[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

Apologies for my lack of a link (I’ll learn how to do it at some point) but it’s easily googled anyway.

Seems yet ANOTHER TV presenter is about to be outed for yet more inappropriate behaviour, this time paying a teenager large amounts of cash for inappropriate images.

Another big names gonna be joining the likes of Saville, Harris, Schofield, etc, all of them employed by the good old impartial (sniggers) Beeb at some point in their seedy careers.

The governments already getting involved (probably covering their own backs).

Nobody’s been named yet (it’s not Lineker though cos he’s come out and told us it’s not him), I dunno why he had to pipe up, he wasn’t even asked, but there you go, as soon as I heard Linekers comments my first thoughts went to Shakespeare ‘Thou doth protest too much’.

Let’s not speculate who it is just yet, let’s just be grateful that this particular British Institutional Swamp is being drained bit by bit and let’s hope that every single child abusing TV personally gets their just desserts.

Now time to cancel my TV licence payments (oh yeh, no need, I did that when Saville got outed)

Any of our BBC loving friends want to comment on the corruption and pedo behaviour in this wonderful (laughs) British Institution 😂

[Mr Mercury]

Kevin Sullivan on talk radio says he knows who it is and we’ll be astonished when the name comes out. Many BBC presenters already taking to social media to deny its them, this sounds like another big name.

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

Mr Mercury said:

1688855105[/url]' post='1752997']
Kevin Sullivan on talk radio says he knows who it is and we'll be astonished when the name comes out. Many BBC presenters already taking to social media to deny its them, this sounds like another big name.

Doesn’t surprise me 1 bit, the whole institution is corrupt and rotten to the core.

I’m astonished at the amount of people (not just Lineker) coming out and saying ‘it’s not me’, makes me wonder what the rest of em are hiding yet we’re supposed to take at face value what they’re feeding us through the news.

Totally corrupt organisation on a par with the government and Royal Family as far as I’m concerned, the swamps being drained bit by bit but the lot of em need to be outed quickly.

[isleaiw1]

Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil, on 08 July 2023 - 09:43 PM, said:

Apologies for my lack of a link (I’ll learn how to do it at some point) but it’s easily googled anyway.

Seems yet ANOTHER TV presenter is about to be outed for yet more inappropriate behaviour, this time paying a teenager large amounts of cash for inappropriate images.

Another big names gonna be joining the likes of Saville, Harris, Schofield, etc, all of them employed by the good old impartial (sniggers) Beeb at some point in their seedy careers.

The governments already getting involved (probably covering their own backs).

Nobody’s been named yet (it’s not Lineker though cos he’s come out and told us it’s not him), I dunno why he had to pipe up, he wasn’t even asked, but there you go, as soon as I heard Linekers comments my first thoughts went to Shakespeare ‘Thou doth protest too much’.

Let’s not speculate who it is just yet, let’s just be grateful that this particular British Institutional Swamp is being drained bit by bit and let’s hope that every single child abusing TV personally gets their just desserts.

Now time to cancel my TV licence payments (oh yeh, no need, I did that when Saville got outed)

Any of our BBC loving friends want to comment on the corruption and pedo behaviour in this wonderful (laughs) British Institution 😂

You do understand the laws around privacy, and the fact that until proven, the BBc cant actually say anything about the rumours. If they comment to the positive and it was incorrect, they could be done for libel and defamation, so the best they can do about a rumour is leave it to be investigated and the evidence obtained and the criminal process to be followed.

What would you have them do, sack them and publicly admonish them for a rumour. Imagine where that might lead in a world where social media is everything and its pretty easy to get a wild and untrue story spread quickly.

If they found a weirdo amongst the people at your firm, would we blame you or your employers? Or is it a personal thing and not something his employers could control? what about if one was a druggie, should they know all about that and react to rumours?

The world is full of weirdos, blame the individual not their employer or colleagues....

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

isleaiw1 said:

1688855559[/url]' post='1753002']
You do understand the laws around privacy, and the fact that until proven, the BBc cant actually say anything about the rumours. If they comment to the positive and it was incorrect, they could be done for libel and defamation, so the best they can do about a rumour is leave it to be investigated and the evidence obtained and the criminal process to be followed.

What would you have them do, sack them and publicly admonish them for a rumour. Imagine where that might lead in a world where social media is everything and its pretty easy to get a wild and untrue story spread quickly.

If they found a weirdo amongst the people at your firm, would we blame you or your employers? Or is it a personal thing and not something his employers could control? what about if one was a druggie, should they know all about that and react to rumours?

The world is full of weirdos, blame the individual not their employer or colleagues....

Yeh I know how the law works unfortunately (you told us in another thread how the rich are allowed to get away with it) and I know how the BBC works; Pay them handsomely, get em a knighthood then out em when they’re dead and it’s far too late.

Your way doesn’t seem to work though does it pal, the British public (who pay their wages) are getting angry and want these people outing as soon as possible before any more children get hurt.

[isleaiw1]

Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil, on 08 July 2023 - 10:38 PM, said:

Yeh I know how the law works unfortunately (you told us in another thread how the rich are allowed to get away with it) and I know how the BBC works; Pay them handsomely, get em a knighthood then out em when they’re dead and it’s far too late.

Your way doesn’t seem to work though does it pal, the British public (who pay their wages) are getting angry and want these people outing as soon as possible before any more children get hurt.

The rich are governed by the same laws, they can afford better lawyers - just like the big firms afford better tax advisors. Its life, get over it...

You think the licence fee pays their wages? You do know they have production teams who make programmes who are sold around the world raising millions?

I'd want anyone out who cant stick to the laws of the land, whether a TV presenter who is a perv or a security supervisor who uses excess force. But equally I'd like to know who is guilty before I hang them or send them in front of a firing squad. I suspect you are in the camp of "knowing" who is guilty and not letting facts get in the way...

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

isleaiw1 said:

1688856518[/url]"]1688856518[/url]' post='[url="tel:[url="tel:1753012"]1753012[/url]"]1753012[/url]']You think the licence fee pays their wages? You do know they have production teams who make programmes who are sold around the world raising millions?

Why do they try and charge the British public for a licence as it sounds like they don't need the money, sounds like they're raking it in.

This post has been edited by Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil: 09 July 2023 - 07:48 AM

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

isleaiw1 said:

1688856518[/url]' post='1753012']
The rich are governed by the same laws, they can afford better lawyers - just like the big firms afford better tax advisors. Its life, get over it...

Yeh I know the rich use the same kind of expensive lawyers for avoiding tax as they do for child abusers offences, it don’t make it right though does it.

‘Ooh look I work for the BBC, I can get away with child abuse because I can afford an expensive lawyer the exact same way I get away with fiddling my taxes’’

Don’t make me very proud to be British that don’t unfortunately, the laws an ass.

[Mr Mercury]

Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil, on 08 July 2023 - 11:30 PM, said:

Yeh I know the rich use the same kind of expensive lawyers for avoiding tax as they do for child abusers offences, it don’t make it right though does it.

‘Ooh look I work for the BBC, I can get away with child abuse because I can afford an expensive lawyer the exact same way I get away with fiddling my taxes’’

Don’t make me very proud to be British that don’t unfortunately, the laws an ass.

They might “get away with it” whilst working under the cloak of the BBC, but if it becomes a police matter then they do seem to be treated the same by the authorities as any other criminal. Think Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Jonathon King etc. All of whom served lengthy jail sentences. So in those cases is “the law an ass”?

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 09 July 2023 - 06:41 AM

[Mr Mercury]

Duplicate post.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 09 July 2023 - 06:40 AM

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

Mr Mercury said:

1688884655[/url]' post='1753026']
They might “get away with it” whilst working under the cloak of the BBC, but if it becomes a police matter then they do seem to be treated the same by the authorities as any other criminal. Think Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Jonathon King etc. All of whom served lengthy jail sentences. So in those cases is “the law an ass”?

BBC formed in 1922, over 100 years of despicable behaviour and they’ve outed 5 people.

I’ll obviously give credit to the OB and the BJS for bringing the above examples to justice.

I notice you didn’t mention Sir Jimmy Saville though (King Charles’s best pal he was) who had numerous complaints about him to his employers since the 1960s, all they ever did to him was give him pay rises, promotions and even more power. He’d had hundreds of complaints since the 60s. John Lyndon grassed him up in the late 70s after catching him red handed and he and his band were rewarded for his good deed by being banned from appearing on BBC television and silenced using the excuse of his bands behaviour and foul language during an episode Pebble Mill (yeh he got cancelled).


And what happened with the Jill Dando investigation and the dossier that she had kept that mysteriously disappeared, Dandos murder inquiry seems to have gone under the file of ‘case closed’, all very convenient this is.

[Mr Mercury]

Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil, on 09 July 2023 - 07:19 AM, said:

BBC formed in 1922, over 100 years of despicable behaviour and they’ve outed 5 people.

I’ll obviously give credit to the OB and the BJS for bringing the above examples to justice.

I notice you didn’t mention Sir Jimmy Saville though (King Charles’s best pal he was) who had numerous complaints about him to his employers since the 1960s, all they ever did to him was give him pay rises, promotions and even more power. He’d had hundreds of complaints since the 60s. John Lyndon grassed him up in the late 70s after catching him red handed and he and his band were rewarded for his good deed by being banned from appearing on BBC television and silenced using the excuse of his bands behaviour and foul language during an episode Pebble Mill (yeh he got cancelled).


And what happened with the Jill Dando investigation and the dossier that she had kept that mysteriously disappeared, Dandos murder inquiry seems to have gone under the file of ‘case closed’, all very convenient this is.

I didn’t mention Savile due to him not serving time, but yes you’re right on that one he was seemingly “known” to the police, and certainly moved in the highest circles possible.
Re the current BBC presenter more coming out today so I’m sure it won’t be long before his name becomes common knowledge.

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

Mr Mercury said:

1688887750[/url]' post='1753031']
I didn't mention Savile due to him not serving time, but yes you're right on that one he was seemingly "known" to the police, and certainly moved in the highest circles possible.
Re the current BBC presenter more coming out today so I'm sure it won't be long before his name becomes common knowledge.

Personally speaking I’d put anyone with a knighthood under scrutiny, the only reason somebody needs a knighthood is to become above the law. TV personalities, politicians, sporting celebrities, etc. To think for years many of us thought Knighthoods were awarded so they could get the best tables at restaurants, didn’t have to join long queues to get into places, mingle with royalty, freebies and all the other perks but we all know that knighthoods are there to be abused.


The entire honours system needs scrapping immediately, previous honours withdrawn, the people who award them banished and a bulldozer straight through the House Of Lords preferably with all the lords still in it.

[calvin plummers socks]

Mr Mercury, on 09 July 2023 - 06:37 AM, said:

They might “get away with it” whilst working under the cloak of the BBC, but if it becomes a police matter then they do seem to be treated the same by the authorities as any other criminal. Think Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Jonathon King etc. All of whom served lengthy jail sentences. So in those cases is “the law an ass”?

Randomly all Tories those

[Wooden Spoon]

Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil, on 09 July 2023 - 07:47 AM, said:

Personally speaking I’d put anyone with a knighthood under scrutiny, the only reason somebody needs a knighthood is to become above the law. TV personalities, politicians, sporting celebrities, etc. To think for years many of us thought Knighthoods were awarded so they could get the best tables at restaurants, didn’t have to join long queues to get into places, mingle with royalty, freebies and all the other perks but we all know that knighthoods are there to be abused.


The entire honours system needs scrapping immediately, previous honours withdrawn, the people who award them banished and a bulldozer straight through the House Of Lords preferably with all the lords still in it.

Second elected chamber would be better, perhaps using PR

[Mr Mercury]

calvin plummers socks, on 09 July 2023 - 02:26 PM, said:

Randomly all Tories those

Your usual input.

[Manfred Archie Mac Gerbil]

calvin plummers socks said:

1688912764[/url]' post='1753084']
Randomly all Tories those

Quite a few pedo Tories my London friend.

Check out the misdemeanours of SIR Peter Morrison, former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher.

This behaviour is rife within the BBC and government.

Drain the swamp, that’s what I say.

[Johnnyspireite7]

Quaker, on 09 July 2023 - 03:50 PM, said:

So if this lad was getting paid £35k to send someone a few dicpics and this lad is over the age of consent has a law been broken?

I hope the BBC don't take that line and hide the identity of their millionaire presenter.

We really shouldn't have to pay these people.

The law broken is the 1978 Protection of Children act which states it is a crime to take, make, share or possess images of anyone under 18.

[Mr Mercury]

Johnnyspireite7, on 09 July 2023 - 04:44 PM, said:

The law broken is the 1978 Protection of Children act which states it is a crime to take, make, share or possess images of anyone under 18.

Unless it’s a spouse or partner. Which that wouldn’t appear to be the case.

Latest from Sky News..
Which laws may have been broken? And when could the presenter be named? A police expert answers
We've just been speaking to police commentator Graham Wettone, who is giving his insight on what could happen next.
Asked which laws may have potentially been broken, Mr Wettone said they could include "grooming and sexual offences".
Many of these types of offences have a threshold of 16 years old, he said.
Police may also be investigating the possession of an indecent image of a child, which is an offence when a child is under 18, Mr Wettone said.
The police have not commented on the matter yet and there is no confirmation that any of these laws have been broken.
Mr Wettone was also asked about why the BBC has handed over the allegations to the police now, despite receiving a complaint from the young person's family in May.
The commentator said it depends what exactly the broadcaster knew in May, and there is also the matter of whether the family wants police to investigate.
Mr Wettone added that even if there is an arrest, police will not name anyone unless they are charged - although they may first give the person's gender and age.
Anyone who is arrested has the right to anonymity up to the point of charge, Mr Wettone said.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 09 July 2023 - 04:50 PM