BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[jfman]

Yes I was only adding that qualification to “no criminal offence took place”. Which is different from “no evidence that a crime has took place”. There’s a material difference which is why the police use the second but not the first.

Originally Posted by Paul

Yep, thats what the site says ;


---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------


They could if there was no evidence at all, which is what was said here.

Also to be clear the accusation isn't coming from the alleged victim either.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

For some reason I thought it was a he.

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

I think The Sun are in trouble here.

I was thinking along those lines, because of the many people defending the person and their actions.


Why? They reported what the mother said she had seen. Has there been an actual full blown investigation?

Here's a bit more from the Met police's Specialist Crime Command, who say they have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.
In reaching this decision, they have spoken to a number of parties including the BBC and the alleged complainant and the alleged complainant’s family, both via another police force.

The BBC wouldn't have known anything, the alleged complainant would be unlikely to tell the truth, and the family would be just glad that he had been stopped, which is what they were after.

[peanut]

It's all a bit sad really. Not much more I can add.

[Jaymoss]

I imagine it is the press and this coming out that has sent him into hospital. End of the day all he has done is something countless others do every day

[Ms NTL]

Pay attention: The BBC always stated:

The Sun newspaper has reported that the unnamed presenter paid a young person for explicit photos beginning when they were 17

This threw me out, I saw it several times, so it was not grammar mistake (Huw ain't 17)

So .....?

[nomadking]

Don't the police normally check somebody's computers etc, when this sort of accusation had been made? They look for other examples of similar alleged crimes. No reports of that having been done, although any evidence will have long gone.
If his actions had been aimed at those older than say, 30, there might not be much need to investigate. As his actions have been aimed at those near or at teenage, then there is the possibility of having strayed into illegality, even if unknowingly.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I imagine it is the press and this coming out that has sent him into hospital. End of the day all he has done is something countless others do every day

Yes, I would say so.


All that talking about you and speculation whilst you can't be named.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I imagine it is the press and this coming out that has sent him into hospital. End of the day all he has done is something countless others do every day

Being caught out will have that affect. People had figured it out, and it would've been confirmed when he didn't present the Proms. Hiding away helps.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Being caught out will have that affect. People had figured it out, and it would've been confirmed when he didn't present the Proms. Hiding away helps.

It obviously hasn't helped if he's in hospital.

This isn't panning out as certain media outlets wanted it to.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Don't the police normally check somebody's computers etc, when this sort of accusation had been made? They look for other examples of similar alleged crimes. No reports of that having been done, although any evidence will have long gone.
If his actions had been aimed at those older than say, 30, there might not be much need to investigate. As his actions have been aimed at those near or at teenage, then there is the possibility of having strayed into illegality, even if unknowingly.

Police need a warrant to seize someone’s computer, and to get a warrant they need enough evidence from other sources to convince a magistrate of their reasonable suspicion.

Having an interest in legal teenagers is not grounds for suspicion and certainly not enough for the police to be authorised to go on a fishing expedition. You might, for example, have a neighbour who you know has an interest in the ‘teen’ section of your favourite -ahem- adult tube site …. the very category that is well known to attract uploads of content featuring teenagers who are not yet 18. However if you went to the police and told them about your neighbour, there is no way on earth that would justify them raiding his computers looking for videos of girls who are under 18.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Police need a warrant to seize someone’s computer, and to get a warrant they need enough evidence from other sources to convince a magistrate of their reasonable suspicion.

Having an interest in legal teenagers is not grounds for suspicion and certainly not enough for the police to be authorised to go on a fishing expedition. You might, for example, have a neighbour who you know has an interest in the ‘teen’ section of your favourite -ahem- adult tube site …. the very category that is well known to attract uploads of content featuring teenagers who are not yet 18. However if you went to the police and told them about your neighbour, there is no way on earth that would justify them raiding his computers looking for videos of girls who are under 18.

One of the allegations is that he communicated with another 17-year-old.
So when haven't the police raided computers, when this sort of accusation has been made?
Eg there was a case where a teacher was accused of using certain terms(eg child XXX) in a search on school computers. The police raided his computer, but not much was found because he had been tipped off about the impending raid. Not much in the way of evidence required there.
As I've pointed out, the BBC wouldn't know anything, the victim wouldn't want to say anything, especially as it would've also been a crime for him to provide any pictures, and the family are just glad that he has been stopped.
Eg There was a publicised case, where a public figure reported that he had been mugged, The police found the culprit and recovered the stolen items. Slam dunk for a conviction you would think, except the "victim" refused to identify the person and was labelled as being an unreliable witness by the CPS. So the case was conveniently dropped and the embarrassing details withheld.


The computers and phones records will now NOT be examined. Convenient or what? If somebody is dealing in "jail bait" territory, then it's quite possible, they went under age. They may not have, by being extra careful or by LUCK, but the likelihood is still there.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I imagine it is the press and this coming out that has sent him into hospital. End of the day all he has done is something countless others do every day

???? What, solicit candid photographs from young people?

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

It obviously hasn't helped if he's in hospital.

No doubt Phil Schofield was right on the blower to him…..”play the mental health card Huw, they’ll call you brave, instead of a perv”

He’ll probably come as gay, and then use the phrase “Ill advised but not illegal”

Well, he must have been planning to use the "mental health card" well in advance, as two years ago he stated he had been suffering from crippling depression for over twenty years…

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ith-depression

[GrimUpNorth]

I've been wondering how it panned out. Did Huw proposition the person and offer them money to take the photos or did the person offer the photos for sale and Huw just happened to be the buyer?