Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Fan of noncing are you?

17 / 18. Hey as soon as the clock strikes they’re fair game.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

As I said before Maggy, as a teacher.

If the 60yr old head teacher of your school was paying a 6th form girl for naked photos, you’re on board with that? No worries?

You didn’t answer last time, I’ll wait.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Well there’s no surprise.

Well, I think there’s a bit more nuance that has to be applied in these scenarios.

A vulnerable young adult, aged 17, or aged 18, is still a vulnerable young adult. Being over the age of 18 does not mean it is open season to take advantage or exploit that vulnerable person.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The Chap took Huw for 35K who exploited who?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Well, legally that is exactly how it works (in terms of pictures).


A person who is 15y 364 days is illegal to have sex but as soon as the clock strikes midnight they are 16 and legal.



A person who is 17y 364 days is illegal to send a picture of themselves naked but again as soon as they turn 18 they can.


I don't see how the legal system can manage this any other way.


There has to be a boundary which is clearly and easily defined and age is the obvious one.


So there are obvious grey areas - the lad whom Philip Schofield knew from a young boy, for example, even if they waited until relevant age limits, it's shady at best - and areas where ones personal moral spectrum mean that something which is legally allowed perhaps isn't felt as the right thing to do...


Or indeed, if there is evidence of grooming a kid under the age limit (for whatever) but doing nothing until they have passed that time.


But this is quite frankly a case where plenty of us (myself included) would see this as morally questionable at best if not wrong (quite why a guy in his 60s would want pictures of a teenage boy even if he is 18) but actually no laws are broken. In these cases it's important to differentiate between what one would personally do and what the law allows one to do (or doesn't allow). For example, some people still consider adultery to be wrong (it's not allowed in the ten commandments) yet legally leaving someone for someone else even after marriage is allowed.

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Legally speaking - no


Morally speaking - down to personal opinion

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

A great comfort to all the parents out there.

Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

You really are a horrible person

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Point out where it's incorrect?

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I’m willing to accept that, if you can expand upon where my disgust on wealthy famous powerful 60yr old males soliciting photographs from 18yr olds makes me horrible.

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

What? I think I’ve made it perfectly clear that it’s incorrect. You seem to be on the “it’s legal, so have at it” side of things. So morally, I would say the Hugh Edwards affair is very much “incorrect”

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Not at all.


I'm on the "the law says it's OK, so it's down to us as individuals to decide whether we also think it's OK" side of things.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

I more refer to you throwing around cloaked paedophile accusations

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

I would be more concerned about the drug problem

I think it is immoral. I think a lot of things are immoral. I think judging people harshly without real evidence is immoral too

Huw clearly has issues but then so do a lot of people.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

The "if it were your child" argument doesn't wash though, as with many things that may or may not happen to your children you would probably have a different viewpoint than if it had happened to somebody else. The law is quite clear and unambigous, as long as two consenting adults are involved. Personal morals don't come in to it, just look at what this government have got away with over the years.

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Well being immoral in most instances is not illegal. Sex outside marriage, adultery, viewing porn. I am sure a good portion on this forum have done at least one of those