This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No need. It's obvious and, I suspect, the result of an autocorrect on the device I was using. The meaning was clear enough though and seems to have been confirmed by the news this evening. I hear several BBC presenters are considering suing a variety of people on Twitter for defamation, so perhaps the caution by the BBC is understandable. 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.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
And yet,....a lawyer appointed by a young drug-addict 'victim', warns against naming the alleged culprit and rubbishes the story. By my thinking, someone is anxious to protect their career and has spent money on a lawyer ,...and perhaps the victim needed some wonga,..and everything goes a lot quieter. The truth will come out eventually. You can't just keep paying off victims.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
And yet,....a lawyer appointed by a young drug-addict 'victim', warns against naming the alleged culprit and rubbishes the story. By my thinking, someone is anxious to protect their career and has spent money on a lawyer ,...and perhaps the victim needed some wonga,..and everything goes a lot quieter. The truth will come out eventually. You can't just keep paying off victims. 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.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Maybe there was more to the story but doesn't this seem a lot to pay for some pictures?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Maybe there was more to the story but doesn't this seem a lot to pay for some pictures? It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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. I'm sure a psychotherapist would explain it all away as thrill seeking but show me evidence.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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'.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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...
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
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
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.