There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 213 comments are related to the topic:
Thread removed..
Thread removed..
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 213
|
By:
What's the bigger crime,, what's happened here in this case? or Micah Richards being paid a salary of £200,000??
|
|
By:
i maintain if you can set aside £8k a year for four years into a nuddy picture kitty you're probably getting paid too much.
the person in question, whoever he or she is, may or may not be earning £435,000 pa. roughly 3 times what the prime minister earns. for reading the fooking news .... |
|
By:
i'll read it for £415,000
that's £20k of the licence fee saved straight away ... |
|
By:
will you read the 1.08 clock news?
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Most Premiership footballers could pay £350k for dirty pictures. There perhaps should be some perspective on BBC salaries tbf.
I wonder how much GB News presenters are being paid for attracting a miniscule audience. |
|
By:
Is that GB News thing still going these days?
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Has someone spunked away 35k?
|
|
By:
The Sun newspaper has spoken to a fourth younger person, a 17-year-old who at the time was still at school, who received messages from the suspended BBC presenter said to contain love hearts and kisses.
They are coming out of the Wood Work ............. |
|
By:
I've missed the 3rd person ,when was that ?
|
|
By:
Its all about Culture ,according to the BBC
 |
|
By:
@casemoney -- the "abusive and menacing messages to second young person" were in response to the second young person threatening to out the BBC presenter, which might be taken to be a spot of attempted blackmail.
|
|
By:
What’s wrong with the damn internet, why hasn’t an international news site named them yet?
Bengali times or sumat? Or is it that they have and the internet now has so many gatekeepers that we no better than -hooking China yet don’t know it? As for the bbc or the sun, I wouldn’t give either the steam off my own p1ss. I once liked the bbc and defended them, now all I do is chunter at how they are over inclusive and how I have to subsidise 5hit for idiots on a Saturday night. The Sun no better, I remember a kid once brought that rag into school, nowt came of him. You can be sure there is now a hotline for anyone with tickle tackle to help The Sun’s future legal case as they both become entrenched and legal vermin get another chance of flesh. |
|
By:
Just read Jobsbots lataest news.
|
|
By:
If I was pricing it up he would have been the absolute outsider of the field
|
|
By:
Huw never can tell, jimmy. Even outsiders can win swinging on the bridle..
|
|
By:
They do indeed pro
I think I’m right in remembering he announced the news on bbc of the passing of our queen and was playing the lead role throughout the period leading up to her funeral and again the lead of her funeral itself. If true would this mean when future generations are shown archive of the events around that time he will be edited out ? |
|
By:
Jobs Bots are saying G rand N ational,if you follow.
|
|
By:
Interesting, BESTY. So 1 of them is misinformed/lying. Unlike "reputable" UK sauces, they've not as much to lose if they call it wrong..
|
|
By:
that's 2 days old news/guesses, I think everyone knows who it is now. It is HE.
|
|
By:
Bored now. Whatever happened, this is not Savile or even Schofield despite the Sun using the word "child" to describe men well over the age of consent in order to get a paedo vibe going.
What we have is a BBC bloke on gay dating sites. The only allegation that anything illegal happened is around whether there was a nude pic sent when the now 21yo "child" was 17. He has denied it, and the Sun does not believe the mother's claim enough to print it. Oh, and a new allegation that he might have broken (or at least proposed breaking) lockdown. You know, like the Sun's deputy editor did. BBC bloke got angry when the 2nd chap threatened to out him (or blackmail him). So would anyone, and angry messages aren't illegal. Selling dirty pictures is not illegal. Buying dirty pictures is not illegal. Unless the BBC bloke moonlights as the Archbishop of Canterbury, it doesn't matter if he wants to spend all day on OnlyFans. To quote Boris, this is an inverted pyramid of piffle. |
|
By:
Agree Ramruna , if he's proven innocent then who cares about the identity anyway.
|
|
By:
It IS illegal if the picture was taken when the person was 17,which in itself is odd because he could have s**gged them quite legally assuming it was consensual.
Having said that I quite agree this shows no signs of being anything like SaVILE. |
|
By:
Presumably, then - This man's tendency towards young men - Then becomes just a Domestic issue between himself, his wife, and several children.
Have a hell of a job keeping the consequent Divorce quiet, though. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Not sure of your point mjk
|
|
By:
Rammy, forget The Sun and their obvious agenda. The main focus here should remain on the BBC. Had they acted appropriately when this problem first arose, there would've been no weighted stick to batter them with. Timmy is now speaking of better "protocols and procedures".. as if the Savile scandal never existed. You'd think after such a cover-up disaster they'd be going out of their way to remain as vigilant and transparent as possible - eager to act swiftly when any potential problem arises. The scale in comparison to Savile is not the point. The BBC rightfully classed this complaint as "very serious" and yet they went about it like doctors chucking a dying man into an empty room for the night.. casually telling themselves "he'll be FINE until the morning"..and of course when they enter in the morning to give him aid(the aid he could've/should've been receiving last night) he's pan bread.
Many of us will agree we don't give a flying **** what any other does in their private life(provided it's legal) but it's unrealistic to believe such a giant publicly funded service isn't guided by an expectation to live within certain standards of conduct(from top2bottom) Any employer can remove that expectation if they wish, simply by being BOLD and unwavering with their beliefs&policies. How likely is that? And so they should focus on having zero culpability. |
|
By:
The BBC may be hoping that Edwards will now hand in his resignation under the guise of an early retirement or whatever. He ain't going to do that .... not while he's suspended with FULL PAY. He's going to draw it out as long as possible I reckon!
|
|
By:
If the pic posted by 'ProSniper' (10:51) is true I'm glad I did not name the presenter in my earlier post. He was not the same BBC presenter as posted by 'ProSniper'.
|
|
By:
I still don’t believe it’s him
Not until I hear it officially. I have seen a few recently who I’d have thought more likely, that clearly can’t have been them. A really strange experience watching a gay newsreader read out news about the bbc and be a little bit smug about it. |
|
By:
Attention now fully focused on his mental health ...probably he'll be advised to play up that side of it too...
|
|
By:
If true this Royal Commentator is a big beast at the Beeb. As such more likely to be pretty cosy with senior management. But, my one was named by his colleagues early yesterday morning (8am).
|
|
By:
I’m with dusty here find it very hard indeed to believe it’s him.
|
|
By:
The presenter in question has been suspended.
Usual presenter of 10 pm News has been absent this week |
|
By:
You could say the same about Charlie on the bbc morning news
|
|
By:
"Jeremy Vine said the unnamed BBC presenter at the centre of the explicit photos scandal will be thinking it is “game over” if he is named.
Speaking on his Channel 5 show, Vine said: “I think the most famous people are the most vulnerable. And this person, when their name is revealed as it surely will be, everyone is going to say the same thing: how the hell did they think they could get away with this? “He’s looking at Schofield, probably, and thinking what happened to Schofield - once you let air in, once you become the named person, it’s game over. “I do know him and I think if he’s described now as angry by one of his friends, I think he believes there’s a fightback to be had here.” A BBC civil war over the presenter at the centre of claims about his private life escalated after colleagues backed Jeremy Vine’s calls for the figure to name himself. Vine said the presenter should allow himself to be named to help limit the reputational damage being suffered by the BBC. BBC staffers, frustrated at being unable to report the high-profile figure’s identity and critical of the corporation bosses’ handling of the affair, told i that they welcomed Vine’s intervention. “He is speaking for a lot of us when he says the presenter must come forward because the situation is causing deep damage to the BBC,” one said. “It’s an unsustainable position and each day we are getting bombarded with new revelations. The mood is grim.” Vine said the allegations had reached a “dangerous point” for the well-known figure, who was taken off air and suspended last week. “Look at the damage to the BBC, look at the damage to his friends,” Vine said on his Channel 5 show. He said the presenter should “show some degree of concern” for colleagues who have been falsely accused by coming forward. The presenter “wants to be anonymous for as long as possible, hoping that he can one day walk it back into the building”, Vine suggested. “It’s his decision but he needs to come forward now I think.” |
|
By:
Richard Bacon saw Vines tweet and hit back: “Stop it. You’re more emotionally intelligent than this. We don’t know the complexities of what his family are going through. Or what dark thoughts are running through his head,”
“Irrespective of what he’s done wrong. You can walk off people wrongly guessing it’s you for 5 minutes.” |
|
By:
As long as nothing unlawful has been committed and the young person was not underaged then I cannot side with Mr Vine calling the presenter to self-identify for obvious reasons. Unless Mr Vine knows more than what's been reported ie inside info thor' contact with BBC senior management it's not Mr Vine's role/responsibility to out this person publicly; his "suffering" amounts to little (now) as he's not off-air unexpectedly. If Mr Vines wants to out this presenter and opens himself to liable he'd do so. But, what Mr Vine's doing is not helpful, but solely with self interest or possibly harbouring a grievance after the suspended presenter..
The suspended presenter is not Saville or Mr Glitter. |
|
By:
The old adage of reaping what you sow seems appropriate regardless of who the offender is and I use the word offender advisedly as imo the majority will be offended not least the licence payers who pay the wages of these people.
Ironically I sent an email on behalf of one of my tenants regarding receipt of letters threatening her that she was behind in her payments by £16 for her licence and that it was a Criminal Offence to watch TV without a valid licence.The essence of my email was to ask why her licence fees were being used/wasted to pay the freaks the BBC employ,dated 3 months ago. Seemingly justified,again? |