Has the kid been paid off? I smell some bs. So we are to believe the sun printed with no proof whatsoever apart from the word of a lunatic woman? Gov minister called in, police called in with no proof or a dodgy fake bank statement? BS
in this situation those who want to be bitchy about celebrities will find silence suspicious, equally, if he made a statement, they would see this as a cover up. (Those who denied involvement early on were accused of lying to save their arse.)It’s the silence for me.. surely if HE was innocent and it’s all ‘rubbish’ he would of made a statement through lawyers? All his co-workers are getting branded all kinds of names and accused and he stays quiet?
We only have a statement from the parent that this happened. It seems the child of the said parent is discrediting the parent’s claims, so we have no idea if these calls actually ever took place if we are to believe the child.Phoning the young person twice and asking him to tell his mum to drop it doesn’t look good.
You have no way of knowing if the BBC handled this correctly or not. The BBC have have said they started an investigation back in May. If, as the child is saying, there is nothing untoward going on, then the BBC had nothing to address.If the BBC handled this properly in May when it was first reported then maybe it wouldn’t of been made so public.
Obv they haven’t learned anything after Saville and I wouldn’t put it past them to cover other stuff up.
That being the down fall of schoff who was infact grooming a boy from the age of 10 technicallyThe young person in the Schofe situation had his lawyers not only paid for, but chosen, by Schofe.
It’s not really a case of victim blaming the lad because the lad has come out and said he isn’t a victim. The bigger question now is the parents motive.I think the Mum was just trying her best to stop the money & by saying '17' to The Sun it made the story get reported. The young man could still be telling the truth & it not be from a payoff etc
I'm still really disturbed by the 2 members who seem determined to find HE innocent, and keep victim blaming the lad, his parents etc
And it's tv extenstion is the shittest tv news station of them all. Going down the pan thankfully.I did say that that rag is the shittest of them all.
This is what I would bet on. It suits both parties to just say move along, nothing more to see.My thoughts were similar
Young person gets into online thing with presenter
Young person decides to bribe presenter
£35k and 3 years later Young persons mother steps in and alerts the scum about the money
Young person realises if this all comes out they will be in trouble for bribery and tries to quell the rumours
I think all of that happened just no pics sent when he was 17Has the kid been paid off? I smell some bs. So we are to believe the sun printed with no proof whatsoever apart from the word of a lunatic woman? Gov minister called in, police called in with no proof or a dodgy fake bank statement? BS
Girrrrrllll we’re a gossip site not the Vatican Council
If you wanna harshly judge other users and demonstrate your moral superiority then Mumsnet is thataway
Although….WAIT! I heard the Presenter hired a super expensive internet manipulation agency to cleanse social media. Are you part of them? If so, are you being paid £35k per hour?
Yeah, the front pages are usually revealed between 10 and 10:30, although it sometimes depends, and sometimes some papers don't. It's not unheard of for some papers' "first edition" to be a dummy front page to hide what they're actual headline is.It’s up to the Sun to show any evidence to support their story if not it will only confirm to some people it cannot be described as a newspaper.
GB news usually do the next day paper front pages I think around 10.30 not sure but will be interesting to see what the headlines are.
I think he’s our main suspect now tbhSo are we saying Fireman Sam is still in the running?
the posts were before that came out, so were victim blamingIt’s not really a case of victim blaming the lad because the lad has come out and said he isn’t a victim. The bigger question now is the parents motive.
Indeed, and this statement doesn’t mean that no pictures or money were exchanged when the kid was 17. For example, it could just mean that the presenter and his lawyers believe that he has a solid defence to any criminal charges that are laid in that respect.Giving money to an over 18 year old in return for pictures would not be unlawful, and you could argue is also not inappropriate.
Exactly! When I was a young un as far as my parents were concerned drugs are drugs, no distinction between pot and smack, anyone using drugs was a druggie. There is a difference between recreational drug use and addiction. We simply dont know the details of this lads situation and nor should we! Mam should have kept her trap shut and not gone near a tabloid with her 'childs' private business.Only the parents have said that.
Oh, fair enoughthe posts were before that came out, so were victim blaming
Same. Show the receipts, s*** or get off the pot. It's the only thing they can do now really.I wouldn’t believe a word The Scum writes
Unless it comes from a credible source, i’ll wait
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?