BBC suspend unnamed presenter

Not specifically, no. But people are clearly confused why you think one is worse than the other and if you are refusing to elaborate then maybe don't be shocked if people come to the wrong conclusions...?

 

I've not refused or skirted round it . I've explained it as good as I can. I can do no more, honestly. Sorry of that doesnt help. but that is true. And I'll end it at that. As it just goes round in circles otherwise.
I hope others understand what I tried to convey in my views. Or I might as well just give up.

 

I genuinely don't understand WHY you think it's different to buy from a porn magazine than it is to buy directly but I do believe that you DO think it's different and not due to sexuality or anything. Could it possibly be a generational thing? You grew up with porn mags and so they've always been there and been normal to you (whether you have bought them or not) but things like only fans etc are new so your brain isn't conditioned to see them as normal in the same way?

 

They knew a lot about Linekers contract too didn't they!,

 

What a ***** MacKenzie is

 

Per month that is, over digital and physical formats.

They probably shift about 1million physical copies a day, and the rest online.

Bear in mind that figure will include redirects to their site from clicks on social media and Google etc which might not even be intentional.

But I suspect they are still the biggest paper in terms of circulation, paid that is, behind the metro.

The daily heil will be up there too.

 

no, but he is a respected figure of a national institution and he was making his own, not watching it, there is plenty easily available that he could have had a go at

 

Have you ever heard the word moral dilemma. I will leave it at that. Have you never had one.I can't make it any clearer.
Why do people.
Curse Gary Glitter.
But then say. Michael Jackson. might have been guilty of offenses then offer up excuses. Not to vilify him, as he had a rough childhood is a example.

 

"I can't make it any clearer"

*posts rambling broken sentences comparing photos to noncing*

 

I reckon it’s one of/a mixture of the following:

- they’ve bought/looked at porn mags/watched porn themselves but they haven’t purchased photos off of an individual themselves so the first can’t be bad
- they look down on the individuals who sell photos of that nature. They know porn stars exist and have made peace with that as a group of people and have stopped thinking of them as individuals, therefore when a ‘real person’ does it, it’s bad and as an extension it’s bad to buy photos off of them

Surely it’s actually better, morally, to buy the pics outright? They get all of the money that way and you’re building up a connection with them, rather than just using their bodies for pleasure without ever speaking to the real person whose body it is.

As for all the people complaining about the photo sender being 18-20, I bet almost all of the porn they watch stars 18-20 year olds. I very much doubt they are watching 30/40/50/60 (or however old they are themselves) porn stars going at it. But that’s more moral somehow because they looked at it for free without ever having to acknowledge the person exists in real life.

 

Go bother someone else to get your kicks. And let them humour you. It's not a good trait to have. It's not clever. Funny enough for you. Troll.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ffered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview

Good payday for that.

 

Yep, when I get my YP on a Saturday, I can't believe how many people get The Scum or The Heil.

 

Not true. His Mam did. Pay £12m that is, not shag him..

 

That's completely false but ok

 

No, I refuse to believe Prince Andrew shagged his Mam, despite what your internet gods tell you..