Media weirdos are everywhere,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...r-shocks-bizarre-theory-passengers-ALIVE.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...r-shocks-bizarre-theory-passengers-ALIVE.html
Sounds like a TV inspectorI think the 'show us ya bits' indicates it's more than just a couple of normal photos - suppose we'll never know tho.
I've been saying for years, I pray Andi would never end up as one of these nonces/predators/abusers. I'd have to consider throwing out my Ed the Duck.Not sure if there's already a thread on this, or if it's not allowed, or whatever, but it seems there's another 'star' under investigation for being depraved.
People are being accused (and denying it's them) left right and centre.
BBC presenter faces new allegations over explicit photos
The presenter was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the Sun.www.bbc.co.uk
I predicted that Andi Peters would be outed as a nonce at some point, but this particular instance is to do with a girl, so that chalks him off.
It's not BruvI've been saying for years, I pray Andi would never end up as one of these nonces/predators/abusers. I'd have to consider throwing out my Ed the Duck.
Started to see one name mentioned more and more for who it is. A real shame if true.
Probably not wise to name someone with absolutely zero foundation either?
Why are you allowed that forum user name? Disgusting!Disgusting thread, and a timely reminder for me to steer clear of GD, even on boring Sundays.
Disgusting thread, and a timely reminder for me to steer clear of GD, even on boring Sundays.
Having a indecent image of someone under 18 is possession of child porn.What crime has been committed?
Having a indecent image of someone under 18 is possession of child porn.
It's a bit of an odd law, you can legally have sex at 16, but film it between the ages of 16-18 and you're a nonceHaving a indecent image of someone under 18 is possession of child porn.
Yea, it's normal to pay thousands to a 17yo for a passport style photoNowhere says the images are indecent when the person was 17.
Yea, it's normal to pay thousands to a 17yo for a passport style photo
The articles use the term "sexually explicit". Given that "indecent" is not a common term outside of the law, it can be argued they can be used interchangeably in many scenarios.Nowhere says the images are indecent when the person was 17.
I thought the law was changed in 2003 to prevent young girls appearing on page 3?It's a bit of an odd law, you can legally have sex at 16, but film it between the ages of 16-18 and you're a nonce
I used a passport photo as an example of a none sexually theme image.There's a large gulf between passport type and porn.