Could I suggest that we shouldn’t be playing the naming game on this?
The newsreader mentioned doesn’t do weekends in the summer and what I’ve heard the presenter’s name will elicit a “who is he?” from most of the public.
Good of the paper that hacked a murdered schoolgirl’s phone to sit on allegations of creepy behaviour by someone at the BBC for 2 months.
Shame they’ve distracted from the huge Boris-style shitshow surrounding an email sent to guests at George Osborne’s wedding. See the internet for details…
The parents selling the story to the Sun isn’t a good look on them either.
Surely they have some responsibility if their child is a drug addict while still at school.
As far The Sun taking the moral high ground over a celebrity exploiting a young person, it’s a bit rich coming from a newspaper that quite happily showed sixteen year old topless girls to their readers.
To be fair, “selling” isn’t quite right, they didn’t accept any money for the story because all they were trying to do, apparently, is bring attention to the issue and to get this BBC presenter to stop sending her thousands of quid that she’d then spend on crack.
Not sure it’s the tactic I’d use, but it seems that it is very nuch about concern for their child and not making a few quid.
Also, absolutely not defending The Sun, that could never be me, but when did they show 16 year olds topless? When it comes to pornography, soft or hard, I thought the model had to be 18 or older?
Oh 18 is the limit now. But used to be 16. Sam Fox did it at 16. And there was even another time when they did a countdown to a girl’s 16th birthday to the day they’d be able to show her topless on page 3.
The plea in The Sun is from the parents, not the daughter, who would be the owner of the OF account. So closing the OF account is not an option available to them, which is probably why they’re resorting to desperate and questionable methods.
I’m pretty sure OF have a rule that you have to be 18 to be a content maker so really the parents should have gone straight to OF and taken it up with them.
OF got in a load of trouble last year or the year before and almost had to shut down because there were underage girls using their older sisters passports to get around the OF age verification process and thereby distributing illicit content on Of.
Didn’t know that you had to be 18 to start an account. That should be grounds for shutting down the account.
But it doesn’t solve the problem at all. If anything it’s going to make it much, much worse. Because very soon she will be 18, and once her identity is known she’ll be able to leverage it to make even more money, and buy more crack.
Just feels odd to blame the money, and how you earn it, rather than the underlying problem of drug abuse. If she was working in a more standard job, and using her earnings for drugs, you wouldn’t start blaming the employer for funding her drug use.
Yeah, that’s quite right, that would be a better option. Was just saying to Jules that they can’t personally close the account, which is why they’re resorting to other methods.
Who knows, maybe they have also contacted OF, but are also exploring other options to try and get this sorted.
I can’t speak for OF, but my address was attached to a couple of fake accounts on dating websites/apps, and I had people ringing my doorbell at all hours of the night thinking they were going to hook up with someone, and the companies running the sites/apps did very little when I informed them and asked for the accounts to be taken down, and for them to prevent my address ever being added to an account again. OF may be similarly unhelpful, I dunno, meaning the parents are going to the media to try and kick up a fuss and force the issue.
I do also agree that this isn’t really going to solve the problem. IMO, if you cut her off from making legit money on OF she isnt going to magically stop doing crack, she’ll just resort to less safe and less legal methods of getting the money for her drugs, in all likelihood. The parents need to try and help her address the actual underlying issue here. But I guess desperate and distraught people don’t always see things clearly and take logical actions.
“Claims that the presenter began paying the young person over a three-year period, starting when they were 17, were first reported in the Sun on Friday.”
Yeah but if she posed as an 18 year old then it’s not his fault as OF has an age verification process and rules that she had to have broken to get around.
Still seems unfair. Unless he knew beforehand she was 17, then it changes things.
Just because the legal age is set to 18 doesn’t mean a grown ass man should be paying for nudes of an 18 year old. 18 to me is as young as 17. Someone doesn’t magically become psychologically an adult because the age changes into 18.
I find it stinky business to be operating in that age group. Especially if the man in question (I don’t know his age don’t know who he is, just speaking generally) is a proper adult (25+ in my books). Legal or not.
But with age if consent, and similar things like when you’re allowed to flog nudes of yourself, there has to be a somewhat arbitrary line drawn somewhere. You might say the line should be 21 years old, and not 18, and someone could reasonably say that they don’t think 21 is much different to 20, like you have here.
If it is all entirely legal on his part (remains to be seen), I don’t see it as something that should lead to him losing his job. You, and me for what it’s worth, can think it’s gross, but that’s our personal feeling on the matter at the end of the day.