The Huw Edwards situation

[Hotwired]

The family had already gone to the police and were told after investigation that there was no criminality conducted.

So what would the BBC be expected to do in such a case?

Apparently the BBC were expected to sack a high profile presenter without due cause or process.

Then when that didn't happen it was off to the rag with the least scruples about printing badly disguised libel.

I wouldn’t be surprised if The Sun names him in the ‘public interest’.

The Sun's BBC star story was in public interest - and that is beyond dispute now

Why Sun was right to publish THE Sun’s story about the BBC presenter was always squarely in the public interest. That is beyond dispute now as explosive new claims are reported by the BBC itself. H…

www.thesun.co.uk

Go on do it. I'd love to see them go to court for this. If they're so sure about public interest that's a legitimate defence

 

[n111ck]

Yes a nice juicy court case would sell a lot of papers.

 

[Robbo]

It's not yet clear whether these young people are male or female?

I can see the Kevin Spacey/Phillip Schofield defence on the horizon...

 

[Psycho Ned]

I wouldn’t be surprised if The Sun names him in the ‘public interest’.

The Sun's BBC star story was in public interest - and that is beyond dispute now

Why Sun was right to publish THE Sun’s story about the BBC presenter was always squarely in the public interest. That is beyond dispute now as explosive new claims are reported by the BBC itself. H…

www.thesun.co.uk

They were discussing on the news agents podcast earlier someone naming him in Parliament under parliamentary privilege which means they can basically get away with it.

Plenty of BBC hating Tories who are probably very happy this media circus is taking the attention off their **** show for a change who might drop the bomb to kickstart the witch hunt in earnest.

 

[thenewoc]

Maybe but what does the son want?

I'm sure he doesn't want to be harassed by the papers

When this eventually all comes out in the open, and I'm sure it will.

The parents seem to be a bit selfish thinking they are doing right but not listening. Bad parenting in my book, no matter what age the kids are you never stop being a parent

As the parent reported it to the Sun, I would guess the son didn't want it to be reported as it would be an end to receiving payments from the presenter.

Maybe the parent reporting it to the Sun earned them an exclusive fee which the parents need because of the costs of having a family member with issues or they might be poor and opportunistic. It seems like the son has probably been paid off to retract / counter the allegation as being bogus. The son is apparently being represented by a costly lawyer of which who is paying for them?

We don't know when the parent(s) found out about it though either do we, whether it was only recently. They may have stepped in through guilt that they didn't know what is alleged to have been going on a few years ago.

 

[Nitefly]

The media farce is now reminding me of this…

 

[Hotwired]

It's not yet clear whether these young people are male or female?

I can see the Kevin Spacey/Phillip Schofield defence on the horizon...

It's a 20 year old man whose mum is complaining. And he's hot enough to be worth 35k from one client.

 

[thenewoc]

If he broke lock down rules and thus the law at the time then regardless of being charged with an offense his position is surely now untenable. He's brought his employers name into disrepute and damaged their brand so must be guilty of gross misconduct on that basis whatever any legal case outcome might be.

 

[Hotwired]

If he broke lock down rules and thus the law at the time then regardless of being charged with an offense his position is surely now untenable. He's brought his employers name into disrepute and damaged their brand so must be guilty of gross misconduct on that basis whatever any legal case outcome might be.

You're reaching more than The Sun.

This was front page news for underage sex crime. Except without the evidence. Or duty of care before publishing.

 

[thenewoc]

You're reaching more than The Sun.

This was front page news for underage sex crime. Except without the evidence. Or duty of care before publishing.

But as with Savile, once the story broke, other revelations / victims came forward.

The initial story the Sun lead with is possibly harder to prove from a legal perspective, unless there is evidence to collaborate the young person's age at the time. The Sun wouldn't have printed the story without seeing certain evidence to collaborate it. They've probably drip fed the story because that's how newspapers make their money, to drag the story out as an exclusive with more now being added.

The presenter could just say they made contact through an app where the terms are that users must be over 18.

There's no plausible deniability however in terms of not knowing whether you were breaking lock down rules by making non necessary journeys and meeting anyone in person that wasn't someone you were living with. You couldn't claim not to know the rules when you were conveying them to the country at the time.

 

[Hotwired]

But as with Savile, once the story broke, other revelations / victims came forward.

The initial story the Sun lead with is possibly harder to prove from a legal perspective, unless there is evidence to collaborate the young person's age at the time. The Sun wouldn't have printed the story without seeing certain evidence to collaborate it. They've probably drip fed the story because that's how newspapers make their money, to drag the story out as an exclusive with more now being added.

The presenter could just say they made contact through an app where the terms are that users must be over 18.

There's no plausible deniability however in terms of not knowing whether you were breaking lock down rules by making non necessary journeys and meeting anyone in person that wasn't someone you were living with. You couldn't claim not to know the rules when you were conveying them to the country at the time.

Heads will be spinning more than rolling to hear that the front page underage sex crime story is pure trash but wait, maybe he broke a pandemic rule.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Lololol…

BBC 'sex claims star broke lockdown' to meet young stranger from dating site

THE BBC star suspended over sex claims has been accused of breaking the law by defying the third national lockdown to meet a young stranger from a dating site. The TV personality allegedly ignored …

www.thesun.co.uk

it would be funny if after all this he loses his job for breaking lockdown rules.

don't you have to be 18 on a dating site? if so, unless he spells it out in one of the texts.... to catch a Predator style.... then imo it's not an unfair assumption that the guy was 18.

back in the day when I was a member of POF.com (great freebie dating site btw or was 15 years ago ) i went on a few dates with different women and not once did I ask their ages as it was assumed given the age requirement on the site.

 

[sx_turbo]

As the parent reported it to the Sun, I would guess the son didn't want it to be reported as it would be an end to receiving payments from the presenter.

Maybe the parent reporting it to the Sun earned them an exclusive fee which the parents need because of the costs of having a family member with issues or they might be poor and opportunistic. It seems like the son has probably been paid off to retract / counter the allegation as being bogus. The son is apparently being represented by a costly lawyer of which who is paying for them?

We don't know when the parent(s) found out about it though either do we, whether it was only recently. They may have stepped in through guilt that they didn't know what is alleged to have been going on a few years ago.

Clutching at straws a bit with your reply, with a touch of made up guff.

So the kids a druggie, is it really helpful to have his dirty laundry aired in public where so far there has been zero wrong doing.

The lad didn't go to the police the parents did, they didn't like their answer so they went to the beeb and ignored requests for clarification, the parents then went to the sun who are hardly a reliable newspaper and well known for putting 16 year olds on page 3.. parents bent the truth a bit with the sun it seems, the sun are now trying to distance themselves and simultaneously die on their sword also in an effort to hide their lack of due diligence.

As others have said the fact they havnt published the presenters name (which is most unprecedented) as normally papers don't care about that sort of thing suggests they knew they didn't have all the facts at the time of publishing.

They published it in the hope the BBC would have a knee jerk reaction and fall over themselves to try and get rid of an allegation of wrong doing (which they are currently doing) and get the Karen's of twitter and social media to get Thier pitch forks out, after all they read it on social media and it's in colour so it must be true...

Some of the other newspapers are taking swipes at the sun for lack of due diligence and cracks in the story, even the guardian have a number of articles decrying the poor journalism of the sun, and they generally tend to publish factual (more so than the likes of mirror, sun, daily mail etc) articles if slightly lefty biased.

 

[n111ck]

All the papers are leading on this tomorrow - its only The Guardian trying to play it down for some reason..

New Year's Day's national newspaper front pages

Sky News takes a look at the headlines on Wednesday's national newspaper front pages.

news.sky.com

 

[caff]

All the papers are leading on this tomorrow - its only The Guardian trying to play it down for some reason..

New Year's Day's national newspaper front pages

Sky News takes a look at the headlines on Wednesday's national newspaper front pages.

news.sky.com

I'm a Guardian reader (yeah, a woke metropolitan elitist etc.) and I would say that their coverage of this has been... odd.

Normally their "most viewed" section is pretty much a free-for-all and will contain the top stories of the day, regardless of the Guardian's preferred agenda/line.

But for some reason any articles relating to this or the supposed BBC "crisis" aren't appearing in the most viewed. Definitely being suppressed. It's possibly the first time I've seen it on their app/website.

 

[sx_turbo]

All the papers are leading on this tomorrow - its only The Guardian trying to play it down for some reason..

New Year's Day's national newspaper front pages

Sky News takes a look at the headlines on Wednesday's national newspaper front pages.

news.sky.com

The "youngster" who is a 20 year old man, who never met with the presenter threatened to publish the presenters name online, the "youngster" apparently felt pressured into meeting the presenter but never did...

I think I would be tempted to send abusive expletive filled messages if someone was trying to ruin my career for no wrong doing.....

What did the guy expect, a rainbow and unicorn smiley sent with hugs and kisses and a thankyou for threatening to name and shame him for doing naff all wrong...

It's all very odd and band wagoning..

That said the presenter should have continued his silence and ignore the threats from the "victim", the abusive messages are Ill advised and advised the police of the threats being made online.

I don't think the guardian are down playing it, they're just being sensible and factual with the information at hand. (Which is how it should be done)

All the other news outlets are sensationalising everything to try and sell newspapers, because let's face it victim 1 has already said nothing untoward happened, backed up by the initial police enquiry, backed up by the beeb from what the parents originally stated to them, the parents have found to have bent the truth a bit, first they denied talking to the beeb and stated they were ignored the. The father saying they was on the phone for an hour... It's all sensationalised guff so far.

Sounds like it may well be an only fans account and the parents don't like it, guys doing drugs but that not the presenters fault, if he's legally buying dirty pics like the rest of the punters on only fans and porn hub etc what's the actual issue here? Is it just the fact he's a presenter and therefore immediately guilty of not doing anything wrong?

 

[dowie]

The "youngster" who is a 20 year old man, who never met with the presenter threatened to publish the presenters name online, the "youngster" apparently felt pressured into meeting the presenter but never did...

I think I would be tempted to send abusive expletive filled messages if someone was trying to ruin my career for no wrong doing.....

Apply some common sense here... the presenter hasn't even been named yet (though some people are aware of a name via rumours) and that was sufficient for another person to come forwards about his or her behviour.

It may well be the case, for example, that everything is/was legal, say the "teenager" was 18/19 and not 17 when that incident started and that he or she has also attempted to meet with this 20 year old but... given the other allegations re: payments and the teen being (allegedly) a bit troubled/drug issues etc.. and then this incident with abusive messages which, from the article...

They said the threats made in the messages - which have been seen and verified by BBC News - had frightened them, and they remain scared.
The new allegations of menacing and bullying behaviour by the high-profile presenter raise fresh questions about his conduct.
BBC News has contacted the presenter directly and via his lawyer but has received no response to the latest allegations.

...then he or she seems like a bit of a disgrace, probably not suitable for employment with the BBC and may well have breached some contractual terms re: behaviour.

I'll point out that another recently disgraced presenter, Phillip Schofield, has, as far as I'm aware, done nothing wrong legally rather the general public have (perhaps understandably) reacted with some level of disgust at the story surrounding him and his position became untenable as a result.

I suspect that could well be the case with this presenter too.

Another case to look at could be Angus Deayton, his case involved allegations of drug use and prostitutes, in his case he was still popular with viewers AFAIK but his fellow presenters mocked him relentlessly and that seemed to make his position untenable.

In this case, if the presenter concerned is involved in comedy in some way or if he or she is involved in interviewing people then even if they still have some public support it may well be the case that they're not able to maintain much credibility during interviews... though given the context here then if the allegations are mostly true I'm not sure there will be much public support.

 

[dowie]

Apply some common sense here... the presenter hasn't even been named yet (though some people are aware of a name via rumours) and that was sufficient for another person to come forwards about his or her behviour.

Oh... what a surprise... when the guardian is going out of its way to not cover something then check the Daily Fail, a third person and fourth person have come forward with more sleazy allegations:

Fresh allegations rock BBC presenter in '£35,000 sex pics scandal'

The unnamed presenter, who is alleged to have paid a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit photographs, is accused of defying the third national lockdown for an encounter in 2021.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The BBC star at the centre of a sex pictures row has been branded a 'complete hypocrite' after he allegedly broke Covid rules to meet a 23-year-old stranger from a dating site, it has been claimed.
[...]
The household name, is alleged to have broken strict Covid rules while the BBC was at the same time telling millions of people to follow them as part of its coverage of the pandemic.

I guess that's potentially criminal behaviour re: covid rules.

And this seems rather reckless:

It is also claimed the TV host sent Instagram messages using love hearts and kisses to a fourth person when they were 17 years old after contacting them out of the blue on the social media site - though it is not known if the presenter knew their age at the time.

I suspect the career of this BBC man or woman is basically over at this point and I'd expect he or she will be officially named this week.

 

[Hotwired]

Vomit inducing that The Sun can run a badly checked sex offence story, fail, desperately search through the trash for something else to smear him with and have people without the slightest bit of mockery quoting the heinous crime of... sending emotes on instagram and saying nothing suggestive.

This is what the story has degraded to. A LOVEHEART WAS SENT ON INSTAGRAM... from the presenter to someone who recently followed him

The Sun may be pretending it never said the words underage and keeping that original story at arms length but The Sun is at the end of the 10 foot pole that every other paper is using to report on this.

It might be on everyones front page but they're innocently reporting... that The Sun said it.

 

[sx_turbo]

Apply some common sense here... the presenter hasn't even been named yet (though some people are aware of a name via rumours) and that was sufficient for another person to come forwards about his or her behviour.

It may well be the case, for example, that everything is/was legal, say the "teenager" was 18/19 and not 17 when that incident started and that he or she has also attempted to meet with this 20 year old but... given the other allegations re: payments and the teen being (allegedly) a bit troubled/drug issues etc.. and then this incident with abusive messages which, from the article...



...then he or she seems like a bit of a disgrace, probably not suitable for employment with the BBC and may well have breached some contractual terms re: behaviour.

I'll point out that another recently disgraced presenter, Phillip Schofield, has, as far as I'm aware, done nothing wrong legally rather the general public have (perhaps understandably) reacted with some level of disgust at the story surrounding him and his position became untenable as a result.

I suspect that could well be the case with this presenter too.

Another case to look at could be Angus Deayton, his case involved allegations of drug use and prostitutes, in his case he was still popular with viewers AFAIK but his fellow presenters mocked him relentlessly and that seemed to make his position untenable.

In this case, if the presenter concerned is involved in comedy in some way or if he or she is involved in interviewing people then even if they still have some public support it may well be the case that they're not able to maintain much credibility during interviews... though given the context here then if the allegations are mostly true I'm not sure there will be much public support.

Apply some common sense sir, so far we have all the evidence of no wrong doing, but all the evidence of news outlets once again running rough shod with the truth and ruining someone's career and others coming out where also no wrong doing other than some abusive messages after threatening to leak his name online.

Schofield was different as he lied and groomed the teen from a young age, getting him a job at itv etc,

Angus deayton took drugs which is illegal, also society wasn't as "liberated" as they supposedly are at present, society was still quite conservative then, you know when women had vaginas, now we have new women with penis's

The cases are quite different.

Maybe the presenter does deserve to lose his career but we only have the evidence to look at that has so far been released and the news outlets are making a far bigger deal and sensationalising everything than is necessary at present.

The guardian is taking the correct route by printing facts and being cautious.