BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[GrimUpNorth]

I wonder if the Met would have been more interested if there was a cake?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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??

Dude you would be surprised. Rick blokes throw a fortune at cam girls. Some are earning 100s of thousands a week

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

Yes I did raise that one many posts ago. If she and 'stepdad' were genuinely concerned for their offspring it would have been nothing. If nothing, the Currant Bun seems a strange place to take it to.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Baseless? Did the mother make an accusation to the police of there being a picture? Yes or No? Has there been a full investigation? Yes or No? People are claiming there has been. Is that true or was it just an assessment as the police say? The "victim" doesn't consider himself to be a "victim", so is less likely to tell the truth. The victim lied in his statement by denying everything and calling the accusations "rubbish". Are you denying that those that don't see themselves as victims, tend not to give evidence against somebody? Are you denying that if somebody seeks out 18-20 year olds, they might, even by mistake, encounter a 16 or 17 year old in that process? Any news on the £35,000? Is it true or not? Perhaps somebody could investigate?

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Let's just say that there's a high chance that we don't know and never will know the full story. Especially now the police have investigated and are taking no further action and the person concerned has been named.


Let's also just say that it is perfectly natural for a human being to be attracted to another human being. There are some relationships which society (rightly or wrongly) deems are inappropriate, but these attractions are still biologically natural. This includes attractions to young kids. Though there is clearly something not right with a grown adult being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child, this is still a natural attraction for them, though it is rightly not allowed. Though let us not forget that in some countries same-sex relationships are still illegal and it's not too long since they were legalised here. A post-pubescent child whilst still under the legal age of consent is basically an adult biologically and this is (correctly) a society decision that this is also not allowed.



Even that is making assumptions in this case. All we "know" is that he allegedly paid a 17 year old boy for photos so the kid could fuel his cocaine habit. How much of this was just out of convenience and how did it come about? Did the kid contact HE offering the photos for cash without disclosing his age (did he say or claim or imply he was over 18) or the motives for needing the money? Did he just pay thinking he was helping out and not really care for the images he was getting? Is it all made up?


It is after all illegal to solicit sexual photos of an under 18, even though they can have sex at 16. So it is possible there was some coercion involved and maybe there was some omissions or lies which led them to believe there was nothing wrong.



Or maybe HE, a respected presenter who has integrity and religious belief, is secretly a perv and neither us nor his wife knew anything about it. But that scenario is less likely as if there was any evidence of laws being broken then I doubt the case would have been dismissed (it might have been investigated further, but that hasn't happened).

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Yes I did raise that one many posts ago. If she and 'stepdad' were genuinely concerned for their offspring it would have been nothing. If nothing, the Currant Bun seems a strange place to take it to.

They took the story to the police back in April. When they got no result from that, they approached the BBC. They wanted him to stop. How else were they going to make that happen

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

it appears it was consensual and legal.

“Appears”

A man, a much older man, with money, power and influence. Enters into a sexual (even if it is just photos) arrangement with at best an adolescent and worst a child.

It’s not good through any lens.

If he was a 23yr old teacher and a 16yr old child, he’d be off the nick.

If he was was 23yr old teacher and a 17yr old child he’d never work as a teacher again, regardless of whether the 17yr old was even in his school.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

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

I’m not sure what my “poisonous agenda” is. Or where I’m “spitting venom”.

If you want to believe the he’s the victim narrative spun to rehabilitate him be my guest. However where assumptions are made don’t be surprised if others present alternative, more cynical, less favourable scenarios for the behaviour of poor little deer in the headlights Huw.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure what my “poisonous agenda” is. Or where I’m “spitting venom”.

If you want to believe the he’s the victim narrative spun to rehabilitate him be my guest. However where assumptions are made don’t be surprised if others present alternative, more cynical, less favourable scenarios for the behaviour of poor little deer in the headlights Huw.

I do not consider him a victim.

Also while you are judging someone harshly with no evidence to support it do not be surprised when someone refuses to do the same

[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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

Let's also just say that it is perfectly natural for a human being to be attracted to another human being. There are some relationships which society (rightly or wrongly) deems are inappropriate, but these attractions are still biologically natural. This includes attractions to young kids.

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.

Though there is clearly something not right with a grown adult being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child, this is still a natural attraction for them,

Again calling paedophilia “natural attraction” is disgusting.

Though let us not forget that in some countries same-sex relationships are still illegal

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

“Appears”

A man, a much older man, with money, power and influence. Enters into a sexual (even if it is just photos) arrangement with at best an adolescent and worst a child.

It’s not good through any lens.

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.

If he was was 23yr old teacher and a 17yr old child he’d never work as a teacher again, regardless of whether the 17yr old was even in his school.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

Trust/Power………interchangeable I think.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

“Appears”

A man, a much older man, with money, power and influence. Enters into a sexual (even if it is just photos) arrangement with at best an adolescent and worst a child.

It’s not good through any lens.

If he was a 23yr old teacher and a 16yr old child, he’d be off the nick.

If he was was 23yr old teacher and a 17yr old child he’d never work as a teacher again, regardless of whether the 17yr old was even in his school.

if he made himself out to be over 18 though, then even if he wasn't how far are people meant to know this?



Is he meant to ID check everyone to make sure they're 18?


The line has to be drawn somewhere, but if this is simply just a question of age, then is there that much difference really if they are 17y 364d as opposed to 18y 1d?



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


So the issue here is whether he has knowingly solicited sexual photos of an under-18.



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


If the kid claimed, or HE had reason to believe (for example the site needed to be 18 to join) they were 18, then the truth isn't being told.


And legally, there would be nothing wrong with him having a relationship with, or getting sexual photos from, someone on their 18th birthday. Morally it's a different question, but that's a case of personal values.


Let us not forget the police have investigated this and decided no laws have been broken.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I do not consider him a victim.

Also while you are judging someone harshly with no evidence to support it do not be surprised when someone refuses to do the same

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.