BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jfman

Tip of the iceberg I suspect. The tabloid chequebooks will be out. Might as well have a sweep on how many by the weekend.

Up to 3 now.

Anyone want to go for double figures?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

The claim is broke lockdown to meet a 23-year-old

There are also reports The Sun is distancing itself from the accusation the original person has under 18 when they sent pictures. They might in a bit of legal trouble if that turns out to be the case, not sure how much not naming them helps if he person is subsequently outed online.

Any evidence of before 18, is going to rely on the parents. Difficult to conclusively prove either way. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any evidence of before 18, is going to rely on the parents. Difficult to conclusively prove either way. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well, they need to prove it. Either they have evidence of pictures taken before they turned 18 or they don't. You can't print in a newspaper an allegation someone broke the law and then say 'well, it COULD be true'.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, they need to prove it. Either they have evidence of pictures taken before they turned 18 or they don't. You can't print in a newspaper an allegation someone broke the law and then say 'well, it COULD be true'.

I didn’t read The Sun article at the time, but did it ever go beyond “sleazy messages were exchanged” at 17.

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn’t read The Sun article at the time, but did it ever go beyond “sleazy messages were exchanged” at 17.

This is how they worded it: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/22978239...xual-pictures/

The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.

Maybe they have leeway by saying the money went in whilst they were 17 but no actual pictures were taken but that would be stretching it.

But I would have thought that's the reason they could run the story? Without that angle all you have is two consenting adults exchanging such messages for payments. Sleazy but not illegal.

The lockdown thing might save them, I don't really know.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, they need to prove it. Either they have evidence of pictures taken before they turned 18 or they don't. You can't print in a newspaper an allegation someone broke the law and then say 'well, it COULD be true'.

IIRC the mother said she had seen the picture on his phone, which would suggest she doesn't have them to show. Newspapers won't have access to the bank and phone records to show the date when it started.

Simply relying on somebody's word is done all the time.
Can really be no doubt that there is something to investigate. It's not a case of nothing going on.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by jfman

Up to 3 now.

Anyone want to go for double figures?

4 now (the one that received creepy kisses)

I will go for double figures. In another website, several girls claimed that they talked to him

Originally Posted by jfman

Everyone knows the identity by now.

Nope.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is how they worded it: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/22978239...xual-pictures/

Maybe they have leeway by saying the money went in whilst they were 17 but no actual pictures were taken but that would be stretching it.

But I would have thought that's the reason they could run the story? Without that angle all you have is two consenting adults exchanging such messages for payments. Sleazy but not illegal.

The lockdown thing might save them, I don't really know.

Agree that wording is dodgier ground for the Sun to be on, although they can also hide behind the mother claiming that. They also know what they are doing with persistent references to ‘child’, but will hide behind not wanting to identify the gender.

The more come forward does the presenter really want to go to court to argue the toss that they’re not a criminal but are only morally repugnant? Probably not. I guess it could depend if their name is officially outed.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Everyone knows the identity by now.

Not everybody as l have not got a clue who it is as l wil just wait until its announced legally.

[jfman]

Fair enough anyone who wants to know could find out if they really wanted to since it’s being carried on media abroad. It’s been well known on social media who can provide the jigsaw pieces that brings it down to a suspect of one who isn’t on air, isn’t threatening litigation or isn’t live tweeting their holiday.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Fair enough anyone who wants to know could find out if they really wanted to since it’s being carried on media abroad. It’s been well known on social media who can provide the jigsaw pieces that brings it down to a suspect of one who isn’t on air, isn’t threatening litigation or isn’t live tweeting their holiday.

The person I have in mind as a possible, has also been identified by others on the same basis. They missed an appearance, with other appearances due soon. If the person doesn't appear, that might be seen as a clincher for the identity. Might still be wrong person, but either way it would put further pressure on the actual person to come forward.
Seems silly for the person to deny the inevitable.

Irrelevant (to this thread) post moved to own thread

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...php?t=33712018

Well I cant be bothered to start searching.

I'm puzzled why would anyone pay £35,000 for "explicit" photos.
That seems an awfully large amount (unless blackmail was involved I suppose).
I've also never seen it mentioned if the 17 year old was male or female, just a "young person".

Originally Posted by Paul

Well I cant be bothered to start searching.

I'm puzzled why would anyone pay £35,000 for "explicit" photos.
That seems an awfully large amount (unless blackmail was involved I suppose).
I've also never seen it mentioned if the 17 year old was male or female, just a "young person".

It's been mooted the "young person" had an "OnlyFans" account.