The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
VincentHanna said:
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...
Click to expand...

Or the irony of The Sun slamming Brass Eye for the satirical "paedogeddon" special, opposite an article about 16
15 year old Charlotte Church's chest!

Edit - 15 year old!

 
Last edited:
Latest on Reddit from someone that apparently has a friend who works for the BBC is that it could be *********. Previously *********** was touted as the person (no I've never heard of him either) or possibly ****** but I doubt that.

Anyway whole law thing that's been mentioned is ridiculous. Either put both age of consent and pics at 18 or both at 16, not one and the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A2Z said:
Latest on Reddit from someone that apparently has a friend who works for the BBC...
Click to expand...
Yeah I also read on MySpace that my friend's toaster's uncle's mother said something like that. :p

sAnwHwo.jpg
 
Dis86 said:
Got a source for what you're claiming? Nothing I've read says they paid for sexual images when the person was 17.
Click to expand...

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC presenter: Corporation in touch with police over explicit photo allegations

The corporation says it became aware of new allegations on Thursday and is working "to establish the facts".
www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC says it has been in touch with police following claims one of its presenters paid a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit photos.
Click to expand...

Claims the presenter began paying the young person when they were 17 were first reported by the Sun on Friday,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
That doesn't say what you think it says. I'll repeat, do you have a source that says they paid for sexual images when the person was 17?
Click to expand...
The article says exactly that.

I added that paragraph in my edited post.

It seems to be good enough for the bbc to approach the police but not for you?
 
BowdonUK said:
The article says exactly that.

I added that paragraph in my edited post.

It seems to be good enough for the bbc to approach the police but not for you?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that at all! It says they started paying them for images, not that the images were sexual at that point. How many times does it take for you to actually read what i've written?
 
C Kent said:
Would there be any other reason for the BBC to 'get in touch' with the police?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the police are going to come sniffing anyway, head it off at the pass! Don't want anyone else to be dragged under by claims they didn't cooperate or weren't forthcoming. Look at the crapfest that hit ITV.
 
Dis86 said:
Absolutely, the police are going to come sniffing anyway, head it off at the pass! Don't want anyone else to be dragged under by claims they didn't cooperate or weren't forthcoming. Look at the crapfest that hit ITV.
Click to expand...
The police would only get involved if there's any question of legality, in this instance nudey pics of someone underage tho?

I don't think the police were involved in Schofield's' incident' were they? I don't recall they were anyway, and I can't remember if folks were saying they should, then again I didn't pay a huge amount of notice to it outside of the odd grooming comment :cry:
 
BowdonUK said:
I don't know why the BBC hasn't done anything. Apparently the mother complained in May.

If the victim was 17yo when this started where is the police?

The offender as paid for cp. His house needs raiding.
Click to expand...
The BBC won't generally comment on any HR matter, and this sounds very much like it's a HR matter if not a police one until there has been some sort of investigation, At most they'll generally confirm a complaint has been made and it's under investigation, they won't usually add any more information that isn't already known.
This is, I believe fairly standard practice for HR departments all over, as the company cannot do anything that is seen to be prejudicial to the HR investigation.

"the mother complained in May", that means there has been between 5 and 9 weeks since the complaint was made, that's not long for what could be a complicated complaint with lawyers and potential police involvement, especially at this time of year when there is a good chance the person being complained about may have other commitments or may not be available due to things like holidays, or other key personal may not be immediately available.
IIRC I've heard of cases of blatant gross misconduct in very simple instances where the employee of a private company has had the appointment with HR scheduled for 1-2 weeks after the event, simply because from memory the law requires the employee gets a chance to have representation and the companies have wanted to make sure they've done everything to not only the legally required standard, but best practice (so they avoid getting sued for unfair dismissal).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom