'allegations' against BBC presenter

1
I've read the 4 sets of 'allegations' about the BBC presenter and frankly while they may have been a bit of hick with a d these are hardly hanging offences - the one about the 'creepy' messages is frankly risible - 'oh no someone sent me a heart emoji- pass me the smelling salts' - I know I've been on here boo hooing about a dispute with a travel company so get that when people feel wronged they want restitution but in this instance all proportionality has been lost - whoever this person is they are no Jimmy Saville.

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

8
Chepstow'sFine wrote: July 12th, 2023, 9:22 pm
mad norm wrote: July 12th, 2023, 9:08 pm
Chepstow'sFine wrote: July 12th, 2023, 8:55 pm *Sorry...boy! The mental health shield has been deployed! He's missing a trick, he should have said he's trans as well.
Unnecessary comment
No you're absolutely right Norm. He's the victim in all of this.
Let’s be clear IF and it’s a huge if, any of these rather tawdry but thus far not illegal, allegations are true he is guilty of nothing more than being a silly old fool and possibly a bit of hick with a d. Imagine it was you/your dad/son/uncle/brother/nephew facing these allegations and being exposed.

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

9
Chepstow'sFine wrote: July 12th, 2023, 9:22 pm
mad norm wrote: July 12th, 2023, 9:08 pm
Chepstow'sFine wrote: July 12th, 2023, 8:55 pm *Sorry...boy! The mental health shield has been deployed! He's missing a trick, he should have said he's trans as well.
Unnecessary comment
No you're absolutely right Norm. He's the victim in all of this.
Unnecessary comment. If you have qualifications in Mental Health and/or you have dealt with the person, then you can make these comments. Otherwise, don’t.

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

12
UPTHEPORT wrote: July 13th, 2023, 11:52 am Trouble is the BBC have been put in a very awkward position Edwards is an employee he has employment rights and the right to privacy
I think it's more than that.

Frankly The Sun newspaper which ran on page 3 a headline 'Forget about A levels 16 year old Sam is doing her Ooh levels', along with a picture of 16 year old Samantha Fox's t!ts is in no position to lecture anyone about sexual morality.

Huw Edwards mental state is a red herring. If he has committed an offence it does not offer a defence.

But, if a person has reached the age of consent then what he or she does in their private life with other consenting adults is none of my business. There is no evidence that Huw Edwards has broken any laws. If you, me or anyone else thinks that whether we approve of his morals should have any bearings on his job, then in my view Mr Edwards is quite entitled to tell us to go and do one.

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

13
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?

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

14
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?
Its 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).

[edit] 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'.

Re: 'allegations' against BBC presenter

15
CathedralCounty wrote: July 14th, 2023, 9:49 am
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?
Its 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).

[edit] 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'.
Brave move to start this conversation Cathedral!

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users