The Nawty BBC Presenter

[Allergic2Hoof]

How do we know they’re expensive?

In these sorts of very high profile situations many lawyers do the work for nothing.

Even if they are expensive, unless something illegal has occurred, which is being questioned, it’s none of our business surely?

In the meantime, has Johnson provided his WhatsApps yet? Haven’t heard anything about that as first story on all major news bulletins. It’s almost as though we are all being played.

The same lawyers that represent senior members of the Royal family. How can a minor fund that? Or the mother who kicked all this off. Something smells

 

[Londonlisa2001]

The same lawyers that represent senior members of the Royal family. How can a minor fund that? Or the mother who kicked all this off. Something smells

As I said, many lawyers do this sort of very high profile work for free.

I agree that something smells. The more that comes out about this the more it appears to be some sort of effort to destroy the BBC.

The person isn’t, by the way, a minor. Not now at least - they are 20 or 21.

Again, I think the whole thing is hugely distasteful. But there’s a difference between that and illegal. There is a suggestion that it’s all to do with an Only Fans account. No idea whether that is or isn’t true. But if it is true, there is presumably a declaration that anyone on that site is over 18? And I’m not sure who is responsible for ensuring that is true or not. I find the whole Only Fans stuff seedy and horrible - but that’s me. I’m aware that many use it and it appears that there is nothing illegal about it. So trashing someone who does use it and destroying their life because they work for the BBC seems horrible.

I mean some are saying that it means the tax payer is funding payments to this young man. How does that make sense? It’s like saying the taxpayer is funding a pizza if a nurse goes to Pizza Express. There are definitely people who are using this to get rid of the BBC. And you have to wonder why they want that.

If the presenter has done something illegal I expect the police to take swift and appropriate action and the BBC to remove them from their job. But if not, I genuinely don’t understand the public interest in destroying a person and their family.

 

[Allergic2Hoof]

I agree with you on it all being distasteful. However, the BBC is taxpayer funded and therefore different rules apply, especially when the allegations came out that the guy was 17 at the time.

High priced lawyers representing this guy which appears to go against the expressions of his mother with a public figure on the receiving end of allegations doesn't fit right. You know as well as I that you will usually find the answer if you follow the money.

Only fans is a modern disgrace and I would prefer, like you, that this is all nonsense. However the bbc has history here. A lot of it too. But by following the money we could also find out that it is also an attempt to fit the bbc up. I'm not picking sides here , nor do I think the bbc are funding lawyers for the complainant, but somebody is. We can agree to disagree on that.

 

[monmouth]

Parliament is taxpayer funded and up to its eyes in real and physical sexual assaults being covered up, downplayed and excused. Maybe we should get rid of that instead.

And this person was not a minor were they? It’s a quirk of the soliciting sexual images law that an adult over 16 that could consent to sex cannot consent to explicit images of themselves.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I agree with you on it all being distasteful. However, the BBC is taxpayer funded and therefore different rules apply, especially when the allegations came out that the guy was 17 at the time.

High priced lawyers representing this guy which appears to go against the expressions of his mother with a public figure on the receiving end of allegations doesn't fit right. You know as well as I that you will usually find the answer if you follow the money.

Only fans is a modern disgrace and I would prefer, like you, that this is all nonsense. However the bbc has history here. A lot of it too. But by following the money we could also find out that it is also an attempt to fit the bbc up. I'm not picking sides here , nor do I think the bbc are funding lawyers for the complainant, but somebody is. We can agree to disagree on that.

The BBC isn’t actually taxpayer funded though. It’s funded through the license fee which is different. Now there’s an argument that says that is just semantics but you can choose to not take the BBC service and thereby not pay the fee (which is not the case with tax).

Don’t get me wrong, this stuff is horrible reputationally for the BBC and the person in question will have to now go - it’s not as if he can carry on as he was I imagine. And, again, I find it deeply seedy and distasteful.

All I’m trying to do is separate out the illegal from the distasteful. I’ve never believed the distasteful being in the public interest to know unless they are a public servant. And even then, some of it isn’t really any of our business. Illegal - no sympathy and expect swift police action.

Having said that, there have been a few accusations flying about on social media that if true would start to suggest something very very unpleasant.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Strictly speaking the licence fee is indeed a tax.

 

[Longlostjack]

As I said, many lawyers do this sort of very high profile work for free.

I agree that something smells. The more that comes out about this the more it appears to be some sort of effort to destroy the BBC.

The person isn’t, by the way, a minor. Not now at least - they are 20 or 21.

Again, I think the whole thing is hugely distasteful. But there’s a difference between that and illegal. There is a suggestion that it’s all to do with an Only Fans account. No idea whether that is or isn’t true. But if it is true, there is presumably a declaration that anyone on that site is over 18? And I’m not sure who is responsible for ensuring that is true or not. I find the whole Only Fans stuff seedy and horrible - but that’s me. I’m aware that many use it and it appears that there is nothing illegal about it. So trashing someone who does use it and destroying their life because they work for the BBC seems horrible.

I mean some are saying that it means the tax payer is funding payments to this young man. How does that make sense? It’s like saying the taxpayer is funding a pizza if a nurse goes to Pizza Express. There are definitely people who are using this to get rid of the BBC. And you have to wonder why they want that.

If the presenter has done something illegal I expect the police to take swift and appropriate action and the BBC to remove them from their job. But if not, I genuinely don’t understand the public interest in destroying a person and their family.

“I agree that something smells. The more that comes out about this the more it appears to be some sort of effort to destroy the BBC.”

Yes, the Murdoch press have always been the ones to uphold ethical standards and have never had an agenda of any sort.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

It's the BBC "Breaking News" team that has today published the 2nd allegation against the same BBC presenter.

 

[JustJack]

The BBC isn’t actually taxpayer funded though. It’s funded through the license fee which is different. Now there’s an argument that says that is just semantics but you can choose to not take the BBC service and thereby not pay the fee (which is not the case with tax).

Don’t get me wrong, this stuff is horrible reputationally for the BBC and the person in question will have to now go - it’s not as if he can carry on as he was I imagine. And, again, I find it deeply seedy and distasteful.

All I’m trying to do is separate out the illegal from the distasteful. I’ve never believed the distasteful being in the public interest to know unless they are a public servant. And even then, some of it isn’t really any of our business. Illegal - no sympathy and expect swift police action.

Having said that, there have been a few accusations flying about on social media that if true would start to suggest something very very unpleasant.

That's not what happens in reality though, if you are caught watching Television (or even live streaming on a computer) in your home without a license, then you will have broken the law,
regardless of whether you were watching the BBC or not, at the time.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Strictly speaking the licence fee is indeed a tax.

With apologies for my accounting related pedantry which I know you enjoy , it’s not.

By definition a tax is unrequited (the main characteristic of an unrequited transaction is that nothing commensurate with the charge is provided to the payer).

The licence fee is requited (over 90% of the fee goes directly to providing the service to those that pay the fee). It is classed, therefore, as a fee rather than as tax (hence its name).

It forms a part of the government public sector receipts (as do social contributions - largely NI) but is not classified by the ONS as a tax. About 70% of receipts are taxation, 20% social contributions and 10% fees.

One suggestion at the moment is changing it from a fee to a tax (as some other countries have done).

I know some definitions state that it is effectively a hypothecated tax but the key word there is effectively - strictly speaking it is not. I did say before it may be regarded as semantics…

If the presenter had spent his leisure time studying tax it may have been better for him!

 

[Londonlisa2001]

That's not what happens in reality though, if you are caught watching Television (or even live streaming on a computer) in your home without a license, then you will have broken the law,
regardless of whether you were watching the BBC or not, at the time.

As long as you can prove you don’t access the BBC you don’t need the licence. It’s, as I said, a bit semantics as I would imagine there aren’t that many that could do that who have a TV but I suspect it’s a higher number than it used to be. There have been some recent cases from memory where people have done just that.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

With apologies for my accounting related pedantry which I know you enjoy , it’s not.

By definition a tax is unrequited (the main characteristic of an unrequited transaction is that nothing commensurate with the charge is provided to the payer).

The licence fee is requited (over 90% of the fee goes directly to providing the service to those that pay the fee). It is classed, therefore, as a fee rather than as tax (hence its name).

It forms a part of the government public sector receipts (as do social contributions - largely NI) but is not classified by the ONS as a tax. About 70% of receipts are taxation, 20% social contributions and 10% fees.

One suggestion at the moment is changing it from a fee to a tax (as some other countries have done).

I know some definitions state that it is effectively a hypothecated tax but the key word there is effectively - strictly speaking it is not. I did say before it may be regarded as semantics…

If the presenter had spent his leisure time studying tax it may have been better for him!

I do miss our chats. :lol: I thought the ONS reclassified it as a tax some years back but it’s been a while since I had to think about it. And it doesn’t really matter in this context.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I do miss our chats. :lol: I thought the ONS reclassified it as a tax some years back but it’s been a while since I had to think about it. And it doesn’t really matter in this context.

Ooh, interesting - they may have done - I left Capita back in 2004 (I think) so could be since then.

That’s sneaky of them if they have as it doesn’t meet the definition which is (I think) unchanged as has to be unrequited.

You realise we are the only people on here that remotely care

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Ooh, interesting - they may have done - I left Capita back in 2004 (I think) so could be since then.

That’s sneaky of them if they have as it doesn’t meet the definition which is (I think) unchanged as has to be unrequited.

You realise we are the only people on here that remotely care

Yup. We should probably stop now. :lol: