BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 162 of 261 < 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 >

Mapletree Croydon 10 Jul 23 9.08pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Maybe there was more to the story but doesn't this seem a lot to pay for some pictures? And how did these payments take place? A 17 year old paying £35,000 into a bank account would be a bit tricky. It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period.

Mapletree

Croydon 10 Jul 23 9.08pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Maybe there was more to the story but doesn't this seem a lot to pay for some pictures?
And how did these payments take place? A 17 year old paying £35,000 into a bank account would be a bit tricky.

It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period.

Hrolf The Ganger 10 Jul 23 9.11pm
I can't imagine why someone would pay someone such a huge sum for a few dirty pictures. It sounds like horses*** to me, but we will see. Surely they have heard of P*rn Hub. I'm sure a psychotherapist would explain it all away as thrill seeking but show me evidence.

Hrolf The Ganger

10 Jul 23 9.11pm

I can't imagine why someone would pay someone such a huge sum for a few dirty pictures. It sounds like horses*** to me, but we will see.
Surely they have heard of P*rn Hub.

I'm sure a psychotherapist would explain it all away as thrill seeking but show me evidence.

Teddy Eagle 10 Jul 23 9.17pm
Originally posted by Mapletree It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period. So £1000 a month. Must've been cash or there would be an audit trail. Still seems a lot to pay for pictures.

Teddy Eagle

10 Jul 23 9.17pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period.

So £1000 a month. Must've been cash or there would be an audit trail. Still seems a lot to pay for pictures.

steeleye20 Croydon 10 Jul 23 9.19pm
It didn't feel right. 'It's all b****x ', or similar, young persons lawyer. Why would a BBC presenter do such a thing? I thought far fetched where is the evidence. Media, politicians all jumping in, the appalling Sun, who would believe anything they say. This is very 'messy'.

steeleye20

Croydon 10 Jul 23 9.19pm

It didn't feel right.

'It's all b****x ', or similar, young persons lawyer.

Why would a BBC presenter do such a thing?

I thought far fetched where is the evidence.

Media, politicians all jumping in, the appalling Sun, who would believe anything they say.

This is very 'messy'.

palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 10 Jul 23 9.29pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So £1000 a month. Must've been cash or there would be an audit trail. Still seems a lot to pay for pictures. I read somewhere earlier today that the payments were made via PayPal. Dunno if that’s true, but it’s certainly a less visible medium...

palace_in_frogland

In a broken dream 10 Jul 23 9.29pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So £1000 a month. Must've been cash or there would be an audit trail. Still seems a lot to pay for pictures.

I read somewhere earlier today that the payments were made via PayPal. Dunno if that’s true, but it’s certainly a less visible medium...

Teddy Eagle 10 Jul 23 9.37pm
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland I read somewhere earlier today that the payments were made via PayPal. Dunno if that’s true, but it’s certainly a less visible medium... That's true. I don't know how Paypal works but wouldn't these payments still be traceable?

Teddy Eagle

10 Jul 23 9.37pm

Originally posted by palace_in_frogland

I read somewhere earlier today that the payments were made via PayPal. Dunno if that’s true, but it’s certainly a less visible medium...

That's true. I don't know how Paypal works but wouldn't these payments still be traceable?

Spiderman Horsham 10 Jul 23 9.59pm
Originally posted by Mapletree The BBC has stated that the original request was stop the presenter from giving their son money Then suddenly the complaint became that the money was given due to (illegal) lewd photos. Nearly two months after the first request. The BBC also said that they could not get hold of the parents or the child to check the facts after the first request. I guess we can all take a view on this. It is interesting how much bandwagon jumping has gone on, certain members of the Government may not look too clever if the BBC substantiates its comments. I wonder why any Conservative minister might want to discredit and scare our national independent medium. The person has not denied receiving money. Why would the presenter be sending them money? When the solicitors say nothing inappropriate has happened, that is up for debate. The parents are adamant they showed screenshots and bank statements, which back their claims, to the BBC, I see no reason for the parents to try to discredit the presenter, unless they have evidence. As for any statements being made by the BBC, well they have previous don’t they! Saville and Hall to name but 2

Spiderman

Horsham 10 Jul 23 9.59pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

The BBC has stated that the original request was stop the presenter from giving their son money

Then suddenly the complaint became that the money was given due to (illegal) lewd photos. Nearly two months after the first request.

The BBC also said that they could not get hold of the parents or the child to check the facts after the first request.

I guess we can all take a view on this.

It is interesting how much bandwagon jumping has gone on, certain members of the Government may not look too clever if the BBC substantiates its comments. I wonder why any Conservative minister might want to discredit and scare our national independent medium.

The person has not denied receiving money. Why would the presenter be sending them money? When the solicitors say nothing inappropriate has happened, that is up for debate.
The parents are adamant they showed screenshots and bank statements, which back their claims, to the BBC,
I see no reason for the parents to try to discredit the presenter, unless they have evidence.
As for any statements being made by the BBC, well they have previous don’t they! Saville and Hall to name but 2

Spiderman Horsham 10 Jul 23 10.00pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle That's true. I don't know how Paypal works but wouldn't these payments still be traceable? Name is on bank statements, allegedly

Spiderman

Horsham 10 Jul 23 10.00pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

That's true. I don't know how Paypal works but wouldn't these payments still be traceable?

Name is on bank statements, allegedly

Hrolf The Ganger 10 Jul 23 10.08pm
Originally posted by Spiderman The person has not denied receiving money. Why would the presenter be sending them money? When the solicitors say nothing inappropriate has happened, that is up for debate. The parents are adamant they showed screenshots and bank statements, which back their claims, to the BBC, I see no reason for the parents to try to discredit the presenter, unless they have evidence. As for any statements being made by the BBC, well they have previous don’t they! Saville and Hall to name but 2 It has to be said that a newspaper would be very reluctant to print such a damning story without something concrete. It's just utter madness if true.

Hrolf The Ganger

10 Jul 23 10.08pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

It has to be said that a newspaper would be very reluctant to print such a damning story without something concrete.

It's just utter madness if true.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 Jul 23 10.09pm
Originally posted by silvertop But why the BBC and why public money? Defamation is about reputation of people. Whoever is that presenter would have right of action not the BBC. All I think the BBC were doing was explaining why they aren't naming the individual as they don't want to run the risk of a defamation action being brought against them. Any action taken by anyone defamed would be down to the individual involved and not their employer. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 10 Jul 23 10.09pm

Originally posted by silvertop

But why the BBC and why public money? Defamation is about reputation of people. Whoever is that presenter would have right of action not the BBC.

All I think the BBC were doing was explaining why they aren't naming the individual as they don't want to run the risk of a defamation action being brought against them. Any action taken by anyone defamed would be down to the individual involved and not their employer.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Stirlingsays 10 Jul 23 10.21pm
Originally posted by Spiderman The person has not denied receiving money. Why would the presenter be sending them money? When the solicitors say nothing inappropriate has happened, that is up for debate. The parents are adamant they showed screenshots and bank statements, which back their claims, to the BBC, I see no reason for the parents to try to discredit the presenter, unless they have evidence. As for any statements being made by the BBC, well they have previous don’t they! Saville and Hall to name but 2 Sounds like this presenter wanted to 'it's a knock one out'. Dirty, dirty old man.....flipping old Steptoe in a suit. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

10 Jul 23 10.21pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Sounds like this presenter wanted to 'it's a knock one out'.

Dirty, dirty old man.....flipping old Steptoe in a suit.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Helmet46 Croydon 10 Jul 23 10.22pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle All I think the BBC were doing was explaining why they aren't naming the individual as they don't want to run the risk of a defamation action being brought against them. Any action taken by anyone defamed would be down to the individual involved and not their employer. Yeah probably learnt their lesson after they had to pay Cliff Richard £2m of our money a few years ago.

Helmet46

Croydon 10 Jul 23 10.22pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yeah probably learnt their lesson after they had to pay Cliff Richard £2m of our money a few years ago.

silvertop Portishead 10 Jul 23 10.27pm
Originally posted by silvertop But why the BBC and why public money? Defamation is about reputation of people. Whoever is that presenter would have right of action not the BBC. Actually I will answer my own post. They are not suppressing the story. They are not exposing the name for fear they will be sued by the presenter if it transpires the story is a shake down... Oh you just said that... Think I'll pop over to transfers and see what's occurred... Edited by silvertop (10 Jul 2023 10.29pm)

silvertop

Portishead 10 Jul 23 10.27pm

Originally posted by silvertop

But why the BBC and why public money? Defamation is about reputation of people. Whoever is that presenter would have right of action not the BBC.

Actually I will answer my own post. They are not suppressing the story. They are not exposing the name for fear they will be sued by the presenter if it transpires the story is a shake down...

Oh you just said that...

Think I'll pop over to transfers and see what's occurred...

Edited by silvertop (10 Jul 2023 10.29pm)

dreamwaverider London 10 Jul 23 10.56pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Sounds like this presenter wanted to 'it's a knock one out'. Dirty, dirty old man.....flipping old Steptoe in a suit. Or woman, or even trans possibly or tranee come to that. Edited by dreamwaverider (10 Jul 2023 10.57pm)

dreamwaverider

London 10 Jul 23 10.56pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Sounds like this presenter wanted to 'it's a knock one out'.

Dirty, dirty old man.....flipping old Steptoe in a suit.

Or woman, or even trans possibly or tranee come to that.

Edited by dreamwaverider (10 Jul 2023 10.57pm)

Mapletree Croydon 10 Jul 23 11.20pm
Originally posted by Spiderman The person has not denied receiving money. Why would the presenter be sending them money? When the solicitors say nothing inappropriate has happened, that is up for debate. The parents are adamant they showed screenshots and bank statements, which back their claims, to the BBC, I see no reason for the parents to try to discredit the presenter, unless they have evidence. As for any statements being made by the BBC, well they have previous don’t they! Saville and Hall to name but 2 I think it highly likely money was given to the individual. But my point was the original request does not appear to have contained any accusation of p***.graphy or illegal goings on. It was therefore very different from the new complaint. The accusations made against the bbc appear to be ill founded. Especially if the family refused to help the original investigation as has been indicated. Edited by Mapletree (10 Jul 2023 11.21pm)

Mapletree

Croydon 10 Jul 23 11.20pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

I think it highly likely money was given to the individual. But my point was the original request does not appear to have contained any accusation of p***.graphy or illegal goings on. It was therefore very different from the new complaint. The accusations made against the bbc appear to be ill founded. Especially if the family refused to help the original investigation as has been indicated.

Edited by Mapletree (10 Jul 2023 11.21pm)

Stirlingsays 10 Jul 23 11.35pm
Originally posted by dreamwaverider Or woman, or even trans possibly or tranee come to that. Edited by dreamwaverider (10 Jul 2023 10.57pm) Na, the BBC confirmed that it's a bloke. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

10 Jul 23 11.35pm

Originally posted by dreamwaverider

Or woman, or even trans possibly or tranee come to that.

Edited by dreamwaverider (10 Jul 2023 10.57pm)

Na, the BBC confirmed that it's a bloke.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

cryrst The garden of England 11 Jul 23 4.42am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Na, the BBC confirmed that it's a bloke. Don’t misgender them, it’s surely a human or a mammal or a multi celled living creature. That BBC get away with murder

cryrst

The garden of England 11 Jul 23 4.42am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Na, the BBC confirmed that it's a bloke.

Don’t misgender them, it’s surely a human or a mammal or a multi celled living creature. That BBC get away with murder

Stirlingsays 11 Jul 23 6.31am
Originally posted by cryrst Don’t misgender them, it’s surely a human or a mammal or a multi celled living creature. That BBC get away with murder I wonder if we identify as Zaha we can get 200 grand a week. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

11 Jul 23 6.31am

Originally posted by cryrst

Don’t misgender them, it’s surely a human or a mammal or a multi celled living creature. That BBC get away with murder

I wonder if we identify as Zaha we can get 200 grand a week.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Spiderman Horsham 11 Jul 23 7.03am
Originally posted by Mapletree I think it highly likely money was given to the individual. But my point was the original request does not appear to have contained any accusation of p***.graphy or illegal goings on. It was therefore very different from the new complaint. The accusations made against the bbc appear to be ill founded. Especially if the family refused to help the original investigation as has been indicated. Edited by Mapletree (10 Jul 2023 11.21pm) Indicated by the BBC though. Completely possible they are trying to cover themselves by putting the blame onto the family. With such an allegation against a high profile employee, why was the DG not told until Thursday last week? Maybe they hoped it would “ go away” . It seems there might be a mutiny brewing at the BBC amongst the presenter’s colleagues, get the popcorn out. I suspect Philip Schofield already has

Spiderman

Horsham 11 Jul 23 7.03am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Edited by Mapletree (10 Jul 2023 11.21pm)

Indicated by the BBC though. Completely possible they are trying to cover themselves by putting the blame onto the family. With such an allegation against a high profile employee, why was the DG not told until Thursday last week? Maybe they hoped it would “ go away” . It seems there might be a mutiny brewing at the BBC amongst the presenter’s colleagues, get the popcorn out. I suspect Philip Schofield already has

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 8.51am
The arrival of a lawyer threatening legal action against speculation, has only added petrol to the fire. I disengage, I turn the page.

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 8.51am

The arrival of a lawyer threatening legal action against speculation, has only added petrol to the fire.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Page 162 of 261 < 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map