Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I didn’t read The Sun article at the time, but did it ever go beyond “sleazy messages were exchanged” at 17.
|
This is how they worded it:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/22978239...xual-pictures/
Quote:
|
The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
|
Maybe they have leeway by saying the money went in whilst they were 17 but no actual pictures were taken but that would be stretching it.
But I would have thought that's the reason they could run the story? Without that angle all you have is two consenting adults exchanging such messages for payments. Sleazy but not illegal.
The lockdown thing might save them, I don't really know.