The scandal doing the rounds across all British media is the BBC’s revelation that an as-yet-unnamed BBC presenter has been suspended following allegations he allegedly paid over £35,000 for nude pictures of an unnamed teenager.
This would technically be a crime, due to a strange legal set-up in the UK which says that even though the age of consent for actually having sex is 16, the age of consent for taking naked photographs is 18.
The story broke a couple of days ago in The Sun, which reported that the “BBC star” had sent the money over a period of three years, starting when the complainant was 17 and continuing until they were 20. Apparently the teenager spent a lot of this money on crack cocaine.
Since the revelation hit the papers have been filled with speculation as to who the presenter might be, and spirited denials from various BBC luminaries.
So what’s going on here? Doesn’t the whole story raise a lot of questions?
Firstly, why has no one named the man? That’s bizarre, he’s suspended and allegedly the subject of a legal complaint so his name will be public anyway soon enough. Explainer articles claim it’s a legal issue, but rumours and accusations get published with names all the time – that’s the facts of life in the age of “cancel culture”.
Secondly, why did this man spend 10 grand a year to see a naked “teenager” when OnlyFans exists and an almost infinite amount of free pornography is only a google-search away?
Third, and most importantly, why on Earth should we be listening to anything the BBC or The Sun say about anything, ever?
As I wrote a couple of years ago:
Everybody should have learned by now, the media – and most especially the BBC – don’t have ANY duty to the truth. They can’t be forced to report something just because it’s true. They actively and willfully ignore true things all the time. When the powers who control mainstream media don’t want to talk about something, it. Doesn’t. Get. Talked. About. The corollary of this is that when the mainstream media is talking about something it’s for one reason and one reason only – they want to talk about it, because somewhere, somehow an agenda is being served.
That’s from my 2019 article on the Prince Andrew interview, Prince Andrew – The Right Royal Lizard Tale, and in fact there’s a very interesting parallel with Prince Andrew here.
Andrew is the only Epstein “client” ever named-and-shamed, and accused by all of being a predator and pedophile for allegedly having relations with a 17-year-old girl.
The thing about that is, as I wrote before, that while adult men in their 30s or 40s sleeping with 17-year-olds is certainly not seemly, and potentially predatory, it’s not illegal and it’s not pedophilia.
In short, you don’t need to fly to a private island to sleep with a 17-year-old, you can do that in the UK perfectly legally.
It’s like taking a boat out into international waters to play monopoly for gummi bears.
Likewise you don’t need to spend £10,000 a year to see an 18 year old naked, when you can spend a fraction of that on a dozen OnlyFans models…if that’s what you’re into.
Do you really think the worst excesses of Epstein Island were consensual sex with girls of legal age?
Does that sound likely?
Do you really think the institutional pedophilia of the BBC is all about paying nude models over the age of consent a fortune for a some photographs?
These stories are held up as a shocking glimpse behind the curtain but they are neither shocking nor revelatory.
The Sun’s appalled tone at the “exploited” 17-year-old is shown up by their own record of printing topless pictures of 16 year old “page 3 girls”.
In fact what these stories really do is brush the truly shocking and harrowing reality of real child exploitation aside, replacing it with a fake “shocking” but ultimately legal “official story”.
After all, if “institutional pedophilia” is just consensual sex with young people of legal age, it’s maybe “not that big a deal”, right?
Again, as I wrote in 2019:
While Andrew is being pilloried, and the BBC is getting plaudits for “hard-hitting” journalism, there are proven cases of institutional paedophilia that are far deeper and darker than anything being discussed by the BBC. While we’re all laughing at Andrew, we’re forgetting that Prince Charles never gave, and was never asked to give, an interview explaining his “friendship” with Jimmy Savile. While we’re huffing and puffing over “Royal conduct” and sex with girls of legal age, we’re not talking about the fact there are sitting MPs who were once “affiliated” with groups that campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 10. We’re forgetting that accusations of REAL paedophilia circulate around many high-profile MPs (usually only after they die).
This TV presenter – should he ever be named – will be a sacrifice to the idea “the system works” and there is “accountability”.
Like Prince Andrew before him, the “BBC nonce” will be a PR exercise. A public display designed to show that a) The elite can be held accountable for their crimes and b) Their crimes aren’t that bad.
Meanwhile, the real untouchable elite are on private islands drinking the blood of eight-year-olds. But no one is talking about that.
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.