Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
This is how they worded it: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/22978239...xual-pictures/
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. |
Agree that wording is dodgier ground for the Sun to be on, although they can also hide behind the mother claiming that. They also know what they are doing with persistent references to ‘child’, but will hide behind not wanting to identify the gender.
The more come forward does the presenter really want to go to court to argue the toss that they’re not a criminal but are only morally repugnant? Probably not. I guess it could depend if their name is officially outed.