BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

Originally Posted by nomadking

One of the allegations is that he communicated with another 17-year-old.

I could go to the police tomorrow and allege that you communicated suggestively with a 12 year old girl. But as I have no actual evidence of that, the police would conclude within a very few days - as they have done here - that there is no case to answer. Your allegation has to have credible evidence attached to it. The parents’ claims *might* have had such credibility, had they not been in the pay of a tabloid newspaper and had the alleged victim not flatly contradicted them within 24 hours.

No evidence, no justification for intrusive searches. A very valuable restriction on the State’s power to interfere in the lives of private individuals.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Well, my clinical advice would be, don’t endanger you mental health by perving over an adolescent, paying them tens of thousands of pounds for sordid photos and then getting caught.

Maybe, being a very high profile BBC presenter, known to millions, he might have thought that through.

And even if he did/does suffer from depression, playing the mental health card at this time will no doubt take the heat off.

Nasty press and public must not all pile on the poor fragile guy

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

So who as a public figure that had been caught out, wouldn't be depressed? Not exactly going to be in cheerful mood, are they?


The news coverage is utterly pathetic.

Originally Posted by nomadking

So who as a public figure that had been caught out, wouldn't be depressed? Not exactly going to be in cheerful mood, are they?

You need to do some research into depression. It does not mean ‘being very sad’.

The news coverage is utterly pathetic.

Agreed.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The news coverage is utterly pathetic.

Think we can all agree on that. Meanwhile Ukraine, climate change, the economy, take a back seat. Pathetic Little England.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

I could go to the police tomorrow and allege that you communicated suggestively with a 12 year old girl. But as I have no actual evidence of that, the police would conclude within a very few days - as they have done here - that there is no case to answer. Your allegation has to have credible evidence attached to it. The parents’ claims *might* have had such credibility, had they not been in the pay of a tabloid newspaper and had the alleged victim not flatly contradicted them within 24 hours.

No evidence, no justification for intrusive searches. A very valuable restriction on the State’s power to interfere in the lives of private individuals.

So if somebody said that X had searched for "child XXX", they wouldn't be raided? I could give the reported details of the case I mentioned, but that would bring up another whole can of worms and issue in hand would get sidetracked.
The mother reported to the police the existence of a picture. That should've been evidence enough to INVESTIGATE. Who else would have access to the necessary records? The BBC won't, yet they're the ones expected to do any investigating. So of course, the BBC will announce, "no evidence found"/


Cover up, all around.

[Jaymoss]

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.

Being caught doing what? Paying a teenager for some nudes?

No criminal proceedings and until there are he is guilty of nothing more than getting his rocks off. You never watched Porn?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

You need to do some research into depression. It does not mean ‘being very sad’.

Agreed.

But "being very sad" IS classed as being depressed. Doctors hand out anti-depressants for it.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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



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”

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

I see a lot of judgemental people on this thread. Anyone would think no one here uses porn ever. Well I do not believe it

As I have said. Until there is a crime then I am not gonna judge him harshly

[peanut]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But "being very sad" IS classed as being depressed. Doctors hand out anti-depressants for it.

I'm diagnosed (properly diagnosed that is) with F33.2 (Recurrent depressive disorder, current episode severe without psychotic symptoms) with Anhedonia.

Am I sad or very sad, no I just don't feel anything. Some Anhedonics could either give in or give up, some go to lengths to try and feel something.

It wouldn't matter if I won the lottery tomorrow, my mood would not change. So no it's not about being 'sad'.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

I see a lot of judgemental people on this thread. Anyone would think no one here uses porn ever. Well I do not believe it

As I have said. Until there is a crime then I am not gonna judge him harshly

I dunno man, I think there’s a world apart from consuming mainstream porn and personally sending 35 grand to a teenage crackhead.

Originally Posted by nomadking

So if somebody said that X had searched for "child XXX", they wouldn't be raided?

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.

Cover up, all around.

Nonsense.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Being caught doing what? Paying a teenager for some nudes?

No criminal proceedings and until there are he is guilty of nothing more than getting his rocks off. You never watched Porn?

There's been NO investigation and there isn't going to be. It doesn't look like the 1st "victim" is the only person that he dealt with, so until there is a COMPLETE list of those YOUNG people, no pronouncement can be made.
If somebody is interested in people of that YOUNG age, then there is the definite possibility of going under-age, if only by mistake. He would have had to be very careful or lucky to avoid that. Are people really going to deny that?
Not so long ago, people(not me though) were saying that the allegations were complete "rubbish". That has been exposed NOT to be the case.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

I dunno man, I think there’s a world apart from consuming mainstream porn and personally sending 35 grand to a teenage crackhead.

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

---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

There's been NO investigation and there isn't going to be. It doesn't look like the 1st "victim" is the only person that he dealt with, so until there is a COMPLETE list of those YOUNG people, no pronouncement can be made.
If somebody is interested in people of that YOUNG age, then there is the definite possibility of going under-age, if only by mistake. He would have had to be very careful or lucky to avoid that. Are people really going to deny that?
Not so long ago, people(not me though) were saying that the allegations were complete "rubbish". That has been exposed NOT to be the case.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Until I know different I will give him the benefit of the doubt and consider he has not broken the law. If that changes so will my view

Originally Posted by nomadking

But "being very sad" IS classed as being depressed. Doctors hand out anti-depressants for it.

You are ill-informed, perhaps dangerously so. As you’re so often fond of spewing links all over the place, here’s one you might like: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/con...lts/diagnosis/