The Huw Edwards situation

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Just like the nicola river thing. It's gotten out of hand online

Even worse, you have people using it as an excuse to cast dispersions on people for all sorts of motive.

 

[413x]

Even worse, you have people using it as an excuse to cast dispersions on people for all sorts of motive.

This person is going to have thier life ruined. I really hope it's worse than it sounds. Because no matter what.. Thier life is destroyed.

 

[ci_newman]

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.

You're right, my bad. I've seen lots of "she" and "her" reported but that seems to be in reference to the Mother not the adult.

So young woman / young man.

 

[GGizmo]

I don't know why someone who knows something doesn't just say it. They can't be sued if it's true.

There is no legal gagging order. The media are just choosing not to say.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I don't know why someone who knows something doesn't just say it. They can't be sued if it's true.

There is no legal gagging order. The media are just choosing not to say.

While I'm sure some people now know more details, it may still be difficult to verify those details, so they won't risk the financial and reputational hit.

 

[jaybee]

So if the BBC presenter had had sex with this 17 year old it would not have been illegal, but to receive sexual images of her/him, it is illegal?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I don't know why someone who knows something doesn't just say it. They can't be sued if it's true.

There is no legal gagging order. The media are just choosing not to say.

Because I suspect all those who know are vastly more sensible than this.

They may know the person, but whether they know all the relevant facts...

Lets say its Mr Blobby and Mr Blobby turns round and gives evidence the person lied to him about their age, what they were using the money for etc.
Someone "outing" him could be in for a world of pain in court.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So if the BBC presenter had had sex with this 17 year old it would not have been illegal, but to receive sexual images of her/him, it is illegal?

Basically yes.

 

[Chris Wilson]

If it's some legal age bint and a guy has paid £35K for some photos of her, I wanna take a look see at what she's flashing, and why it's worth that sort of dosh

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

If it's some legal age bint and a guy has paid £35K for some photos of her, I wanna take a look see at what she's flashing, and why it's worth that sort of dosh

As someone said before its quite possible there is some blackmail as well.

Its why internet detectives should wait for the real ones to do their thing.

 

[robj20]

This is not a comment in the BBC presenter as such (who appears to have been quite dodgy if the story is true)

But I find it ironic that The Sun is breaking this moral outrage story about a very young lady being paid to titalate a man.

They spent 30 years doing that. Sam Fox is the obvious one, but Google 'Maria Whittaker' - they put her on page 3 aged 16 as well.

And they often posted topless pictures of models, alongside a picture of how that model looked at school!

And the UK public used to pay money for this, it was the best selling paper...

All of which was legal at the time, so not an issue.

 

[Chris Wilson]

As someone said before its quite possible there is some blackmail as well.

Its why internet detectives should wait for the real ones to do their thing.

It would be rather fine to see the BBC blackmailed rather than the other way around with their licence fee payers

 

[Dis86]

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.

Amazing, someone else who reads what's there and doesn't make things up!

 

[Dis86]

I don't know why someone who knows something doesn't just say it. They can't be sued if it's true.

There is no legal gagging order. The media are just choosing not to say.

Because no evidence has seemingly been offered at this stage, its all allegations.

 

[ci_newman]

I don't know why someone who knows something doesn't just say it. They can't be sued if it's true.

There is no legal gagging order. The media are just choosing not to say.

Because the story was broken by The Sun, a newspaper not exactly known for being a paradigm of fact checking their stories.

 

[Chris Wilson]

So is a copy of a newspaper showing Sam Fox displaying her abundant wares aged 16 now classed as child porn?

 

[ci_newman]

So is a copy of a newspaper showing Sam Fox displaying her abundant wares aged 16 now classed as child porn?

I dunno Post it on your Twitter / FB page and let us know how it goes.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So is a copy of a newspaper showing Sam Fox displaying her abundant wares aged 16 now classed as child porn?

Negative.

Its very very very very rare that the law is changed retrospectively. For obvious reasons, this is actually a good example.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I dunno Post it on your Twitter / FB page and let us know how it goes.

I have neither and am told Twitter is all but history, broken, costly and shunned and surely a Facebook page is no good, needs a ***book page to the young Sam justice

 

[thenewoc]

When Savile and similar happened weren't their names made public because it enabled others to then come forward and a case to be built?

Why don't they just say for example, Mr Blobby has been suspended whilst an alleged set of incidents are investigated. The matter is in the early stages of being investigated by the police who will announce when applicable if Mr Blobby is being charged?