Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

The relevant word here being "if". As of now, there is no evidence to substantiate these claims. Try to remember that. That applies to all the "hang him high" mob on here. We had several reports pleading for the thread to be unlocked. And now that it is, some on here seem determined to give us cause to lock it again.
For clarity I was pointing out the difference in the age of consent being 16 and the age for viewing explicit material being 18 in direct response to someone's comment on here, that's law- nothing to do with this specific case.
 
For clarity I was pointing out the difference in the age of consent being 16 and the age for viewing explicit material being 18 in direct response to someone's comment on here, that's law- nothing to do with this specific case.
And that's what this thread is about; this specific case. As of now, the police have said that no evidence of a crime exists.
 
The Sun newspaper outting someone for paying for pictures of a 17 year old in their underwear has to be the biggest piece of hypocrisy ever, considering that's what they were doing with page 3 girls.

Count downs to when Sam Fox and Whittaker were turning 16 and them publishing them topless straight away and then the charlotte church days till she's legal to shag stuff was vile tbh
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.