[arista]

[Crimson Dynamo]

What would be the motivation for the young kid to get a lawyer anyroad?

[bots]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

What would be the motivation for the young kid to get a lawyer anyroad?

Given that there is no apparent legal jeopardy for any party, it is a bit odd. He isn't intending to sue anyone, so he is paying a lawyer for nothing.

The lawyers letter said the parent spoke rubbish. Thats a very legal term indeed

Also, it would have cost the kid at least 1k for the lawyer to send that letter, probably a lot more

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Given that there is no apparent legal jeopardy for any party, it is a bit odd. He isn't intending to sue anyone, so he is paying a lawyer for nothing.

The lawyers letter said the parent spoke rubbish. Thats a very legal term indeed

Also, it would have cost the kid at least 1k for the lawyer to send that letter, probably a lot more

They charge £725 per hour

[bots]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

They charge £725 per hour

Each letter sent has a minimum fee, plus initial context chats

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

What would be the motivation for the young kid to get a lawyer anyroad?

It's illegal for minors to send nudes.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's illegal for minors to send nudes.

but a minor could not be prosecuted

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

but a minor could not be prosecuted

They can be all three of arrested, charged and prosecuted even WHILST under 18 ... in reality, even the arrest is unlikely and charges being pursued is pretty much unheard of.

Where it might get murky (for the young chap) is if he was over 16, under 18 but claiming to be over 18, selling pictures. That would demonstrate knowingly doing something illegal for personal gain which at 16+ they might look less favourably on.

I still highly doubt it would even go to court though.

[bots]

the bbc tried to contact the mother twice over the 2 month period. They really took that seriously

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the bbc tried to contact the mother twice over the 2 month period. They really took that seriously

once by email and once by phone

#thorough

[Crimson Dynamo]

[UserSince2005]

Interesting BBC have released the list today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66158179
Maybe ahead of the person being outed

[arista]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

Interesting BBC have released the list today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66158179
Maybe ahead of the person being outed

No Graham Norton on that list?


Also BBC have suspended Male Dirty Bugger

So any list with women is stupid

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

No Graham Norton on that list?


Also BBC have suspended Male Dirty Bugger

So any list with women is stupid

That list was published today to show the salaries of BBC employees it has nothing to do with the investigation.

Graham Norton is not directly employed by the BBC

some of the people on that list are grossly overpaid

[bots]

if Norton is paid by a production company, he wont be on the list

[Cherie]

Philip Schofield must be over the moon, this has made him look a saint, he owned up and left

the accused in this case is lying low, clinging onto his high profile job for dear life, I wonder where his partner thought the 35K disappeared to or indeed his accountant

[Gusto Brunt]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Philip Schofield must be over the moon, this has made him look a saint, he owned up and left

the accused in this case is lying low, clinging onto his high profile job for dear life, I wonder where his partner thought the 35K disappeared to or indeed his accountant

Apparently he's being lined up as a Talk TV presenter. They just need enough time for the dust to settle.

I bet he wishes he was on air now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Philip Schofield must be over the moon, this has made him look a saint, he owned up and left

the accused in this case is lying low, clinging onto his high profile job for dear life, I wonder where his partner thought the 35K disappeared to or indeed his accountant

Yes but (bizarre morals, but it is what it is) having a sexual relationship with someone over the age of 16 isn't illegal - Schofe eventually accepted that his career was dead and that the GBP would not morally accept his actions (rightly) but was clear that nothing "Technically illegal" happened... which means he can just retire in shame.

But whilst you can **** a 17 year old ... you cannot aquire naked pictures of them. It's classed as child porn and is unambiguously illegal. If the chap in question was indeed verifiably under 18 when pictures changed hands ... the implications for [insent BBC employee here] are actually much worse than they were for Schofield. Schofield was never at any legal risk. Whoever this is, is going to have to "deny, deny, deny" or they're admitting to a crime.

[Gusto Brunt]

Guess who's paying for the kid's expensive lawyer - £750 an hour.

[bots]

I think the BBC needs to act fast. People are already fed up with them and there is a very real danger of a mass revolt on licence fees. For example, he has been suspended, but it didn't say without pay, so we can only assume we are still paying his salary

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think the BBC needs to act fast. People are already fed up with them and there is a very real danger of a mass revolt on licence fees. For example, he has been suspended, but it didn't say without pay, so we can only assume we are still paying his salary

Not us cord-cutters, our hands is clean

[bots]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Not us cord-cutters, our hands is clean

i still have a satellite dish and an active sky subscription, so it's a bit more tricky for me

[Crimson Dynamo]

Iain Collins just said if you hired a junior guest booker on TV/Radio and told them "oh can you get me this guest?" and a day later they said "i cant get them" and you ask "have you tried?" and they said "I sent one email and made one call"

they would get sacked...

[bots]

The director general says the information came to him on 6 July and "we acted swiftly".

Sarah Montague asked him is he's "satisfied with the timetable".

Tim Davie responds by saying he thinks that's the "wrong characterisation", there's always lessons to learn and valid question on how complaints are red flagged.


--------------------------------------------

he is just sweeping under the carpet the fact that it was ignored for 2 months until the Sun got involved

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The director general says the information came to him on 6 July and "we acted swiftly".

Sarah Montague asked him is he's "satisfied with the timetable".

Tim Davie responds by saying he thinks that's the "wrong characterisation", there's always lessons to learn and valid question on how complaints are red flagged.


--------------------------------------------

he is just sweeping under the carpet the fact that it was ignored for 2 months until the Sun got involved

I love the line being trotted out that 'we must learn lessons from this' how thick do you need to be after Saville and Harris and the sports guy nonce cant recall his name not to take this allegation seriously, they are taking the paying public for mugs and there will definately be a mass revolt over the license fee, I think the publication of the salaries paid has come at a very bad time for them, usually it would get more or less no coverage but now people are looking at the salaries in the midst of a cost of living crisis, mortgage hike and energy hikes and thinking.... no way are they worth that, and if he can afford 35K to get his kicks he can bloody well take a pay cut