The Sun… that virtuous newspaper that used to pay 16 year old girls to leave school so they could pose naked for Page 3… made it clear this was a male “star” and a boy. It’s a re-run of the Phillip Scofield nonsense. This wouldn’t be front page of all the papers and radio stations if it was an older man and a teenage young woman. Sure, they’ll be some coverage but not as much as this homophobic stuff
“Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.
People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.
So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?
Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).
I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.
The Sun… that virtuous newspaper that used to pay 16 year old girls to leave school so they could pose naked for Page 3… made it clear this was a male “star” and a boy. It’s a re-run of the Phillip Scofield nonsense. This wouldn’t be front page of all the papers and radio stations if it was an older man and a teenage young woman. Sure, they’ll be some coverage but not as much as this homophobic stuff
Oh I totally missed that. I thought the story was that he paid a girl for explicit photos. Not a boy.
The Guardian supported slavery. What’s your point? I don’t think any of the people working there now were involved with that.
“Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.
People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.
So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?
Makes topless photos seem kind of tame.
Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).
I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.