The Huw Edwards situation

[cu3ed]

Wow…..just…..wow.

 

[GGizmo]

So thats a no then.
You have simply projected with no basis.

Gotcha.

Ok, oh great fountain of knowledge what is your opinion then?

Why is he depressed? Or are you trying to say his depression is nothing to do with this?

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Paying a teenager money for sexual images is considered immoral by society, whatever our personal views of it is.

By all accounts he didn’t pay a teenager for sexual images?

And society pays people of all ages, particularly young adults, for sexual images on a daily basis. If not Onlyfans or whatever, then the like that used to be published in the very tabloids that are now pulling stunts like this…

Wasn’t it The Sun who published topless pics of a 16 year old?

 

[jpaul]

eu digital services act (and future uk one) has provisions to litigate, including OC V
we're still waiting to see how much Harry & Co court case for phone hacking etc. yields in fines which should set an interesting precedent, post Cliffs £2M

New responsibilities for digital services​

The DSA introduces a comprehensive new set of rules for online intermediary services on how they have to design their services and procedures. The new rules include new responsibilities to limit the spread of illegal content and illegal products online, increase the protection of minors, give users more choice and better information. The obligations of different online players match their role, size and impact in the online ecosystem;

 

[robgmun]

No offence committed. End of story.

Always one rule for them and another for anyone else

 

[C Kent]

Exactly - so why are you referring to young boys instead of consenting young adults?

because one was in his late 50's, and the people hes hitting up on sm are 17/18..

The majority excuse degeneracy and lack morals, is my point. Those that don’t then are shown to be hypocrites more often than not when it comes out that they are also degenerates who lack morals.

Cheating on ones partner/husband or wife is immoral, just because it happens every day doesn't make it less so.

I’m assuming you’re a monk or something…

far from it

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Some amount of garbage in this thread. Police have concluded no crime took place,

The same happened with Savile many times and look how that turned out. Sadly, once again money talks and a load of people jump to the defence of a celebrity.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Always one rule for them and another for anyone else

What rule would that be?

 

[dowie]

Factually you are ignoring that the only evidence of age was presented months after any "flirting".

Nope, I've ignored that I've made reference to the age several times that it was only mentioned towards the end of the exchange doesn't negate anything I said.

You can't make the claim that it's the only evidence of age unless you hold the bizarre view that teens on Instagram are easily mistaken for middle-aged men! There is at least some indication of age, he's clearly going to look young for a start, so this claim by you is sus that he had "no awareness of the individuals age".

For all you know there may well be obvious clues that this kid was still in school for example. (and as you get confused by these things, note that isn't a positive claim by me that there is evidence he was still in school on there).

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Ok, oh great fountain of knowledge what is your opinion then?

My opinion?

My opinion is you just made a load of stuff up, with no grounding to support your statement.

he'd be the first to be digusted and be taking the moral high ground.

Or did you mean my view in how Huw would have reacted. I have no idea, I do not know him personally so I have literally zero idea on how he would react.
I mean at the moment its looking likely there is no founding to the allegation so if that ends up being true I may hazard a guess (but it would be a guess) he may react like the majority of the population?

What rule would that be?

That its easier to go full CT than to admit being wrong

 

[robgmun]

Love watching all the ghouls in here practically frothing at the zip over this.

Careful chaps... It's a long fall from all your ivory towers...

I don't go online showing my arse to minors then paying them off. So i think i'm golden

 

[GGizmo]

By all accounts he didn’t pay a teenager for sexual images?

And society pays people of all ages, particularly young adults, for sexual images on a daily basis. If not Onlyfans or whatever, then the like that used to be published in the very tabloids that are now pulling stunts like this…

Wasn’t it The Sun who published topless pics of a 16 year old?

He paid a teenager. It is only illegal if the teenager was 17. But s/he could have been 18 or 19. It wouldn't be illegal but many in society would see it as immoral.

Same with onlyfans. If you're paying money for porn you're seen as a loser. Same if you're paying for sex at a massage parlour. All technically legal. But all looked down on.

But it's is more about how he sees it.

 

[Hotwired]

Nope, I've ignored that I've made reference to the age several times that it was only mentioned towards the end of the exchange doesn't negate anything I said.

You can't make the claim that it's the only evidence of age unless you hold the bizarre view that teens on Instagram are easily mistaken for middle-aged men.. there is at least some indication of age so this claim by you is sus that he had "no awareness of the individuals age". In fact you don't know what is on there.

For all you know there may well be obvious clues that this kid was still in school for example.

And here we go back to evidence which doesn't exist.

You have no grounds on the evidence which was presented by The Sun and there is no other evidence. It was a disgusting low grade smear instead of a quality accusation and I called it accordingly.

 

[spolsh]

Paying a teenager money for sexual images is considered immoral by society, whatever our personal views of it is.

No Barely Legals in your collection then ?

 

[dowie]

People haven’t been allowed to openly hate gays and other minorities in years, so they were throthing at the bit to sharpen their pitchforks this time at the merest hint of impropriety.

I suspect it would provoke more disgust if it were young girls/women who were allegedly targeted by him tbh..

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Paying a teenager money for sexual images is considered immoral by society, whatever our personal views of it is.

And not paying a teenager money for sexual images is considered "nothing to see here", whatever your personal lust for salacious gossip is.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

He paid a teenager. It is only illegal if the teenager was 17. But s/he could have been 18 or 19. It wouldn't be illegal but many in society would see it as immoral.

Same with onlyfans. If you're paying money for porn you're seen as a loser. Same if you're paying for sex at a massage parlour. All technically legal. But all looked down on.

But it's is more about how he sees it.

I am starting to think you are JRM

Funny, just flicked to twitter and top UK trending was

Trending in United Kingdom
Only Fans
46.7K Tweets

 

[dowie]

And here we go back to evidence which doesn't exist.

Which evidence doesn't exist? The Instagram account does (or at least did) that you've not seen it isn't the same as it not existing... more importantly, Huw has seen it!

Or are you getting confused by being presented with a hypothetical that was merely there to illustrate why the claim you made is obviously flawed?

You have no grounds on the evidence which was presented by The Sun and there is no other evidence.

No grounds for what exactly?

 

[robgmun]

Nudes of under 18s is illegal.

And i believe sending nudes to under 18s is also illegal

 

[MichaelAwkward]

He paid a teenager. It is only illegal if the teenager was 17. But s/he could have been 18 or 19. It wouldn't be illegal but many in society would see it as immoral.

Same with onlyfans. If you're paying money for porn you're seen as a loser. Same if you're paying for sex at a massage parlour. All technically legal. But all looked down on.

But it's is more about how he sees it.

I don’t think the age the person was when the payment was made has been established. Or indeed whether a payment was made at all judging by the wife’s statement today. Regardless, over 18 = not a teenager in the eyes of the law.

You do realise that onlyfans entire business model is built mostly on older people paying younger people? $1.2 billion revenue is a lot of losers…

Looked down on by the older, more repressed, parts of society - sure.

Buts let’s keep being distracted from Gideon Osbournes noncing.