My disdain for the tabloids ive never found a scale to put them in , what was worse jeremy offering the pictures or a vile press listening ? its not quite all one way andrea.
Believe me Mertol the Sun was not that moral. You just have to see how they treat other important stories to see that. The Sun was one of those papers that believed Bamber was guilty and it so happened that a story about Bamber "allegedly" trying to sell pictures of his naked sister to them waqs more of a scoop than the pictures themselves. Because (1) It presents them in a high moral stand and therefore a very favourable light in the eyes of the public. and (2) I drags up dirt on Bamber who they said was guilty anyway.
Don't forget my friend's encounter with the editor of the Sun in a party where he was "celebrating" with police on the successful conviction of Bamber and said to my friend, "Of course we know the little shit didn't do it". So the Sun was very biased against Bamber to start with. In the light of that I cannot think as to why Bamber would try and sell them pictures of his sister? Unless of course it was a setup designed to trip up a naive young man? Might be a good move to question the man who persuaded him to do it?
