A BBC presenter has been accused of paying a teenager for sexually explicit photographs, beginning when they were 17, according to The Sun.
So they finally cought up to gordon the gopher huh?
About bloody time.
I don’t mind paying a licence fee if it goes towards Sir David etc. But you’ve got to question wages that allow ‘tens of thousands’ to be splashed (oo-er) in only three years.
And BBC wonder why people complain about them.
Wait a minute… David Attenborough is a household name 🙊 surely not!?
The guy inside the Mr Blobby suit?
There is no-one in the suit - the BBC’s best kept secret.
So there’s an injunction I’m guessing and now it’s the whodunnit.
If there’s an injunction against publishing the name that means that the story is already out in public, but apparently only the Sun have it? Hummm.
They say its a “household name”, surely we can work this out
Mike Domestos?
My money’s on Mr Muscle
Barry Scott off of Cillit Bang always gave me wrong 'un vibes.
it’s not even his real name, how can we trust him
No, he gets rid of the dirt. He does not add to it. Can’t be my man bazza
This is legal isn’t it if the victim was 17? What is there to investigate?
Age of consent is 16 but I think both parties need be 18+ for sharing explicit selfies.
Which is a pretty retarded law if you think about it.
As with Philip Scholfield, there is such a disparity in age and power that it becomes very iffy. I’m not sure there’s anything illegal going on but it’s morally problematic.
The problem with “moral” problems is, who sets the morals? The church has been setting them for years, but they are now regarded as outdated and, to be frank, not a shining example of good “morality”.
Someone who’s a beeb star isn’t presenting their radio show tomorrow.
Makes you wonder.
If it’s Craig Charles, I’m going to be miffed.
Smeggin’ 'ell!
It was Rimmer, he made me do it!
Who?
tens of thousands of pounds? another meganonce at the bbc
