BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

Originally Posted by Pierre

Trust/Power………interchangeable I think.

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.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

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

Authority/= power, no difference.

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

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.

Morally it's a different question, but that's a case of personal values.

I think we’re clear where your personal values are

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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

Using substances such as alcohol or drugs to control a victim through dependency, or controlling their access to substances;

112. There are also links between sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, including forced prostitution. Perpetrators may force or coerce a victim into exchanging sex for drugs, alcohol or money, or committing a crime, such as theft, to pay, for example, for the perpetrator’s drugs or alcohol.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

What - this Sun?

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Oh dear

BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.

More power imbalance. Lovely fella.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

You're drawing inferences where there are none.

No, I read exactly what you were saying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do personally think people who are attracted to kids can't change this.

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

If they can't control it

Question : are you as understanding and tolerant of rapists?

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.

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?

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...

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

[nomadking]

Major exercise in deflection and cover up on BBC2 Newsnight.

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

Originally Posted by Mythica

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.

For money? Isn't Solicitation still a crime?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

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

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

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.

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.

[Mythica]

[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.

This is how they are. Society or anything else will not change this.[/ quote] 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.

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

[jfman]

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).

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

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

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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