that the person was a “boy”. Not doubting it, but haven’t seen it.
From the linked article:
The four claims made against the presenter
It’s been five days since the Sun published its first story about the BBC presenter.
Here’s a quick summary of the four sets of allegations:
On Friday, the Sun’s first story is published about the mother’s claims that a BBC presenter paid their child tens of thousands of pounds for explicit photos over three years. The paper quoted the mother as saying the young person used the money to fund a crack cocaine habit, and that she was worried her child could “wind up dead”. The lawyer representing the young person has since disputed the allegations, describing them as rubbish".
On Tuesday afternoon, the BBC reports that a second young person had made allegations claiming the presenter pressured them to meet up and then sent abusive messages when they hinted at revealing their identity
Last night, the Sun reports fresh claims from a 23-year-old who claimed that the presenter broke lockdown rules to meet them during the pandemic in February 2021 and sent them cash
Separately, the Sun publishes messages allegedly sent to a 17-year-old after a conversation was initiated on Instagram in October 2018
No mention of boy, man, just young person.
Also, even if it is a man I’m not seeing the homophobia, just sounds like a factual statement. They are or they aren’t.
Wow, even for the Star that is pretty moronic. They must assume their readers are idiots, although it may be based more on in-depth marketing research.
The Sun… that virtuous newspaper that used to pay 16 year old girls to leave school so they could pose naked for Page 3… made it clear this was a male “star” and a boy. It’s a re-run of the Phillip Scofield nonsense. This wouldn’t be front page of all the papers and radio stations if it was an older man and a teenage young woman. Sure, they’ll be some coverage but not as much as this homophobic stuff
“Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.
People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.
So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?
Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).
I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.
There’s no suggestion that he abused his position in the BBC over younger colleagues, is there? Or are you suggesting that any relationship between an older and younger person is immoral in some way?
The stench of homophobia hanging around this story is vile.
All today’s newspaper front pages (except The Star that ran something about Klingons travelling to Mars?) decided this is the biggest thing going on in the cuntry today. Meanwhile, Bank of England tells us that 1 million households will be paying an additional £500 a month on their mortgages and that it’s ok because the banks will be able to deal with all the defaults on payments.
This cuntry has lost the plot!
I’m missing the homophobia here? I wasn’t even aware of who he was sending the messages to. Maybe I missed that part.
It was always made clear that this was a male “star” and a supposed “boy”.
Similar story the Philip Scofield.
I still haven’t seen where it was said that the person was a “boy”. Not doubting it, but haven’t seen it.
From the linked article:
No mention of boy, man, just young person.
Also, even if it is a man I’m not seeing the homophobia, just sounds like a factual statement. They are or they aren’t.
I only heard ‘young person’ on the coverage
What’s this about Klingons??
Not sure if I can embed images in a post so I’ll just link to the page:
https://www.frontpages.com/daily-star/
Wow, even for the Star that is pretty moronic. They must assume their readers are idiots, although it may be based more on in-depth marketing research.
The Star has become what the Daily Sport used to be…
Full of shit.
Not that the other rags are much better. Even the Times has gone to shit since Murdoch bought it.
At least the Daily Sport was open that they were just making it up -the Star looks like some kind of AI news filter for the concussed.
Seems to now occupy the place that The Daily Sport once held. It’s a weird example of the state of modern UK.
You what? Was there a new twist I missed?
The Sun… that virtuous newspaper that used to pay 16 year old girls to leave school so they could pose naked for Page 3… made it clear this was a male “star” and a boy. It’s a re-run of the Phillip Scofield nonsense. This wouldn’t be front page of all the papers and radio stations if it was an older man and a teenage young woman. Sure, they’ll be some coverage but not as much as this homophobic stuff
Oh I totally missed that. I thought the story was that he paid a girl for explicit photos. Not a boy.
The Guardian supported slavery. What’s your point? I don’t think any of the people working there now were involved with that.
“Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.
People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.
So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?
Makes topless photos seem kind of tame.
Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).
I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.
I’m not sure its homophobia, but people are noticing ANOTHER BBC presenter taking advantage of their position of power.
There’s no suggestion that he abused his position in the BBC over younger colleagues, is there? Or are you suggesting that any relationship between an older and younger person is immoral in some way?
There is:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766
There are also accusations of inappropriate behaviour to BBC staff:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/huw-edwards-bbc-presenter-investigation-b2374486.html
We’ll see. At the start of the week the allegations surrounding the story were that this was a “youngster” and that Edwards had acted illegally.
Meanwhile… the UK economy is collapsing and the media’s barely covering it.
Hysteria
@tenebrisnox @Flax_vert The plot is by groups including the newspaper proprietors.
(Other plots are also available)