[David]

I didn't think for a second that this is how the bitter rivalry between CM.net and Unofficial Mills would end.

Unofficial Mills all but had it in the bag.

[Chris]

I mean, I'd be going for a swift rebrand if it was me, but ...

[DC]

Half unrelated note but the papers want to bring up Chris' comments over Charlotte Church from 2002 again. Asking the BBC to "investigate". And exactly what are the BBC going to do to Chris, sack him? Lazy journalism at it's peak there.

[VMPhil]

Half unrelated note but the papers want to bring up Chris' comments over Charlotte Church from 2002 again. Asking the BBC to "investigate". And exactly what are the BBC going to do to Chris, sack him? Lazy journalism at it's peak there.

I think it's the Mirror in particular that always seem to have it in for Chris. As has been said before, it's a matter of public record and something he was censured for and had to apologise for at the time.

[Sidders]

I don't think I found it offensive at the time, but now I have an 11 year-old daughter and look back on it, it was a very inappropriate thing to say. But I guess that's the point, almost everyone has said things historically which would be frowned upon now, that shouldn't mean everyone should be cancelled for having once said inappropriate things, otherwise there would be nobody left (or at least nobody worth watching or listening to).

There is a clip circulating where Chris and Charlotte spoke about this incident on a chat show. They disagreed on the timing, with Charlotte saying she was 15, Chris insisting she was 16. I guess we could confirm it either way by trawling through the archives on this site, if someone had the time or inclination. Having said that, it's still wrong to be making these comments about a 16 year old, by today's standards.

The primary difference here though is that Chris wasn't subject to a criminal investigation, and while what he said may be considered inappropriate by today's standards, it wasn't (and still isn't) illegal.