The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
rare said:
Because it’s immoral if not illegal. As others have said, it isn’t reasonable, normal or sensible for an old man to be paying a 17 year old tens of thousands for naked pictures. It might not be illegal, but this is the chap who is essentially the face of BBC News and has taken the nation from some of its most serious moments in recent history.

Pretty obvious why it’s a story.
Click to expand...

That isn’t quite how it played out. It would be illegal if he’d paid a 17 year old for pictures like that but the met are saying there’s no evidence of a crime as of yet.
 
Ah, looking at some of his tweets and searching for a few choice political keywords explains why there is a very specific element of people here defending this creep. I love the modern day, where politics define whether or not you agree with anything/everything else someone says/does. :D

I must admit I didn't think it would stretch to defending a married family man over 60 soliciting vulnerable teens for sexual gratification.
 
Last edited:
rare said:
Because it’s immoral if not illegal. As others have said, it isn’t reasonable, normal or sensible for an old man to be paying a 17 year old tens of thousands for naked pictures. It might not be illegal, but this is the chap who is essentially the face of BBC News and has taken the nation from some of its most serious moments in recent history.

Pretty obvious why it’s a story.
Click to expand...

Nudes of under 18s is illegal.
 
TheOracle said:
so the sun was right all along. This doesn't look good for the BBC, especially after some of the headlines they used on Monday and yesterday!

I think everyone knew who it was, so it was only a matter of time. He didn't really have a choice.
Click to expand...

The worst thing is you know the headline tomorrow is going to be "Huw's a naughty boy?" :(
 
dowie said:
Do you think allegedly DMing a 17-year-old schoolboy on Instagram is normal behaviour for a 61-year-old married man?

How on earth is condemning something that seems obviously very bad/sleazy resulting in a comment about falling from ivory towers????

Point is that isn't normal behaviour and people condemning it don't need worry about falling from any towers (or throwing stones in glass houses or skeletons in their closets) because most people haven't done anything even remotely similar to that ergo your post comes across as a bit iffy.
Click to expand...
'Allegedly'.

I think it's a bit 'iffy' getting so hysterical at the drop of a hat.

E: Presumably no images of under 18s were involved so that's why the Police dropped any investigation. So, just adults doing legal things unless we hear anything else.
 
Last edited:
Em3bbs said:
Ah, looking at some of his tweets and searching for a few choice political keywords explains why there is a very specific element of people here defending this creep. I love the modern day, where politics define whether or not you agree with anything/everything else someone says/does. :D

I must admit I didn't think it would stretch to defending a married family man over 60 soliciting vulnerable teens for sexual gratification.
Click to expand...
What an adult does with other adults is national news now is it? This isn't a defence of him but rather the principle.

All that moaning about sharia law years ago and it seems like some in here would very much like it.
 
Last edited:
The BBC has updated its feed with a TLDR

A simple guide to the story​

The BBC presenter suspended over allegations about his private life has been named as Huw Edwards by his wife, who released a statement on her husband's behalf less than an hour ago. How did we get to this point?
  • The Sun publishes its first report on Friday 7 July, carrying a mother's claims that an unnamed BBC presenter paid thousands to their 20-year-old child for explicit images over three years, starting when they were 17. It's an offence to obtain explicit images of someone under the age of 18
  • Further allegations are published by the Sun on Saturday, and on Sunday, the BBC suspends a male member of staff, now known to be Edwards
  • On Monday: BBC executives meet with the Metropolitan Police and the 20-year-old mentioned in the first Sun story denies the claims through lawyers
  • On Tuesday: the Sun publishes two more stories containing further allegations, and the BBC publishes its own story with fresh claims
  • The BBC also reveals a timeline of events, confirming claims were first reported to the broadcaster on 18 May. The presenter was only spoken to seven weeks later
  • On Wednesday: police confirm they assessed no evidence of criminal activity after speaking to people involved in the initial allegations, and the paused BBC investigation resumes
  • at the same time, Flind issues her statement confirming Edwards was the presenter involved and that he had been hospitalised after a serious mental health episode. Edwards intends to respond to the stories that have been published once he is able to, Flind's statement said
Click to expand...
 
Ayahuasca said:
That isn’t quite how it played out. It would be illegal if he’d paid a 17 year old for pictures like that but the met are saying there’s no evidence of a crime as of yet.
Click to expand...
South Wales police already investigated this in April according to the Guardian and found no evidence of criminality. Now the Met have concluded the same:

www.theguardian.com

Huw Edwards’ wife says BBC presenter in hospital for mental health care after allegations in the Sun – live

Met police say no evidence of criminal offence committed
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
Em3bbs said:
Ah, looking at some of his tweets and searching for a few choice political keywords explains why there is a very specific element of people here defending this creep. I love the modern day, where politics define whether or not you agree with anything/everything else someone says/does. :D

I must admit I didn't think it would stretch to defending a married family man over 60 soliciting vulnerable teens for sexual gratification.
Click to expand...

If you stretch any harder your going to look like Mr tickle.
 
Minusorange said:
Does anyone find it insidious when people play the mental health card in such situations, it feels like an insult to people who actually suffer daily with it
Click to expand...

I don't know, but maybe it's been a downward spiral which would have kept going until caught.

Unfortunately, people don't like talking about things like this, especially men.

NOW, I'm not saying he's not using it as an excuse. I've no idea on that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom