This "legal over 16; not legal if non-contact under 18" situation seems extraordinary. There must be millions who, unintentionally, breached this law. Not just celebrities. Those who indulge in such behaviour must be shaking in their boots, having considered their harmless fun legal. The SUN (paper of record), as Hedda points out in another thread, happily had photos of topless girls who were 16 or over, years ago. Indeed, my girlfriend in the 1980s, Sam Fox, was just one of dozens. Which paper "exposed" this current (bun) vile BBC pervert? The SUN. Who gave me her phone number (I asked for it - I was writing a weekly page for the paper at the time). Should we now start prosecuting newspapers who printed under age (18) photos back then? Of course, back then only heterosexual sex of any kind was legal under 21. Has the world gone bonkers? Sadly - YES.

My suggestion from a couple of years ago, that we should discover and prosecute top Editors, politicians, church leaders and others - all on the same day, and then publicise it - was rejected by everyone ("then we'd be as bad as them"). Yes, I agreed, but something has to be done very soon.

As for the numerous requests - yes, I know the identity and no, even hot pins under my nails and torture of my shrivelled testicles would let me reveal it. I will NOT, repeat NOT, join this vile aspect of society - having been an early victim, long before Savile, of the crime perfected by PR person Max Clifford, aided by bent Surrey Police.

it seems the party in question is actually 20 so we don't know if "underage" pics were in circulation.

Latest - the false accuser denies the claims and calls them rubbish. So who is lying and attempting to pervert the course of justice? Can't be the mother - she has published nothing. Can't be the Sun, which would never have run the story without solid evidence (to do so would make them probably close down, as happened to the News of the World). At least we now know a crime HAS been committed; problem is - who by?

hedda wrote:
it seems the party in question is actually 20 so we don't know if "underage" pics were in circulation.

It's Karma for the BBC, they tore in ITV recently. Scholfield is sleazy and immoral but what he did was not illegal.

Some say he was a "Groomer" but the runner said it was consensual when he had sex with Schofield.

Green Man wrote:
hedda wrote:
it seems the party in question is actually 20 so we don't know if "underage" pics were in circulation.

It's Karma for the BBC, they tore in ITV recently. Scholfield is sleazy and immoral but what he did was not illegal.

Some say he was a "Groomer" but the runner said it was consensual when he had sex with Schofield.

The question is if your consent can ever be genuine if you have been groomed by someone in a position of trust or authority over you since you were a small boy?

Green Man wrote:
[quote]hedda wrote:


It's Karma for the BBC, they tore in ITV recently. Scholfield is sleazy and immoral but what he did was not illegal.

Some say he was a "Groomer" but the runner said it was consensual when he had sex with Schofield.

I think it may be karma for The Sun in this case GM. We shall see!

I really hate the word or concept GROOMING, Honey. Essentially it means being nice to someone. Yes, some platonic relationships become sexual or romantic eventually. That's not grooming. That's life.

JK2006 wrote:
I really hate the word or concept GROOMING, Honey. Essentially it means being nice to someone. Yes, some platonic relationships become sexual or romantic eventually. That's not grooming. That's life.

Yes of course, that is one thing, but grooming is another.

It depends - if, by grooming, one means deliberately targetting and charming someone for eventual sexual activity - YES. But increasingly, for most people, innocent friendships or mentoring or whatever is wrongly interpreted as "grooming" whereas, in reality, it was nothing of the sort. Like everything these days Honey - superficialisation.

JK2006 wrote:
It depends - if, by grooming, one means deliberately targetting and charming someone for eventual sexual activity - YES. But increasingly, for most people, innocent friendships or mentoring or whatever is wrongly interpreted as "grooming" whereas, in reality, it was nothing of the sort. Like everything these days Honey - superficialisation.

I think the term is badly misused. It is using your power to gradually erode sexual boundaries.(we don't have reason to think it happened in any of the cases mentioned)

Not just sexually either. We were all groomed from going from three weeks to break the spread of covid, to being locked up pointlessly for months while being bombarded by lies.
It is the same sort of thing.

Exactly.

I think I'm on record as saying the spotlight of accusation will eventually fall upon the media and so it came to pass

JK2006 wrote:
It depends - if, by grooming, one means deliberately targetting and charming someone for eventual sexual activity - YES. But increasingly, for most people, innocent friendships or mentoring or whatever is wrongly interpreted as "grooming" whereas, in reality, it was nothing of the sort. Like everything these days Honey - superficialisation.

There are cases of kids coming from broken homes, who befriend an older person and becomes their mentor. They might see some potential and give them a foot on the ladder to get them an apprenticeship in a decent job.

My father knew a youth pastor who got juvenile delinquents off the streets, and got them in to jobs or training schemes by listening to them, and giving them a hand up not hand outs. A few of the youths found peace working with animals, he found them jobs in dairies and farms. If he could he would try to enroll youths in to further education if they wanted to be a vet etc. If they were a hands on type, he would find them apprenticeships in bricklaying or plumbing.


We were all groomed from going from three weeks to break the spread of covid, to being locked up pointlessly for months while being bombarded by lies.

We allowed that to happen, no one protested hard or took their anger on the streets. I thought lockdown would break in to mass riots like BLM style but no.