Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I dunno man, I think there’s a world apart from consuming mainstream porn and personally sending 35 grand to a teenage crackhead.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

No, they would not. However, if somebody said X searched for ‘child XXX’ and presented an internet search history or similar log, as the IT admin of any institution would be able to do, then the police would have evidence to show reasonable suspicion.

Nonsense.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

There's been NO investigation and there isn't going to be. It doesn't look like the 1st "victim" is the only person that he dealt with, so until there is a COMPLETE list of those YOUNG people, no pronouncement can be made.
If somebody is interested in people of that YOUNG age, then there is the definite possibility of going under-age, if only by mistake. He would have had to be very careful or lucky to avoid that. Are people really going to deny that?
Not so long ago, people(not me though) were saying that the allegations were complete "rubbish". That has been exposed NOT to be the case.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Do you know he knew the person was a crackhead? is that information out there?

Make Up is womens (and mens) biggest lie

I do personally think the money models on OnlyFans is obscene and some people spend an absolute fortune on models there.

I just do not (at this point in time) want to judge him a criminal or even a pervert but I do judge him as a fool

---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Until I know different I will give him the benefit of the doubt and consider he has not broken the law. If that changes so will my view

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You are ill-informed, perhaps dangerously so. As you’re so often fond of spewing links all over the place, here’s one you might like: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/con...lts/diagnosis/

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You’re also making an assumption that it was on a platform - OnlyFans - and not perhaps sending money to an impressionable young person he met via a dating app. Again, I wouldn’t consider these actions equivalent morally.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

We do not know. Judgement without knowledge is ignorant. Are you happy to base your judgements on ignorance?

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------

This is what we know
Hue Edwards is on 430K per year
The Suns story said the person selling the photos was 17
This person now in their 20s says it is rubbish

Now we also know if this person could prove they were 17 the potential earner is absolutely massive. The story, possible court cases. Yet they say the age part is not true.

What does that tell us?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Spare me. Your judgements are based on exactly the same (absence of) facts.

You are giving him the benefit of the doubt at every step.

I’m more than happy to acknowledge there’s a far seedier narrative out there than the one we will no doubt get spoon fed by the media trying to rehabilitate him onto our screens.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

So have they checked his computers and phones? Yes or No?
The mother reported she had been shown a picture and had been told of the requests. That was a specific allegation. How is that not evidence enough to do a search?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

What is your point? People are free to make moral judgement about what he was doing but it appears it was consensual and legal.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

That is my point.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The person involved (the one in the pictures) said it did not happen how The Sun said so how would that get a warrant? there is no accuser other than keyboard warriors and a lynch mob

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The "victim" did say the story was "rubbish", but that has finally been revealed to be partly or completely untrue. Are you going to take the word of somebody who is said to be a crack cocaine addict?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Starting at the end, it tells us the youngster hasn’t turned over any evidence to the police that would indicate a crime or made a complaint (in line with their statement). In the absence of either of those there’d be no lawful basis to seize any of HE’s devices. So the police are where they are.

If the 17 year old registered on onlyfans (or a dating app) pretending to be 18 at first contact I’m not sure how that’s potentially a great earner (in court or in the press) for them regardless of when messages became photos. They could prove that they were 17 and their first act was deception. At this point they are an unreliable witness.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The accuser is the MOTHER. The "victim" wouldn't want an investigation and is likely to deny everything. Just as in the example I gave of the case where the victim of a mugging refused to cooperate.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I see we’ve reached that inevitable point in the thread where you continue making the same baseless, circular arguments, except with increasing use of capitalisation and imbecilic rhetorical questions.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You do know how much Tabloids pay for stories like this don't you? or does that not suit your poisonous agenda ?

Spit venom when you have a base to do so and I will join you if that time comes

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The Sun is saying they never said he did anything illegal.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I wonder how much the MOTHER was PAID for the story hmmm

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

We know the age was 17 - 19, so the transaction may not have been illegal.

But you bring up a great point. Only Fans, Web Cams and general porn sites are all readily available. And (although I don’t subscribe) I would expect them all to be much less expensive than £35K. So why this arrangement??

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I wonder if the Met would have been more interested if there was a cake?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Dude you would be surprised. Rick blokes throw a fortune at cam girls. Some are earning 100s of thousands a week

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Yes I did raise that one many posts ago. If she and 'stepdad' were genuinely concerned for their offspring it would have been nothing. If nothing, the Currant Bun seems a strange place to take it to.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Baseless? Did the mother make an accusation to the police of there being a picture? Yes or No? Has there been a full investigation? Yes or No? People are claiming there has been. Is that true or was it just an assessment as the police say? The "victim" doesn't consider himself to be a "victim", so is less likely to tell the truth. The victim lied in his statement by denying everything and calling the accusations "rubbish". Are you denying that those that don't see themselves as victims, tend not to give evidence against somebody? Are you denying that if somebody seeks out 18-20 year olds, they might, even by mistake, encounter a 16 or 17 year old in that process? Any news on the £35,000? Is it true or not? Perhaps somebody could investigate?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Let's just say that there's a high chance that we don't know and never will know the full story. Especially now the police have investigated and are taking no further action and the person concerned has been named.


Let's also just say that it is perfectly natural for a human being to be attracted to another human being. There are some relationships which society (rightly or wrongly) deems are inappropriate, but these attractions are still biologically natural. This includes attractions to young kids. Though there is clearly something not right with a grown adult being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child, this is still a natural attraction for them, though it is rightly not allowed. Though let us not forget that in some countries same-sex relationships are still illegal and it's not too long since they were legalised here. A post-pubescent child whilst still under the legal age of consent is basically an adult biologically and this is (correctly) a society decision that this is also not allowed.



Even that is making assumptions in this case. All we "know" is that he allegedly paid a 17 year old boy for photos so the kid could fuel his cocaine habit. How much of this was just out of convenience and how did it come about? Did the kid contact HE offering the photos for cash without disclosing his age (did he say or claim or imply he was over 18) or the motives for needing the money? Did he just pay thinking he was helping out and not really care for the images he was getting? Is it all made up?


It is after all illegal to solicit sexual photos of an under 18, even though they can have sex at 16. So it is possible there was some coercion involved and maybe there was some omissions or lies which led them to believe there was nothing wrong.



Or maybe HE, a respected presenter who has integrity and religious belief, is secretly a perv and neither us nor his wife knew anything about it. But that scenario is less likely as if there was any evidence of laws being broken then I doubt the case would have been dismissed (it might have been investigated further, but that hasn't happened).

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

They took the story to the police back in April. When they got no result from that, they approached the BBC. They wanted him to stop. How else were they going to make that happen

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

“Appears”

A man, a much older man, with money, power and influence. Enters into a sexual (even if it is just photos) arrangement with at best an adolescent and worst a child.

It’s not good through any lens.

If he was a 23yr old teacher and a 16yr old child, he’d be off the nick.

If he was was 23yr old teacher and a 17yr old child he’d never work as a teacher again, regardless of whether the 17yr old was even in his school.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m not sure what my “poisonous agenda” is. Or where I’m “spitting venom”.

If you want to believe the he’s the victim narrative spun to rehabilitate him be my guest. However where assumptions are made don’t be surprised if others present alternative, more cynical, less favourable scenarios for the behaviour of poor little deer in the headlights Huw.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I do not consider him a victim.

Also while you are judging someone harshly with no evidence to support it do not be surprised when someone refuses to do the same

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Oh dear

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’ll stop you right there, noncing young kids is not biologically natural, and if you believe that I can only deduct that you are one.

Again calling paedophilia “natural attraction” is disgusting.

Homosexual relationships with consenting adults is not comparable with paedophilia, and to think it is and/or justify paedophilia using that argument is wrong.


Do me a favour, stay away from kids.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I used 'appears' because I assume if it was illegal the police wouldn't have determined there was nothing to investigate.

I agree with you that it doesn't look good but that's a moral judgement we're making, not a legal one, and ultimately if it's between two consenting adults and no laws were broken then it's questionable if it's in the public interest to reveal it.

Teachers are in a position of trust. Although I am not actually sure what the rules are if the 17-year-old wasn't at the school.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Trust/Power………interchangeable I think.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

if he made himself out to be over 18 though, then even if he wasn't how far are people meant to know this?



Is he meant to ID check everyone to make sure they're 18?


The line has to be drawn somewhere, but if this is simply just a question of age, then is there that much difference really if they are 17y 364d as opposed to 18y 1d?



Huw Edwards is a BBC presenter, not a teacher, and is not (presumably) in a position of authority over the person.


So the issue here is whether he has knowingly solicited sexual photos of an under-18.



If the kid was 18 no-one would be able to bat an eyelid.


If the kid claimed, or HE had reason to believe (for example the site needed to be 18 to join) they were 18, then the truth isn't being told.


And legally, there would be nothing wrong with him having a relationship with, or getting sexual photos from, someone on their 18th birthday. Morally it's a different question, but that's a case of personal values.


Let us not forget the police have investigated this and decided no laws have been broken.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m not asking anyone to agree, or trying to shut down any narratives. However there’s a clear divergence between what’s actually been said (which is light on detail other than not illegal) and presented on here and elsewhere.

If it was the case that he’d simply blown £35k on Onlyfans with a 17 year old pretending to be 18 I think most folk would chalk it up to him being a fool and not think much more of it. The absence of that detail means his PR isn’t up to it or there’s more to it.

I think a 50 odd year old swiping through teenagers on a dating app, matching a 17 year old pretending to be 18. Flattering the person and then using money to solicit images (on another app presumably) and paying by PayPal (which has been referenced in the media). Pierre summarises the power imbalances fairly well so I won’t repeat, although I’d say ‘young adult/adolescent’ and remove ‘child’. It’s a different kettle of fish.

Notably PayPal isn’t a recognised payment method for Onlyfans as you can’t pay for a pornography platform with it.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Yeah, same with police officers, Doctors and social workers.

As I said they would lose their jobs if they were found to abuse that position although I don't know if it's illegal and I don't know the rules if the person is not connected to them (i.e different school).

Still, a newsreader isn't one so this alone wouldn't have been a reason for him to lose his job. I think the fact it's public and then the subsequent stories probably mean he is unlike to present the news again though.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You're drawing inferences where there are none.


Some people are - rightly or wrongly - attracted to kids.


This is how they are. Society or anything else will not change this.


But it is rightly not allowed. That doesn't change how they are.


I do personally think people who are attracted to kids can't change this. If they can't control it (and that includes getting access to child porn which others generate, which funds the industry) then they don't really have a place in society, and should be in some sort of institution where this attraction ensures that no kids are harmed, whether directly by them, or funding the work of others.



Do you really think that someone who "nonces young kids" (in your words) despite knowing that a sexual activity with an under-13 is highly illegal, just thinks, feck it i'll do it anyway, knowing they are going to jail if and when it gets found out, or simply it's because they're actually attracted to them and can help it no more than you or I are attracted to adults? If they can't help it, they can't be in society.


But then, the parallel between two adults of the same sex having a relationship, when this did draw a harsher punishment and wasn't allowed, really only applies to the level when society somehow decides that's not allowed between two consenting adults. Between an adult and a child is always a different matter...

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Authority/= power, no difference.


I would, an 18yr old and a 60yr old man, famous, fairly wealthy, BBC presenter throwing tens of thousands of pounds at them. I would definitely be batting my eyelids.


I think we’re clear where your personal values are

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

How do they know nothing illegal took place, when they're not investigating anything? He will certainly be relieved that the police are not investigating. Who knows what else would be uncovered. Beginning to sound like some of his coworkers might be glad he's gone.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Would the money make it "coercive control"? IE "do this for me and I will pay for your drugs".
Link

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

But it's not illegal.


If they are (or indeed, if there is reasonable belief) 18 or over they are above the age to do that activity.


Whatever ones moral judgement is on a 61 yr old getting sexual images of a 18 yr old, the law of the country defines this as a legal activity.


Actually I don't agree that he should have - but that's just individual opinion.


If two people deemed to be old enough by society do it, then purely as a legal issue, no-one can realistically say they have done anything wrong. Whether or not they agree morally with it, is a totally different issue.


The police have clearly assessed the issue and decided no laws were broken.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

What - this Sun?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1689197415

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Sounds like someone that was known worldwide for the famous bunny to be honest.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------

What makes this even more ridiculous is the fact that he could have had sex with them which is legal rather than just receiving photos of potentially someone underage.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

More power imbalance. Lovely fella.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

No, I read exactly what you were saying.


Well, in case you were confused, it’s wrongly, and not “natural” as you put forward.


I agree, but it is not “biologically natural” or “natural attraction” as you stated.


But it is not natural to be a paedophile, which is what you said, at least twice.


that’s as may be, but it is not natural

Question : are you as understanding and tolerant of rapists?

I couldn’t give a shit what they think, I just want them banged up.

I could change “young kids” to “some one that is really attracted to raping and then potentially killing women, girls, even boys”.

I don’t understand what your point is?


You are just coming across as someone hopefully waiting for the day that paedophilia is legalised.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Major exercise in deflection and cover up on BBC2 Newsnight.

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

For money? Isn't Solicitation still a crime?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m not concerned of the legality, I think he’s morally guilty and deserves what he gets.

You can have two people of legal age, but if one is 18 and one is 60, famous and wealthy and with influence….you’re entitled to question it further.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

[QUOTE=Pierre;36156067]No, I read exactly what you were saying.




Well, in case you were confused, it’s wrongly, and not “natural” as you put forward.


I think you're being ignorant here. Research shows that it could be natural.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

It’s odd that they’re doubling down with the let’s feel sorry for him narrative with more internal complaints on the go.

Nobody wants a taxpayer funded newsreader who is morally repugnant even if he operates within the law and the disciplinary procedures of his organisation (which as face value is a dubious assertion).

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Well looking at Only Fans, it doesn't look like it.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Paypal would flag 35K for tax reasons. Come on man use ya noggin

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The guy is sending money to a crack head teenager for porn. There’s no indication any of them were using theirs.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Post it then, and I’ll read it.

But, I’d expect that if that were the case that I could possibly find ( if I looked hard enough) that there could be research that showed, rape, murder and torture were all natural to the human condition, but you wouldn’t try to explain any of that away as it’s just “natural”

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

haha you are funny

so now there is a mysterious stranger who can soak up 35K in a paypal account. Way to add money laundering to your claims

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Why wouldn't you? Something being natural doesn't automatically mean that you support it or think it shouldn't go unpunished.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I meant their noggins.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

That is what I was replying to. How is that Only Fans?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You said for money, so I took it you meant receiving pictures.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Post the research.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Do your own research, I'm not your personal assistant.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Typical bollocks lazy social media reply

This isn’t Twitter, it’s a discussion forum.

I made a post to which you replied

You, in response to me, stated that there is research out there to back up your argument.

So the onus is on you to provide that, otherwise your argument fails and I am not being ignorant.

So back up your argument, you made it. Post the research, that you obviously know all about, that states that being a paedophile is perfectly natural.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

And I repeat, do your own research, I'm not your personal assistant.

You're the one basically calling someone a nonce simply because they are posting something you are ignorant about.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You have no evidence for your argument, therefore you have no argument. You’re not a serious person.

Go back to Twitter, where you can get away with this approach. Or back up your, I repeat, your claim.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I'm not a serious person coming from the one basically calling someone a nonce for the statements made about paedophilia being natural when there is studies on it. Yeah, you carry on being ignorant. And I'll carry on repeating, do your own research, I'm not here to 'mother' you.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Studies you can’t provide any evidence of. It’s quite evident you are not capable of much. Let alone research or mothering skills. Come back to me with the evidence of your claims like a reasoned adult engaged in a discussion or I’ll treat you as you are behaving, like a child.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Yeah ok :rofl:

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

My sister suffers from severe depression and needed to be sectioned a while back as it got very bad.

Depression is a mental illness not to be taken lightly as most well informed people know.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The key thing with clinical depression is there usually isn't a trigger. It just comes for no identifiable reason.
NHS website
In this case, who wouldn't feel depressed about the situation? It would be very weird if somebody, wasn't depressed about it.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

From your link…

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

There are a combination of things we need to address here:


IF the person he was in contact with was under age, AND illegal activities took place, then that is clearly a crime and whether he has mental health issues or not, it is still wrong and he will have to face justice for this.


IF the person was over the age of consent then whatever went down between them is none of our business. If he wants to buy or engage in porn then that's up to him and the only thing that will result from this will be an awkward chat with his wife.


The grey area is when people are in places of power, a celebrity, or someone who has influences over someone. This could be through many ways or in this case by large amounts of cash it seems.
Should he be punished for enticing the situation, splashing the cash, etc?
It depends. Were there threats involved?

The law would come down strong if the person is under 18, but could it still apply due to the age gap?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

There is more than one form of depression. This would come under "reactive/situational" depression. After all, it's the situation that is being blamed for it. How would anybody not be depressed from being in that situation?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

My take on it is that the guy has mental health issues and that has possibly had an impact on his marriage. Being a human being like everyone else in the world, he needed a bit of love.
He let it go too far and forgot that as a person in the public eye it would get all over the news.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Which according to the police isn't the case ?

Interesting there's people all over the internet calling the person a nonce/peado etc. yet fail to remember that the newspaper in question that broke the story published topless pictures of a 16yr old woman.

perhaps someone could explain how one is ok, and the other has lead to this witch hunt?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Pure whataboutery.

Applying that principle to the nth degree The Sun can never expose or allege any wrongdoing because it’s actions in the past, legal at the time, don’t stand up to 2020s morality.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Your whole argument is whataboutery . No evidence of crime. No Police investigation yet you still ... well you still

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You're on thin ice with the above statement, extrapolation of that point leads to things such as no apologies or repatriations for things issued for slavery, because as you say it was OK at the time and wasn't viewed with our current moral compass.

The long and short of it is thus, no criminal office has been committed and there's been a witch hunt instigated by an organisation with highly questionable morals & a dubious history.

Seems legit........

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I still nothing.

I’m under no obligation to swallow the simple old fool spaffed 35 grand on Onlyfans so let’s feel sorry for him narrative.

I of course make no accusations of crime. I don’t base my moral compass upon what actions at any given time are lawful or not.

Particularly when wealthy, older people potentially exploit poorer, younger people.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Who exploited who? The old man who got a few pictures or the teen who got 35K. Seriously I think you got it the wrong way round

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m not sure further ridiculous extrapolation does anything to support your point. It’s almost as if unrelated events at different times can and should be judged on their own merits without an inherent unconscious (or even conscious) bias.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

People will make their own conclusions without knowing the facts and they love doing it.
It is good to hear that the official bodies (the police) have determined nothing illegal is taking place.


As for the newspaper publishing underage photos, it was a different time back then. Just in the same way that they used to hang people for crimes in the UK but now thankfully this no longer takes place.
You can't compare what was fine in the past with what is the current law now.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Just because it doesn't align with your perspective/beliefs doesn't make it ridiculous.

Disappointing, I thought you were better than that.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Irony overload seeing as your entire view is based on your conscious bias

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Ah, so because it was a different time back then that justifies behaviours that occurred. Got it

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Could you provide the evidence to support that the person in question was exploited, because otherwise that's speculation, conjecture & whataboutery

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

They (and many other publications) did not do anything illegal, or publish underage pictures.
"underage" is defined by Law, and the law back then was 16, just like the Law for some sexual acts was 21, then 18, and now 16.

So yes, it 100% justified "behaviours that occurred" at the time.


The Sun however is now backtracking big time ;

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Exactly what Paul says above.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I don’t see how it’s “whataboutery” I’m not drawing an equivalence to any other actions.

I’ve been quite clear throughout that on the basis of the information available it’s not possible to reach the conclusions others have. You will note my use of potentially in the post you quoted. I think that sufficiently qualifies my statement - I can’t provide evidence any more than anyone else speculating on the thread.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

I’m not making judgements, only pointing out that others are reaching conclusions that cannot yet be substantiated.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

That is exactly what you are doing

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Where?

As I said before you are free to accept the narrative that’ll be pushed to rehabilitate him onto our screens (assuming the BBC internal complaints come to nothing).

Others are free to accept there’s a grey area of unacceptable behaviour for people in public life that remains on the right side of the law. Which is to date the only thing the police have confirmed - they haven’t found evidence of anything illegal.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The great and the good are all rallying around him, as if he is the victim………sickening.


Robert Peston, Alasdair Campbell, Jon Sopel, Owen Jones to name a few, which makes sense as I remember how understanding the likes of those were with Prince Andrew, when he did nothing illegal…………….

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

With an outstanding investigation by the BBC into the Sun allegation, the lockdown breach, threatening behaviour confirmed by BBC News and - as reported by the BBCs own Victoria Derbyshire - multiple allegations of misconduct from junior employees.

One can only wonder how anyone being bullied or harassed at a major news organisation by a more senior member of staff feels at this very minute.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The problem is this got so much attention because of the suggestion of illegal activity. If they came out and said there was legal, but morally questionable, sexual activity between consenting adults then it's not clear it would be published. Likewise 'BBC Presenter broke lockdown rules to have an affair' might be a story that people would be angry about if it had been the initial story to break.

Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault by the alleged victim.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

If he has had his reputation trashed through the conduct of legal activity with another consenting individual, then he is a victim of Press character assassination and deserves sympathy. If his self-destructive behaviour is an outflow of his poor mental health then he deserves sympathy for his condition and best wishes for his recovery.

*At the same time* he is the one who gate-keeps many of the nation’s deepest moments of significance and it’s quite reasonable for us to expect a higher standard of behaviour from him than ‘it’s legal’ - much as we expected, and got, that from the Queen, whose death he announced.

Coming to a balanced, compassionate and pragmatic view of all this requires an attention to nuance that the internet does not typically do very well. Everyone here might benefit from a little quiet reflection rather than setting out their hot-take reactions and then defending them to the death.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

All of it is, at present, allegations with no proof that it actually happened.


Time will tell whether these things actually happened or not.


Quite possible his friends and colleagues are coming out and supporting him at the moment because the guy is ill in hospital and also because he is innocent until proven guilty.


If we had trial by media, the S*n would have ensured the whole of Liverpool was in jail in 1989. Now I do not like Liverpool fans much, but the way the S*n treated them and perpetuated, even amplified the lies coming out of SYP at the time regarding the disaster, was an absolute disgrace and should never have been allowed.



It's also no surprise that it is the same publication at the centre of these allegations, which let us not forget the legal system has investigated and dismissed.


I am not saying whether HE has done what is alleged or not, I have little interest in making a judgement on this myself, partially because we have a legal system which decides this. If he has broken internal BBC procedures then this should again be down to the BBC to decide. Nor am I suggesting what he allegedly did was morally right or not because that isn't my position to judge either. But he is also not going to be guilty of it because the S*n says he is.


As for the 2nd paragraph, one would hope the BBC would have a respect charter or similar for employees, with the facility of raising any concerns or allegations about bullying to either a senior manager or member of the HR dept (and yes, I know the latter is primarily to protect the ER from being sued if they don't follow correct processes with the EE, but bullying/constructive dismissal cases could well come under that banner). Some larger companies even have anonymous hotlines for this kind of thing.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Matt Hancock may well beg to differ on the affair question. Like Johnson and the party lies, it basically finished him as a politician.


You're spot on, though Damien.


There was only interest in this because not only did the S*n whip it into a frenzy that a senior BBC presenter had asked a young teen for pictures to fund his drug habit, but there was also the mystique that said person couldn't be named, and the question as to whether any laws have been broken.


This was allowed to carry on for a few days simply because details couldn't go out.



But now the police have decided there is no illegal activity to answer (why is this - if he has been getting naked pics off a 17 yr old this is clearly off the face of it illegal, so there is potentially either the case it didn't happen at all, or the kid said he was 18, or there was reasonable belief they were etc etc), the person has been named, there's no aura over it now.


It might not be in the best interests for anyone to produce any more details. If they turned round now and said, for example, that yes the kid was 17, but that he told HE he was 19 and his social media profile was aged up, then OK that's technically not allowed but how far is one meant to go? There's still also the implication there that a man in his 60s was interested in sexual pics of a teen lad which seems a bit icky on presumably most people's moral compasses, even if the lad is 18 and it's technically not breaking any laws.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

So his age vs the age of the youth (may have been a minor, may have not at some time) + his fame/power and the small matter of £35K. Plus nothing at all has been reported of the mental and physical state of the youth ……other than there may have been a drug dependency issue………..

I think I’ll keep my sympathy on hold.

Oh, I agree.

But I am unsettled at what seems to be a campaign to absolve him of any agency, due to his “mental Health”. There seems to have been scant regard for the youth, so far.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Accused….she was not under age, was there freely and was paid out twice. With no suggestion of illegality.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

She thinks otherwise...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849

As you stated in post #127 of this thread

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m not here to defend Prince Andrew, only to highlight hypocrisy.

If Prince Andrew had sex with a 17yr old girl, was that illegal?

My point is/was, which I’m sure you know but like to ignore.

Is that both are wrong and guilty, yet the machine are willing exonerate Edwards as a victim himself but would happily crucify the Prince of the same crimes.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

She is claiming sexual assault. The person involved with the Edwards story isn't. How is it the same thing?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Agreed, it's false equivalence.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

There are parallels and my point is not on the legalities of each scenario but the response to them by the wider talking heads.

Both men in positions of power, both preying on vulnerable adolescents.

One was, rightly, vilified.

The other garners sympathy. I don't think he deserves sympathy. I don't think he deserves to persecuted either but I do think he needs to atone for his behaviour.