BBC Keeping Children Safe Since 1980

[d000hg]

Otherwise it was no one else's business, unless the 17 year old victim was being pimped out, which is what got Prince Andrew in trouble.

Well no that's not really true. Just because someone isn't underage doesn't mean nothing wrong has happened. An older person exploiting someone vulnerable would for instance at the very least be deeply morally dubious.
That the young person is claiming everything was consensual doesn't necessarily make the problem go away. For one thing they might have been manipulated into saying - or even believing - this when it's not true, for another as an employer even if no laws are broken, paying a teenager for indecent pics is not really something you should be happy with. We don't know the young person is any more or less credible a witness than the parent.

[vetran]

So basically this presenter is a 'sugar daddy' or onlyfans style patron and its wrong then - why?

Not keen on either but it appears to be legal

[d000hg]

So basically this presenter is a 'sugar daddy' or onlyfans style patron and its wrong then - why?

Not keen on either but it appears to be legal

Let's see how you feel if it's your teenage daughter who is being 'persuaded' by some famous person to show naughty pics for money. The law does not define morality. And I don't think your analogy is accurate anyway, this isn't an OnlyFans person finding customers but someone who was coaxed into doing this. The implication is one of manipulation.

[cojak]

Let's see how you feel if it's your teenage daughter who is being 'persuaded' by some famous person to show naughty pics for money. The law does not define morality. And I don't think your analogy is accurate anyway, this isn't an OnlyFans person finding customers but someone who was coaxed into doing this. The implication is one of manipulation.

An alternate implication is one of blackmail. Of which the further implication is that the blackmail threat turned into reality.

[tazdevil]

So what's special about this celebrity that their privacy is all important? The BBC didn't have an issue flying helicopters over Cliff Richards house to advertise he'd been accused or outing politicians at the merest whiff of a scandal, etcetera.

[JustKeepSwimming]

So what's special about this celebrity that their privacy is all important? The BBC didn't have an issue flying helicopters over Cliff Richards house to advertise he'd been accused or outing politicians at the merest whiff of a scandal, etcetera.

1) The police searched Cliff's house, not the BBC. Police action in and of itself is reportable by the media.

2) What's your point exactly? That the BBC infringed Cliff's privacy therefore they should continue to infringe other celebrities privacy? Or that Cliff's infringement was fair and therefore this case it would be fair? In which case see 1.

[wattaj]

So what's special about this celebrity that their privacy is all important? The BBC didn't have an issue flying helicopters over Cliff Richards house to advertise he'd been accused or outing politicians at the merest whiff of a scandal, etcetera.

I believe that the celebrity is an employee. As such, the BBC have a legal duty of care. No such duty of care existed for Cliff.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I believe that the celebrity is an employee. As such, the BBC have a legal duty of care. No such duty of care existed for Cliff.

That's a good point. There were some legaleagles mentioning something like that. I would imagine that probably changes if the Police get involved beyond just having look at the evidence.

[Paralytic]

4) Kiddo instructed big law firm to send denial letter to BBC, and presumably looking to sue Sun.

I wonder how kiddo afforded the big law firm fees...

[JustKeepSwimming]

I wonder how kiddo afforded the big law firm fees...

Implying celeb? It's a big case, my money would be on pro bono with scope for contingency. It's potentially a case that would really boost a career.