Jarndyce Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Declan said: I’m not sure what I think. I am also not sure what you think… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 45 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: attention seems to be swinging from the BBC to the Sun, with respect to reporting standards… Couldn’t happen to a nicer newspaper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 8 minutes ago, Roxanne said: You mean… I could have another time wasting distraction and addiction AND monetise it? Sign me up! As a creator or subscriber? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 3 hours ago, Declan said: I’ve heard it argued it’s more ethical than sites like pornhub. Rather than use a large corp and the potentially exploitative studios the consumer is paying the content maker direct. I’m not sure what I think. My income from onlyfans far exceeds my income from pornhub. It’s been great for me personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 2 hours ago, The Phantom said: OK, so it’s basically like Youtube. But rather than creating content that is open to the whole world and you getting paid a pittance for it (unless you’re watched by millions) you attract specific subscribers who will pay you say £10 per month to view your account. So it’s ‘Only (for paying) fans’. Youtube limits and censors quite a lot of stuff, so on OF to some extent; you can say or do what you want. It’s been embraced by and synonymous with adult content creators (various levels of porn) but it’s also used by other creators, such as fashion, music, gardening etc. From the ‘Fans’ point of view, it means that the majority of your payment goes directly to the creator (I’m not sure what cut the OF platform takes, but understand it is small) which I suppose gives you a greater feeling of supporting the artist directly, rather than a big faceless tech corporation. There are other similar sites such as Patreon which seem to be a bit less porny. Yep its essentially the Patreon model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 3 hours ago, Roxanne said: A creator of course. Gardening probably, but I do have many other skills.. Well if a creator created nude gardening content they would have two different revenue streams from just the one product. You’ve got to think outside the box. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted July 17, 2023 Share Posted July 17, 2023 On 7/13/2023 at 4:17 PM, The Voice of Reason said: Well if a creator created nude gardening content they would have two different revenue streams from just the one product. Hoe-Ho.com? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Huw Edwards, then. Charged with crimes which if he's found guilty would show he was not a nice man. What does it take for people to understand kids can't consent? Leave them alone. It is inappropriate, wrong, immoral, a crime to get voyeuristic pleasure from photos of them in states of undress. This isn't difficult to understand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 No one is surprised right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 So Huw Edwards pleaded guilty. The question I haven't seen answered is what has happened to the person who sent him the material. It slightly lessens the crime that he received the images unsolicited and asked for nothing illegal, but to just ignore receiving multiple deeply disturbing images and continue in contact with a freely admitted owner and supplier of child pornography is despicable. I presume a custodial sentence awaits. I find his barrister's comment he was of unimpeachable character laughable, only because he had successfully hidden his associations and crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: So Huw Edwards pleaded guilty. The question I haven't seen answered is what has happened to the person who sent him the material. It slightly lessens the crime that he received the images unsolicited and asked for nothing illegal, but to just ignore receiving multiple deeply disturbing images and continue in contact with a freely admitted owner and supplier of child pornography is despicable. I presume a custodial sentence awaits. I find his barrister's comment he was of unimpeachable character laughable, only because he had successfully hidden his associations and crimes. “The force said 25-year-old convicted paedophile Alex Williams was the man who shared images with Edwards. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing category A, B and C images as well as possessing prohibited images of children He was sentenced to a suspended 12-month jail sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in March.“ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c880zykre4lo Edited July 31 by Mr. Sausages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: So Huw Edwards pleaded guilty. The question I haven't seen answered is what has happened to the person who sent him the material. It slightly lessens the crime that he received the images unsolicited and asked for nothing illegal, but to just ignore receiving multiple deeply disturbing images and continue in contact with a freely admitted owner and supplier of child pornography is despicable. I presume a custodial sentence awaits. I find his barrister's comment he was of unimpeachable character laughable, only because he had successfully hidden his associations and crimes. I suspect the person who sent them is awaiting trial, after a not guilty plea. As it was a WhatsApp group, apparently, there’ll be other people have received the images. So there may be a gag order pending verdict on any not guilty pleas. The alternative is that he has been dealt with but not reported to protect Edward’s’ right to fair trial and can now be named.* I’ll never understand people using WhatsApp for dodgy stuff not having auto delete switched on. Most drug suppliers I get invited to see at the police station have evidence of purchase and sale nice and tidy in WhatsApp or similar. Suspended or other community sentence, long period on sex offenders register. As for your last comment, who knows, you don’t, I certainly don’t. For sentencing he’s of previous good character. *ETA named as Alex Williams who was convicted in March of sending the images in the group. He received a suspended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anyone Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Previous good character = never got caught before. Having said that how come the makers of this stuff never seem to get caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.010c25bfc4ad79d01b7451bf81c5baea.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.