The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
6,774
Location
Krypton
Interesting use of wording there, considering the person involved with this is now in their 20s - I wouldn't call that a young person by any definition.
It's about creating a negative image in your head,o generate outrage and drive more views. It's the same as folks in this thread labelling 16 year olds as young girls.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
16,569
Twitter really is a cesspit. There is a certain persons name flying around, with pics. I'm sure you have all seen them by now (the one with his trousers round his ankles).
If it turns out to be a fake, damn! The comments are unreal.

How long until the BBC mafias control of central government weakens?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
24,033
Location
Hertfordshire
"I predicted that Malevolence would be outed as a nonce at some point"

Well, he outed himself that a while ago, literally.

mdQ74UK.png

647IWUy.png

TpveWut.png
 
Last edited:
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
21,518
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Well, he outed himself that a while ago, literally.

I did say before though, that its quite possible the "child" claimed to be 18 and hence inferred it was legal.

Its odd, we have some fixation that the moment everyone turns 18 they change from a child who cannot be held accountable for their actions to a fully fledged adult who must be.
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,430
Location
Tunbridge Wells
Its odd, we have some fixation that the moment everyone turns 18 they change from a child who cannot be held accountable for their actions to a fully fledged adult who must be.

It is strange. I understand why we do it as there has to be a line in the sand but there will be 14 year olds more mature than some 20 year olds and we have very strong but entirely arbitrary views on these things that other countries don't have.

I'm not condoning any of this but it feels like some of the outrage is faux when the person is 16 or 17. Most normal kids are sexually active at that age.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,658
Location
Llaneirwg
Why has this come out without a name?

I don't really pay attention to news stories like this, but seems like releasing news without a name just causes all sorts of serious issues for people who are innocent but fall into the "possible candidate" remit
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,658
Location
Llaneirwg
It is strange. I understand why we do it as there has to be a line in the sand but there will be 14 year olds more mature than some 20 year olds and we have very strong but entirely arbitrary views on these things that other countries don't have.

I'm not condoning any of this but it feels like some of the outrage is faux when the person is 16 or 17. Most normal kids are sexually active at that age.

There has to be a line.
16 actually seems a bit young. 18 is much safer bet for legal.


I'm not sure of the nuances around the 16-18yo...it's never come up! :D

Has anyone ever been done for being 17 with a 15 yo for example? Vs a 70 with an 18yo.
 
Don
Joined
24 Feb 2004
Posts
11,965
Location
-
Why has this come out without a name?

I don't really pay attention to news stories like this, but seems like releasing news without a name just causes all sorts of serious issues for people who are innocent but fall into the "possible candidate" remit

Because the woman's parents want to blame someone other than themselves for their poor parenting.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,658
Location
Llaneirwg
Because the woman's parents want to blame someone other than themselves for their poor parenting.

What age was she when the 'pics' were bought?

How did the person come to the point of offering cash?

Was she on some Only fans type platform?
Was she coerced?
She was 17 right?


Obviously very stupid for a public figure to do this. But I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some of the extreme noncing that's gone on in the BBC.


Its illegal, sure, it's stupid, sure. But there are a lot of scenarios where the person could have even believed she was 18+.


Unless he knew she was 17.
 
Last edited:
Don
Joined
24 Feb 2004
Posts
11,965
Location
-
What age was she when the 'pics' were bought?

The parents / young woman haven't actually said.

They started talking when they were 17 AND the BBC presenter has paid £35k over the last few years for pictures however they haven't explicitly stated that the presenter paid for nude photos when they were under 18.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,658
Location
Llaneirwg
The parents / young woman haven't actually said.

They started talking when they were 17 AND the BBC presenter has paid £35k over the last few years for pictures however they haven't explicitly stated that the presenter paid for nude photos when they were under 18.

I don't think any of this should have come out without the investigation complete, concrete etc.

17 is fine for a relationship. Paying for pics is over 18? It's definitely not a guaranteed "your life should be ruined" case. Which it obviously will be. Especially with the hype this has created.


Just like the nicola river thing. It's gotten out of hand online
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
21,518
Location
Wilds of suffolk
The parents / young woman haven't actually said.

They started talking when they were 17 AND the BBC presenter has paid £35k over the last few years for pictures however they haven't explicitly stated that the presenter paid for nude photos when they were under 18.

Is it even confirmed its a girl yet?

From what I can tell there are no pertinent facts at all about the "victim".
Although I haven't fully caught up today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom