Ah OK makes more sense, I don't use only fans but I had the impression it was for more adult or at least soft core content and a tool for people to make some extra cash by cavorting around in their undies (he protests too much - no honestly I haven't used it!) and agree it is a reasonable expectation of a user that they would only be 'communicating' with those who had proved their age (in this case 18+).DeePeeNCAFC wrote: July 14th, 2023, 1:29 pmBrave move to start this conversation Cathedral!CathedralCounty wrote: July 14th, 2023, 9:49 amIts been strongly implied that its young women [allegedly] involved essentially its a case of lots to see here but actually nothing to see here - we all think we are no longer the incredibly small minded moralistic hypocrites of the Victorian era really we are. The trouble is Edwards has no defense behind his race, gender or sexuality as he is a white straight male (THE pantomime villain of this age).JonD wrote: July 14th, 2023, 9:10 am I only know snippets of the details, so if my comments come across as uncaring / detached it's not my intention.
£35K seems a suspiciously high price.
Just a general observation on the reporting of the story. Not revealing the gender of the young person was an absolute master stroke in terms of getting tongues wagging.
I wonder what this story is worth financially to The Sun? How many more paper copies sold / clicks? And are there many Sun readers (remember when that was a synonym?) who hit a point of disgust where they decide to abandon the newspaper for an alternative?
 if it had been Fiona Bruce people would probably have said with a nod and a wink 'you go girl' and said it was 'empowering' for an older women to chase younger men, if it had been Clive Myrie few would have dared pile on for fear of being [wrongly] accused of being 'racist'.
But, from what I’ve seen and read, there’s more to it: while The Scum initially just referred to ‘a young person’ the male presenter (who we now know was Huw Edwards) had been in contact with, it was evidently a young guy now aged 20+.
From my understanding of things, the presenter used ‘Only Fans’ which is an international popular way of meeting people directly and sometimes paying to hear, watch or converse with them. All this is legal. Contributors on Only Fans must be 18. Therefore this presenter - and you or I if we chose to strike up a conversation or online arrangement with anyone on there - would have a realist assumption that the person is of legal age, that they are in that relationship voluntarily and without pressure.
The presenter seems to have shelled out a lot of £ over a period of time to see pics or the contributor ‘live online’.
He won’t be the only household name using Only Fans. In fact, I’ve read an allegation that a second TV presenter has now withdrawn and gone to ground over something similar. I have seen their name mentioned.
Ultimately it didn’t take the 2 police forces (including South Wales Police) long to realise no crime had been committed. I’d expect the BBC investigation to say something similar.
The only damage here, in my view, is to the young person whose activities have been ‘outed’ by his parents when he had a right to privacy. Maybe they were trying to do the right thing. Maybe they were trying to cash in. I don’t know. The Scum has breached this, and made online speculation more damaging by suggesting the young person was aged 17 when they started the arrangement.
The Only Fans website need to take a long hard look at themselves if it is post for U18s to take part. From my own very limited knowledge of the website, it is a haven for unregulated porn.
The other ‘victim’ here is Mr Edwards and his family. All deserved a right to privacy and The Scum has indirectly breached this. Unless his wife knew he had an online arrangement then Mr E has some explaining to do, but he doesn’t need ‘any defence’ as Cathedral suggests he might do.
The Scum has conducted itself in an appalling, possibly illegal manner throughout this and I imagine many readers are now boycotting the ‘paper’. In my view, it was an orchestrated and political attack on the BBC by its owner. I note they are not covering a similar expose around this second TV presenter.
All in all nobody comes off well from this but only Edwards will be remembered for it.