bickster

Because it is absolutely the correct course of action. Legally and morally at this stage. They’d get sued for a huge figure if they were he ones to release the name

Me too, it’s not something I recall being offered at any time since unlimited was a thing. Even when I was on a PAYG SIM I never hit the 10GB monthly limit

As you clearly didn’t see (just like I didn’t) that the BBC have confirmed it’s a male Why was it almost certainly a male? There are plenty of rich older women paying for dick pics these days

Really odd take, in a lot of respects, he’s the exact opposite of Truss. He’s Ying to her Yang His dullness is what a lot of people actually want in a politician

I thought that was going to be 'shopped. Sadly it’s genuine, even worse there’s a Prawn Cocktail version too The reviews on UNTAPPD are exactly as I expected they would be. At least it’s lager they've dicked about with

Missed that, ta. Not really surprising as I'm trying my best to ignore the story until there’s some actual evidence that isn’t third hand tittle tattle So far we have the parents of a now 20 year old cracked cocaine addict saying they've seen bank statements that date back to when their son was 17. Even the newspaper that broke this story haven't seen any evidence. Right now, the story doesn’t meet any journalistic standards, it is also quite noticeable that there’s not a hint of a police enquiry as of right now. (That I’ve seen mentioned by anyone at least)

Here’s a question. Why are all the names that people are randomly chucking about on Twitter etc all male? All I know is BBC presenter. It seems to have automatically been decided that it’s a male. Half the names are obviously in the gay / potentially gay bracket and the others are people Daily Heil readers don’t like (or both obviously) If it is a female, how does that change opinions? Its easy to say it’s exactly the same (and it mostly is) but I suspect that opinions may be different

I agree with this, that’s exactly what it is. I’d forgotten the donor link to both organisations.

To some maybe. I’d suggest a lot of things people seemingly dislike Starmer for are just confirmation bias. People read into things what they want. Here you have a non-attributable story, essentially tittle tattle, being repeated by opposition party MPs to give it some credence. There’s absolutely no corroboration that it’s true or why it was briefed off the record. Given the current public opinion of Just Stop Oil and the damage they are doing to the environmental lobby with their tactics, to me, it just looks like Labour trying to distance themselves from that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why do you imagine the press officers dislike Starmer? Labour sources could mean a number of different things but the hating tree huggers thing sounds very much like it was briefed with Starmer's approval. It’s a vote winner not a vote loser

I’d fully expect an SNP MP not to like him

There’s different types of baseball cap. This type is wrong on every level

Because of the Gerrard start to last season, Villa midfielders represent good value imo. Dougie in particular for the set pieces. Hadn’t thought about a change of role for McGinn, that’s definitely worth keeping an eye on pre-season

I seriously wouldn’t entertain Pickford at the start of the season and Maddison / Encisco represent big punts that might pay off. I’d have them on my watch list but wouldn’t want to go into GW1 with them Having said all that, if Kane moves to United then I may well be exploring Haaland / Kane options and Rashford will be vastly overpriced, that move could change the whole dynamic of the game. Is that the bloke on YouTube that wears the baseball cap back to front? If so, he's irritating

It really isn’t. There are very few decent cheap options, last season there were a lot. Haaland's price means that the “threemium” tactic isn’t really possible. It’s almost impossible to have a decent side with Haaland and even Kane or Salah. The double premium tactic has to be Kane and Salah. There are also lots choices in midfield but hardly any at the 4.0 - 4.5 level I'm definitely of the opinion that the game will be one and lost on midfield choices and rotation options at the back. Talking about Kane and Salah, I had a mess about looking at the options and came up with this team. If Kane and Salah do perform as usual this season. It might be a serious differential option but it’s a brave player that goes against Haaland at the start of the season, I'm not sure that I'm that brave as Haaland's price is bound to shoot up in the first week whereas the other two aren't as likely to rise. It'll be much easier to go to K&S from Haaland than the other way around. But an interesting exercise to see the route you'd have to take should anything happen to Haaland or Citeh rotate him more than last season Team value is £99.5 mil

Even as someone with an almost full head of hair, I don’t know either As anyone who has met me will testify

It didn’t It’s a hypothetical question.

The BBC story quotes the parents saying the payments started when he was 17, it also states that although they tried to contact them they haven’t replied. On its own the parents comments aren’t evidence of anything It also doesn’t appear that there is police involvement as yet but strangely there is a newspaper story The OnlyFans thing was a hypothetical question

No onions??? It’s like the base ingredient of soup, curry or most sauces. I find it hard to believe that onions are avoidable

Posts about the current nude photos story have been moved to a new topic The Moral Maze - Age of Consent

Personally, I think there should be a standard age of consent, which should be consistent with the age you can vote and an awful lot of other age restricted things. I'm also not sure it should be up to politicians what that age is. It’s perfect referendum material. It’s not like the country would be being asked to make a decision that requires complex economic / political knowledge, it’s a question of what the country feels is morally acceptable

I don’t see how you can have an age of consent lower for physical sex than you can for images. It’s utterly inconsistent and illogical.

A 17 year old does not a paedophile make Inappropriate behaviour, morally wrong, yes most definitely but not a paedophile. It wouldn’t have been illegal if these two people had actual physical sex.

Polling doesn’t get any better

Apparently there is an appeal process but only if Pincher can offer new evidence or find a procedural irregularity. I doubt he'll be able to do either.