stanley Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, jabbath1987 said: Well I have no reason not to believe them as they never lied to us in past. It showed that they were doing sth. as they took it offline because of that. As he's gone now I think the issue is solved now. I disagree, Regina and Stas knowingly allowed a young boy to take a bath on cam and they should be kicked out for that. The issue is easily solved by VH providing us with proof he was 21 years old which I don't believe they will do. 1 Quote
Daleys Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, jabbath1987 said: Well I have no reason not to believe them as they never lied to us in past. It showed that they were doing sth. as they took it offline because of that. As he's gone now I think the issue is solved now. If it's solved then you should show us the face of the guy in question from your blurred pic to let us see for ourselves. Quote
nack Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 Though I want to forget this as a bad episode,I have to agree with Stanley. Jabbath..you were quick to react and in your post it is very clear that you were certain he was underage. Without proof, one would never know who's speaking the truth. 2 Quote
stanley Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, Amy3 said: Is it still on the timeline? If yes, he's over 18. Has it been deleted? If yes, he's not. That's what I think. It's been deleted. 1 Quote
nack Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 @golfer06 you saw the fiasco too..did he look 21. ? Quote
nack Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 No way they were going to keep it. Way too controversial. Quote
jabbath1987 Posted April 23, 2017 Author Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, nack said: Though I want to forget this as a bad episode,I have to agree with Stanley. Jabbath..you were quick to react and in your post it is very clear that you were certain he was underage. Without proof, you would never know. Personally I can't imagine he's over 18 or over 22. I don't know what VH spoke to Regina and Stas but I hope they told them the right thing. Quote
Voyeur House TV Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, stanley said: I'm sorry but the male was NOT over 18 years old, he was probably not over 10 years old. The acusation of child nudity on your website is a very serious one, and I am saddened that you have taken the approach of pretending it did not happen rather than having the balls to admit that a monumental screwup has occured. If you are still insisting that the said person was 21 years old, then I challenge you to provide proof of this - your website says that you keep proof of age on file. Hi Stanley, We surely did background check this person while invesigating what happened there and we keep the ID proving the legal age. We would be glad to helo you making sure about the actual age, but we can't just share such private information and documents here, publicly or however else if this that's not legal request filed to our company. We are aware this person does not look like this, and this is not a participant, but a guest of participants, who entered the apartment accepting the rules of the contract every participant holds. We are ready to prove us right and protect the interests of the person discussed in case we receive request by legal form. Hope this answers your questions. 1 Quote
nack Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Voyeur House TV said: Hi Stanley, We surely did background check this person while invesigating what happened there and we keep the ID proving the legal age. We would be glad to helo you making sure about the actual age, but we can't just share such private information and documents here, publicly or however else if this that's not legal request filed to our company. We are aware this person does not look like this, and this is not a participant, but a guest of participants, who entered the apartment accepting the rules of the contract every participant holds. We are ready to prove us right and protect the interests of the person discussed in case we receive request by legal form. Hope this answers your questions. One question - why remove it from timeline when you HAVE all the legal documents.? Too controversial ? 1 Quote
jabbath1987 Posted April 23, 2017 Author Posted April 23, 2017 Maybe to protect themselves cause they are only 99.8% sure and to prevent controversial discussions. That's the reason why I won't post the pic with face. Quote
Voyeur House TV Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Amy3 said: Is it still on the timeline? If yes, he's over 18. Has it been deleted? If yes, he's not. That's what I think. We disabled the timeline as we started investigating it and enabled it back in 20-25 minutes with all the recordings available. 1 Quote
broxman Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 If it's been deleted then it's without doubt the boy was under 18. R & S should be kicked out for allowing him to be filmed nude. Quote
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.