Huw Edwards named (but not accused) by his wife as BBC presenter at centre of allegations | The Sun confirmed as the fungus that grows on pond scum

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356

Anyone heard on the Grapevine who this is? Edit - maybe best not to name names.

 

[11101]

Am I missing something here or is 17 perfectly legal?

On top of this there are rumours of another Jimmy Saville still floating about. They wont get named here but if you really want to know i'm sure Twitter will tell you.

 

[sebsheep]

Am I missing something here or is 17 perfectly legal?

On top of this there are rumours of another Jimmy Saville still floating about. They wont get named here but if you really want to know i'm sure Twitter will tell you.

I think it's 18 for explicit images.

 

[Newtonius]

Wait so he could have slept with her and been okay but if he took pictures of her he had "CP"? Talk about a contradictory law.

 

[Superden]

all i see on twitter is the gammon desperately hoping its gary lineker. sad fecks.

 

[711]

Wait so he could have slept with her and been okay but if he took pictures of her he had "CP"? Talk about a contradictory law.

I think that is the case. Could have had the girl or boy every which way, and paid them, but not 'made' a photo of their boobs, under the law.

 

[Cutch]

It said it began when they were 17 and now the girl is 20. A young presenter then

 

[Solius]

all i see on twitter is the gammon desperately hoping its gary lineker. sad fecks.

Yeah it’s ghastly watching people ‘hope’ that it’s anyone. The mere fact that they’re more concerned with who it is and not that is happened is indicative of people like that.

 

[K Stand Knut]

An Un-typically badly written article.

‘When they were 17’? So they were both 17?

If I’ve interpreted that correctly, it sounds like this person is, at worst, exploiting someone with a drug habit and there doesn’t appear to much wrong from a legal standpoint.

Highly immoral but illegal? I’m not sure but let’s ensure we try and drag someone else through the mud and polish our pitchforks

 

[Superden]

why are all you assuming the victim is a girl? when twitter is assuming its a boy. - and in all cases the accused is a man...

 

[NotThatSoph]

An Un-typically badly written article.

‘When they were 17’? So they were both 17?

If I’ve interpreted that correctly, it sounds like this person is, at worst, exploiting someone with a drug habit and there doesn’t appear to much wrong from a legal standpoint.

Highly immoral but illegal? I’m not sure but let’s ensure we try and drag someone else through the mud and polish our pitchforks

'They' is referring to a single person, and it's not the presenter.

 

[K Stand Knut]

'They' is referring to a single person, and it's not the presenter.

Is that just not one way of interpreting it?

Both ‘could’ be the right interpretation, one is probably correct.

 

[Wibble]

Kinell people. Is defamation something that only applies to other people as far as you are concerned?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Is that just not one way of interpreting it?

Both ‘could’ be the right interpretation, one is probably correct.

In a vacuum, sure. The other interpretation would mean that the BBC presenter described as a star and high-profile is 20 years old.

 

[Abizzz]

Kinell people. Is defamation something that only applies to other people as far as you are concerned?

Did I miss something? How is it problematic to say someone possibly exploiting an addicted person is wrong?

 

[K Stand Knut]

In a vacuum, sure. The other interpretation would mean that the BBC presenter described as a star and high-profile is 20 years old.

Yeah, fair point

 

[Wibble]

Did I miss something? How is it problematic to say someone possibly exploiting an addicted person is wrong?

Throwing names around is the issue. Simply stating that kiddy fiddling or exploiting an addicted person is bad is not.

 

[Abizzz]

Throwing names around is the issue. Simply stating that kiddy fiddling or exploiting an addicted person is bad is not.

Full agreement. Did you possibly delete the wrong posts? (If what I quoted included something I wasn't aware of apologies)

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Am I missing something here or is 17 perfectly legal?

On top of this there are rumours of another Jimmy Saville still floating about. They wont get named here but if you really want to know i'm sure Twitter will tell you.

In 2003 an act was passed that made this sort of thing illegal before the age of 18.

Prior to that it was perfectly fine for The Sun to have 16 year old girls posing topless on page 3.

 

[Rams]

In 2003 an act was passed that made this sort of thing illegal before the age of 18.

Prior to that it was perfectly fine for The Sun to have 16 year old girls posing topless on page 3.

Exactly, the feckin irony & hypocrisy from The Sun is unbelievable.

 

[glazed]

I know as a journalist how bad the Sun's journalistic methods are and how much they distort stories. You would be shocked by some of their practices. I would keep an open mind on this until some facts are known.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

Exactly, the feckin irony & hypocrisy from The Sun is unbelievable.

Yeah can vaguely remember The Sun having a countdown to a nude models 16th birthday so they could feature her on page 3.

Maybe Lindsay Dawn Mackenzie

 

[11101]

In 2003 an act was passed that made this sort of thing illegal before the age of 18.

Prior to that it was perfectly fine for The Sun to have 16 year old girls posing topless on page 3.

So you could smash them just fine but god forbid you take a photo? Makes sense.

 

[Superden]

the parent is saying they went to the Sun because the Beeb wouldnt investigate properly...the Beeb are saying the parent didnt co-operate with them so made the investigate much more difficult...

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

why are all you assuming the victim is a girl? when twitter is assuming its a boy. - and in all cases the accused is a man...

Could be neither - a theory supported by their use of “they” as the pronoun

 

[redshaw]

Reading the article it sounds they don't want to state if the victim is male/female so opted for they and the presenter could be of any age.

Also some people maybe assuming a normal relationship was involved in this case with some photos added? It reads to me like a man possibly much older with tens of thousands of pounds to spend has maybe groomed or coerced a young person into supplying explicit photos for huge amounts of money and this has further ruined their life.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/08/bbc-presenter-allegations-teenager
Other articles read clearer.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Am I missing something here or is 17 perfectly legal?

On top of this there are rumours of another Jimmy Saville still floating about. They wont get named here but if you really want to know i'm sure Twitter will tell you.

Not for images.

 

[711]

Not for images.

Only if the images are distributed in some way, I think. Could be wrong but if so why hasn't the BBC gone to the police and declared they can't comment whilst it is in their hands?

There is also a question of whether a BBC presenter is a 'person in authority'. Again I presume not, or the police would be involved, but maybe that has never been tested in court.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Only if the images are distributed in some way, I think. Could be wrong but if so why hasn't the BBC gone to the police and declared they can't comment whilst it is in their hands?

There is also a question of whether a BBC presenter is a 'person in authority'. Again I presume not, or the police would be involved, but maybe that has never been tested in court.

They are being distributed?

 

[711]

They are being distributed?

I've not seen that said myself, but if so it should definitely be a police matter, and I've not seen that said either. Maybe I've missed these things though.

 

[Simbo]

So they subbed to their onlyfans?

 

[Pexbo]

So they subbed to their onlyfans?

OnlyFan

 

[P-Ro]

Spending £35k on child porn. What a pathetic cnut.

 

[P-Ro]

This story is going to be huge from the sound of what's coming out in the Sun tomorrow. The parents of the child complained to the BBC in May that this money the perv was paying was being spent by the kid on crack.

 

[Hugh Jass]

35,000. Madness.

 

[Butty19]

Genuinely shocked when I found out who it was.

 

[Pexbo]

Genuinely shocked when I found out who it was.

Loads of people have been accused so far.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

No presenters at the BBC will be ringing in sick over the next few days.

Twitter are ready with their pitchforks

 

[Eyepopper]

Loads of people have been accused so far.

How many have been taken off the air

 

[Wibble]

Full agreement. Did you possibly delete the wrong posts? (If what I quoted included something I wasn't aware of apologies)

I had a look back and your post was one of many and nothing you posted was bad. Just you quoted something that was going to probably start a conversation thread that would have ended badly, based on past experience with such threads.