BBC presenter allegations.

Does Andrews want Australia to become a republic and also to leave the Commonwealth altogether?

Should be interesting.

The other thread has disappeared but I didn’t see what happened but just thought I’d mention that the Director of BBC, Tim Davie, will be answering questions about this case in parliament today.

It wasn't you and it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

Thank you Calli. I don’t go in for personal insults and my accuser has yet to produce an example.
I’m sorry you were distressed by false information posted here. I don’t think I have done that but if I have please tell me.

Germanshepherdsmum

Afraid? Scared? Distressed? I don’t think so apart from Jaffacake who was wrongly told she might face a defamation action and believed it, poor woman.

Well, I was distressed by false information posted on here.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks Fanny. I don’t believe I have. It really isn’t necessary for things to become so nasty.

I've just got in and can't believe this is still rumbling on.

No, you haven't as far as I have seen, Germanshepherdsmum.
We might not always agree but you have not attacked other posters if they disagree with your views as far as I know.

JenniferEccles you may ask a question if you wish.
I don't know the answer, sorry.

It's up to GNHQ to close a thread down if they think it could be prejudicial, libellous or has descended into 'a bunfight' (GNHQ's description), it is not up to posters tell others how or what they may post.

The fact that sex is legal at 16 whilst making images is illegal to 18 May challenge some but, it’s the law.
I suspect it’s policed as sensibly as the illegal sex between a 14 and 16 year old. If it’s co sensual, not exploitative, prosecution vanishingly rare

If the boy was 17 it would have been illegal. Presumably there is no evidence of this activity taking place whilst the boy was under 18, therefore the police aren’t interested. Or possibly no actual evidence at all.

So DaisyAnne, you don’t give a jot about the fear and distress jaffacake experienced?

Kandinsky

He may not have committed a criminal offence, but paying a 17 year old 1000’s for sexually explicit photos ( when you’re a married man with 5 children ) is pretty disgusting behaviour.

He patently HASN’T been doing what you say as that’s against the law. The police have investigated again and concluded there’s been no criminality. Therefore no evidence of paying a 17 yr old for pictures. Surely you realise this by now?

If he had, would it be less disgusting if he wasn’t married with 5 children?

You obviously didn’t see that my post was intended for Fanny, not you Daisy.

Afraid? Scared? Distressed? I don’t think so apart from Jaffacake who was wrongly told she might face a defamation action and believed it, poor woman.

Thank you GSM

That was to Fanny.

That sums it up pretty well.

Germanshepherdsmum

Just a couple of people turning on the rest Gramaretto.

So you, the majority, are "afraid" of the "couple of people" who simply don't agree with how you have all been prepare to attack others on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

Because that is where the difference is. You just choose to call it ridiculous names to try and chase away a different view.

As for someone being "scared and distressed", hasn't MN, in the past, been involved in a court case where they had to reveal the name of a poster?

Surely, if you think a bus might come round the corner you warn the person walking across the road. You do not wait until it happens.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks Fanny. I don’t believe I have. It really isn’t necessary for things to become so nasty.

I could see that I was going to get it it the neck fit no good reason yesterday, so I hid the thread until this morning.
It seems that if someone doesn’t like the cut of one’s gib, they will be like a dog with a bone

If there is any truth as regards the sums alleged to have been paid, that’s a very great deal of money Fanny.

“ The hypocrisy of this paper which daily features photo's of near-naked women - celebrities, sports stars, influencers, etc (all perfectly 'legal') adopting a moralising tone in its reporting of this matter which, it seems, does not warrant any further investigation by the police, is so stunning that I'm surprised more people aren't knocked-out by it.”

👏👏👏 Thank you Dickens

Thanks Fanny. I don’t believe I have. It really isn’t necessary for things to become so nasty.

Kandinsky

He may not have committed a criminal offence, but paying a 17 year old 1000’s for sexually explicit photos ( when you’re a married man with 5 children ) is pretty disgusting behaviour.
Some on here doubt he’s done anything wrong at all & it’s all lies - maybe?
No doubt he will tell hi side of the story when he’s ready.
But not coming out immediately & denying it is a bit odd.

Some have suggested that blackmail is involved, which does sound more plausible.
It would explain a couple of things

Germanshepherdsmum

Where have I insulted anyone not sharing my view (whatever you mean by that) here Daisy?

I really don’t think that you have Shep
I think that this thread has gone completely bananas 🍌

South Wales Police were approached by the parents , they investigated and nothing illegal was found. This was before they went to the BBC and the Sun

MerylStreep

DiamondLilly
the police would have pursued it that would be the Met Police who only hours before Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard looked at CCTV footage of Couzens exposing himself to staff and dismissed it. I think not.

No, of course, what happened with Sarah Everard, and others, were beyond shocking.

The Met, beyond doubt, needs root and branch reform. As a female Londoner, for the first time ever, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

But, with the huge amount of attention with all this, this past week, I imagine the assessment, by the Met, was carried out by someone very senior.