BBC's Paul Gambaccini Held Over Sex Claims

[arista]

Another one


http://news.sky.com/story/1162754/bbcs-paul-gambaccini-held-over-sex-claims


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/11/1/268143/default/v1/gamba-1-522x293.jpg

[Vanessa]

:rolleyes:

[Kazanne]

Aw Noooooooooooooooo,I like gambo

[joeysteele]

Absolutely no end to this it seems.

[arista]

[Detectives did not disclose details of the allegations
facing openly gay Gambaccini, who is in a civil partnership
with his actor/model boyfriend Chris Sherwood.]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483732/Veteran-BBC-presenter-Paul-Gambaccini-arrested-suspicion-sexual-offences.html#ixzz2jQ7fu7Vy



We have to see if its a Fake Accuser or a True One


his Radio2 Show
for tomorrow evening
will be taken off air , I assume.


BBC are to speak about this later.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Is it possible that during that time it was acceptable to do things with younger women, age did not matter and so they thought they were doing nothing wrong? :conf:

[arista]

Is it possible that during that time it was acceptable to do things with younger women, age did not matter and so they thought they were doing nothing wrong? :conf:


We have No Update yet


It could be boys -- I hope not

[user104658]

Is it possible that during that time it was acceptable to do things with younger women, age did not matter and so they thought they were doing nothing wrong? :conf:

I've read someone say that, for the ones who were having sex with teenage groupies (not the actual paedophiles abusing children), it was very much "part of the culture"... However, it was still illegal at the time, as they would have known full well, and so the excuse of "bit knowing it was wrong" doesn't really fly.

Consent is a tricky issue, here. It's morally very questionable for grown men to be taking advantage of starstruck young girls and they should face the consequences of that.

HOWEVER, I'm not comfortable with sexual acts with post-pubescent teenage girls being lumped in with paedophilia. It ISN'T paedophilia. The severity of actual paedophilia demands that there be a strong distinction, in my opinion. There already is a legal one: statutory rape and child molestation are very different charges... But in the public eye, people (perverts and sex offenders though they may be) are being branded "paedophiles" when they simply are not.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

I've read someone say that, for the ones who were having sex with teenage groupies (not the actual paedophiles abusing children), it was very much "part of the culture"... However, it was still illegal at the time, as they would have known full well, and so the excuse of "bit knowing it was wrong" doesn't really fly.

Consent is a tricky issue, here. It's morally very questionable for grown men to be taking advantage of starstruck young girls and they should face the consequences of that.

HOWEVER, I'm not comfortable with sexual acts with post-pubescent teenage girls being lumped in with paedophilia. It ISN'T paedophilia. The severity of actual paedophilia demands that there be a strong distinction, in my opinion. There already is a legal one: statutory rape and child molestation are very different charges... But in the public eye, people (perverts and sex offenders though they may be) are being branded "paedophiles" when they simply are not.
I agree.

[chuff me dizzy]

The Bbc is as corrupt as hell ,and WE fund it

[arista]

The Bbc is as corrupt as hell ,and WE fund it


Bang ON Right Chuff

[joeysteele]

The Bbc is as corrupt as hell ,and WE fund it

I definitely go with that, it certainly seems to have been very bad at keeping its eye on all thatw as going on in the past and protecting younger people attending events transmitted by it.

It is appalling that the wages of those who will likely be found guilty have been paid via the BBC from the taxpayer and licence fee payers.

For that failure alone, I think the licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC be made to 'really work' for the funds it needs like all other TV companies.

[Kizzy]

I totally agree, they wouldn't be held to ransom by the government either then and could be more objective in their programming maybe?

[fingers]

The BBC is already a COMMERCIAL success and should fund itself. The Licence fee is a relic of the early 20th Century.

[erinp5]

:laugh:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYAca7RIQAATr76.jpg

[Nemo123]

The distinctive aspect about the BBC is they have a history, unlike SKY, who are new kids on the block. So, all of what went on, allegedly, happened long before SKY TV even existed. If people can't remember, or don't know, Sky TV, came into existence in the late 80's, when Saville was already an established paedo. The BBC has exised since the beginning of broadcasting, long before the notion of child sex abuse even existed. You have to realise that child abuse has existed since time immerorial, but it's not until Esther Rantzen brought in Childline, with the BBC, that the issue of childhood sexual abuse entered the public awareness.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/11/1/268174/default/v1/utils-1-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/11/1/268182/default/v1/the-sun-front-page-02.11.13-1-329x437.jpg

[Ammi]

Is it possible that during that time it was acceptable to do things with younger women, age did not matter and so they thought they were doing nothing wrong? :conf:

..no, it really wasn't Ceecee, which is one of the reasons this is all so shocking...

[Kizzy]

The phrase 'turning a blind eye' was used more then I think.
Organisations like the BBC, West Yorkshire Police, certain local and national government officials did it often.

[user104658]

The phrase 'turning a blind eye' was used more then I think.
Organisations like the BBC, West Yorkshire Police, certain local and national government officials did it often.

It still would be, if not for the internet. Thankfully we live in an age where organisations like this don't get to "turn a blind eye", because rumors and information spread fast across the country (and the world) without the media being able to "edit" it first. Of course, if the UK keeps heading along its current path of online censorship, the days of complete freedom of information are unfortunately numbered and we'll go back to high-profile people having their dirty little secrets officially buried...

[Jesus.]

The BBC is a great organisation, that makes some of the best programming anywhere in the world. I have no issues paying my license fee.

That doesn't say it's perfect, or in need of change, but in all areas of life there are problems. No one threatens to close parliament every time a politician is found with an orange up his arse.

Mistakes have been made in the past, and the culture of society iin general was extremely different in those times as well. If you have a few diseased trees, you don't burn down the forest. It will be depressing if we ever lose the bbc.

[arista]

[Paul Gambaccini arrested on suspicion of sexual offences
in Operation Yewtree
The veteran presenter was arrested
on Tuesday and has been bailed until a date in early January]


I wonder if a paper will bring out the Truth (whatever it is)
before then.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/paul-gambaccini-arrested-suspicion-sexual-offences-operation-yewtree