BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

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.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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?

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

That is my point.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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?

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?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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?

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

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.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Only Fans exists. Cam sites exist it is out there. We do not know the age

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??