A wee rant

Our passion is your passion... stalk with us!
I was in a small shop in a tiny village in Meath last year, there were 6 of us meeting up to go to a shoot.
A woman asked us what we were doing, I told her we were TV license inspectors on a surprise mission because of high evasion rates in the area.
She ran over to the post office.
I felt bad for a while.
 
Rake Aboot said:
Haven’t heard about that one ?

Apparently one was paying a 20 yr old for nudie pics. Problem seems to be her family complained as she was using the money for crack.
Although what that has to do with the presenter is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Hardly paedo if she was 20, was it? And the fact she was using the money to fund a drug habit was nothing to do with the presenter.
 
Apparently it was reported as a "youth" on some media channels @VSS, but obviously any or all comments must be prefaced with "allegedly"........ we don't want any legal threats or action to affect SD or it's wonderful owners or members!:norty:
 
Yup
Lots of “apparently “ being chucked about but at worst , she first sent pics at 17 and possibly on only fans so I’d expect the presenters lawyer to have a field day.

Haven’t heard about a paedophile though ?
 
VSS said:
Hardly paedo if she was 20, was it? And the fact she was using the money to fund a drug habit was nothing to do with the presenter.
Click to expand...
I don't know about you but if it transpires someone is paying a child of mine for explicit photos I'd probably lose my licences!
 
Smellydog said:
I don't know about you but if it transpires someone is paying a child of mine for explicit photos I'd probably lose my licences!
Click to expand...
If she’s 20 and selling them to more than just one person it’s the girl that has the issue no ?

I’m not defending anyone here and think this is a seedy as you can expect from anyone at the bbc but I think jumping on the Facebook “peedos out” bandwagon smacks of stupidness.
 
Rake Aboot said:
If she’s 20 and selling them to more than just one person it’s the girl that has the issue no ?

I’m not defending anyone here and think this is a seedy as you can expect from anyone at the bbc but I think jumping on the Facebook “peedos out” bandwagon smacks of stupidness.
Click to expand...
It started when the child, a male I understand was 17. An illegal act.
Weirdo or peado, what ever, clearly what is in the adults heart is selfishness at the cost of others, there is no extenuating mitigation. It's just wrong and the thought of a TV licence aided funding said practice is repulsive to a loving father of children.
Is that ok or should my opinion be silenced on the basis of " stupidity"?
 
Smellydog said:
I don't know about you but if it transpires someone is paying a child of mine for explicit photos I'd probably lose my licences!
Click to expand...
I'm sure we all would, in the case of a child (ie, a minor).
But once a child of yours becomes adult, if they choose to create and sell erotic art then that's their business, not yours, no matter how much you disapprove.
 
Last edited:
Smellydog said:
It started when the child, a male I understand was 17. An illegal act.
Weirdo or peado, what ever, clearly what is in the adults heart is selfishness at the cost of others, there is no extenuating mitigation. It's just wrong and the thought of a TV licence aided funding said practice is repulsive to a loving father of children.
Is that ok or should my opinion be silenced on the basis of " stupidity"?
Click to expand...
Well for a start I’m not mitigating anything, nor have I called you stupid.
But your obviously taking it personally so I’ll leave you to have you perfectly entitled to opinion.
 
VSS said:
I'm sure we all would, in the case of a child (ie, a minor).
But once a child of yours becomes adult, if they choose to sell erotic art then that's their business, not yours, no matter how much you disapprove.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the other person is being 'judged'. I think that the issue here is that the BBC claims to have certain ethical and moral standards that employees - more so those in the public eye - are expected to adhere to, also in their private lives.
 
Rake Aboot said:
But your obviously taking it passionately so I’ll leave you to have you perfectly entitled to opinion.
Click to expand...
There, fixed that for you.
Child abuse is not agreeable to most sane people, 17 is not an adult and this activity is illegal for a good reason.
I recommend anyone that finds the above disagreeable to seek professional help immediately.
 
Notify them you no longer need a license and stop paying. If you keep your TV, don't watch BBC output. Just don't watch BBC on iplayer because they can identify you from your IP address. I know someone who got caught like that.
Refusing to pay your license and boycotting BBC output may be illegal but to my mind it's a perfectly legitimate protest against an archaic and blatantly biased corporation that is emphatically not the national broadcaster. There are far too many players in the game now for that claim to stand up and none of those demand a universal license fee.

If we keep submitting to this extortion it will never change.
 
Kalahari said:
If, as has been alleged this started at the age of 17 a criminal offense has occurred. Not allowed to procure pictures of this type, even with consent, of an under 18!

David.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, every day is a learning day. Ps, I wouldn't be spending money I such things just for the record :tiphat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
https://Immersive-optics.com/
Back
Top