Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Limey

VIP Member
The Steeples live has been removed from YouTube apparently, and apparently he has said it's because he shouldn't have said some things?

This is a report from my friend so can someone verify?
If this was last night's, he was fairly drunk and apparently people kept posting names in the Live Chat.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3

catdod5678

New member
I find it so odd that people think The Sun would publish such a story without evidence, even if they refuse to publish.

This is the same scummy newspaper who phone hacked milly dowler familys phone whilst she was still missing in order to get exclusive. I don't doubt the lengths they would go to for a story

Additional Murdoch has just had to spend hundreds of millions in America due to settling a defamtion case. I don't think anyone within his businesses would risk such another big lawsuit
Maybe the owners don’t care about editorial integrity or legal liability and took a risk-based view? If the Sun and its journos are sued shareholders/owners have limited liability. Employees might lose everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

InTheDollsHouse

VIP Member
Holy fuck!!

The young person’s lawyer has denied what the mother said!!!!!
Not a tattle bingo I was expecting but maybe I was right

 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3

Shesaidwhat?

VIP Member
I wonder if the twenty year old still lives at home with their mum & stepdad? If they don’t how’s bank statements been seen and phone calls heard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

SendReceive

VIP Member
Giving money to an over 18 year old in return for pictures would not be unlawful, and you could argue is also not inappropriate.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

Nadia Vulvokov

Chatty Member
Because it isn’t in The Sun’s interest to have this information in the public domain. The BBC would be far more legally responsible and only make information public on a need-to-know basis. That’s the difference between gutter journalism and responsible behaviour.
Got it, that makes more sense. I read that the lawyers had been appointed today, not Friday! So basically if they don't come with the receipts they potentially a defamation case on their hands. Bloody vultures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3

studentgossip

Chatty Member
It's also important to remember that the presenter might actually be the true victim in all of this.
That's what I said in the rest of my post though, about the presenter being a victim. I feel for everyone involved right now. I just meant if the allegations are true, then the boy may still be being manipulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3

pommobear

VIP Member
Indeed. He (it seems anyway) didn't bring his young men to work with him or get them jobs on his show or bring them to awards ceremonies. He didn't get people fired for speaking up about his relationships. He didn't rule the BBC with a rod of iron like Philth seemingly did with ITV. He was allegedly warned before about the DM-ing though. Wasn't a good look befitting a serious newscaster. But no, he's no Schofield. And unfortunately I don't think he'll cope well with all this.
Where has it been said HE was warned about DM ing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3