Media and Police Trying to Excuse BBC Celeb Noncery.

It seems the only people interested in seeing the BBC celeb caught up in the latest scandal banged to rights are the parents of the young lad in question and the public. 

The BBC, the Media and even the Police are going to great lengths to make this story go away.

The BBC failed to investigate and then did their usual incompetent excusing when the Sun got a hold of the story. 

The lad in question (I hate to call him a victim as he was paid quite well) doesn't want the fuss.

Even the Police say it's not prosecutable. Excuse me? This celebrity paid for sexually explicit pictures of a person under 18 and effectively groomed them to provide the pictures. If that was any ordinary person we'd be banged to rights, up before the beak on severe noncery charges, convicted and sent down for a few years and be on the sex offenders register for the rest of our lives.

But of course money and connections can do wonders.

The fact is, while that lad was under 18, it was illegal for anyone to solicit explicit pictures, or to groom the "child" to provide the pictures by paying money. Merely owning sexually explicit pictures of a person under the age of 18 is illegal. There is no defence.

I thought that was a straight no defence statutory offence? Did he pay a 17-year old for explicit pictures? Were those pictures in his possession? Yes? Case proven, send the nonce down.

Again, if it was any ordinary person committing the offence of grooming a minor, then we'd be banged to rights. But if you've got a bit of money you can get a super-injunction to avoid being named and you have the contacts to make even the Police scared of prosecuting you.

It stinks to high heaven.

I'm sure the celeb in question is getting the response down pat. Have the family gathered round in front of the house for the press, say they are very sorry and it won't happen again, lapse of judgement, yadda yadda, very sorry, let the public down. 

A few years in the wilderness living off that fat BBC nest egg and they'll be back on our screens again.

Just as an example of what happens to ordinary people, here's the case of the son of a friend.

He was a 21-year old that met a girl in a casino (note the adult-only over 18 venue requires adult ID and registration to get access, so you'd think it was safe to assume she was over the age of consent). 

She said she was 18 and looked 18. There was plenty of evidence she was using fake ID to get into adult venues and his story was backed up by friends of his that she presented herself as an 18-year old. They had a few dates, and did the things that adults do. Only when he didn't want to continue with the relationship did she then reveal that she was 15 and got her parents to call the Police. He was prosecuted, send down for a number of years and now is on the SOR.

Now to me, that would be an excusable scenario: the girl presents as something she isn't and only reveals her deception when he wants to break up. 

The BBC celeb I assume knew the kid was 17 and was paying him for pictures. In my mind it should fall foul of the child pornography laws as well as recent grooming legislation. 

But of course one law for thee, another law for those that can afford it.

One thing did occur to me: What's the ethnicity of the celebrity in question? 

Given the Police are reluctant to prosecute child rape cases perpetrated by certain ethic groups, is the reluctance of Police to prosecute in this case based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator?