The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Participant

Participant

Participant

Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
34,491
Location
Warwickshire
Not sure if there's already a thread on this, or if it's not allowed, or whatever, but it seems there's another 'star' under investigation for being depraved.

People are being accused (and denying it's them) left right and centre.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC presenter faces new allegations over explicit photos

The presenter was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the Sun.
www.bbc.co.uk

I predicted that Andi Peters would be outed as a nonce at some point, but this particular instance is to do with a girl, so that chalks him off.




Werewolf said:
NO NAMES.

If names are mentioned it can prove a legal issue for OCUK (and you as the poster). Anyone who mentions names will find themselves having their post deleted and a thread ban issued.
The risk is small, but it is there.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Participant said:
Not sure if there's already a thread on this, or if it's not allowed, or whatever, but it seems there's another 'star' under investigation for being depraved.

People are being accused (and denying it's them) left right and centre.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC presenter faces new allegations over explicit photos

The presenter was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the Sun.
www.bbc.co.uk

I predicted that Andi Peters would be outed as a nonce at some point, but this particular instance is to do with a girl, so that chalks him off.
Click to expand...

Not sure that word is acceptable TBH
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I know what it means.



Yes.
And what you have done is defamation.
Click to expand...
Nonce is allowed on this forum (as in the word, not FnG Magnolia) is the point.

Defamation is "a false statement presented as a fact" - I've not presented it as a fact so no, it's not defamation.
 
Last edited:
We do end up in a weird situation with our varying age of consent/adulthood rules.

It's being reported the girl was 17 (when payments started anyway) and if that's the case and nothing happened earlier then we are in a position that they could have probably legally had sex with the person, but having a naked picture of them is child pornography.
 
It's a weird story, the coverage including the BBC coverage, is emphasising about it being a teenage girl but the guy was the same age.

So realistically, the story is about a guy paying for racy pictures? Something millions of people do.

I'm not sure of the extent to which any co-ercion was involved. In which case it is obviously wrong. I think the parents said the girl used the money for drugs IIRC.
 
peterwalkley said:
Assuming the gist of this story is true, it begs the question of "what level of idiot do you have to be to do this and expect to get away with it". Any high profile presenter or celeb has a target painted on their back.
Click to expand...
The implication is that the presenter is the same age as the presenter. They might have broken BBC rules but maybe not the law.

The photos are a huge grey area if the two individuals were the same age.
 
ci_newman said:
The implication is that the presenter is the same age as the presenter. They might have broken BBC rules but maybe not the law.

The photos are a huge grey area if the two individuals were the same age.
Click to expand...

Weirdly the one person I've seen it strongly hinted as being is an older gentleman. We talking historic stuff here again?
 
Seems the frequency of these scandals is picking up pace, suppose its only fair that the BBC take this turn as the last one was itv :D

Edit: Ooof, just had another read of the bbc article and "It is unclear how old the young person was at the time, but the paper has claimed they were 17 when payments from the presenter started." yeah, thats going to be some illegal piccies isn't it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom