Top BBC presenter ‘stripped to underwear in video call with teen he paid for explicit pictures’

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

A guy in his early twenties. Hardly seems a police matter but could indeed be a professional conduct issue.

It's a police issue if the messages were threatening, which it appears they were.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

 

Oh, and he seems to have broken Covid rules as well. So that could be a police issue as well.

 

Not to mention the allegations of paying for sexy pics from the young crack addict that the family stand by and presumably have evidence of.

 

A true beacon of the community it would appear. The BBC really knows how to pick 'em.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

https://www.politicalite.com/the-bbc-sex-scandal/exclusive-bbc-news-star-huw-edwards-is-the-bbc-presenter-at-centre-of-35k-sex-pic-allegations/

 

Please delete if inappropriate, but it was surely inevitable.

Yes it's been all over Twitter for a while. Everyone knows huw it is.

[Seppius]

Hypocritically, The Sun regularly had topless 16yo's on its famous Page 3 a few years ago

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

11 minutes ago, Seppius said:

Hypocritically, The Sun regularly had topless 16yo's on its famous Page 3 a few years ago

Contemporary Britons take themselves far too seriously. I remember a few years ago there was a big media frenzy about some teacher running away to France with his 16 year old student and it was quite the international incident... with the French wondering what all the fuss was about.

[Bkk Brian]

While we already know who it is and have done for a few days, the official line is still not clear. Particularly important when the alleged victim concerned denies any wrong doing or criminal activity has taken place.

 

Public interest defence in naming presenter is complicated - campaigner

"I think it is important we stress this isn't just about the presenter," Nathan says. "It's also about the individual who the Sun are presenting here as the victim in this case who sold the images.

"When you name someone who is on the other end of this, you raise the risk of identifying the other person as well."

Nathan also points out it is key the individual at the centre of the allegations has made denials via a lawyer there has been no wrongdoing or criminal activity.

Quote Message: What was really inappropriate, particularly in this case, is the Sun did not mention the fact that the individual at the heart of this had either not been spoken to or had been spoken to and he had objected to the story going ahead and his own parents accounts." 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-66159469

[youreavinalaff]

47 minutes ago, Seppius said:

Hypocritically, The Sun regularly had topless 16yo's on its famous Page 3 a few years ago

Regularly? I don't think so.

 

A few years ago? Page 3 girls had to be 18 from 2003 and the feature was stopped for good in 2015. Hardly " a,few years ago".

[vinny41]

 

BBC presenter scandal LIVE: Star urged to come forward as fourth person makes claims

The BBC presenter in question is alleged to have 'ignored strict Covid rules' throughout the third national lockdown, with the virus claiming the lives of almost 227,000 in Britain

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-sex-scandal-live-30428135

 

Its no longer victim its victims as 4th person comes forward

[chickenslegs]

4 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

https://www.politicalite.com/the-bbc-sex-scandal/exclusive-bbc-news-star-huw-edwards-is-the-bbc-presenter-at-centre-of-35k-sex-pic-allegations/

 

Please delete if inappropriate, but it was surely inevitable.

Still reeling from the shock of learning about Gary Glitter, Sir Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, I am relieved to hear that it is not Sir David Attenborough.

[Seppius]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Regularly? I don't think so.

 

A few years ago? Page 3 girls had to be 18 from 2003 and the feature was stopped for good in 2015. Hardly " a,few years ago".

I suppose it depends on your definition of  "a few years" for me 1983 was a few years ago, but then, I am an old far*

 

"Previously, printing images of women aged 16 or 17 on Page 3 was deemed acceptable. In 1983, Sam Fox was the youngest at only 16 when she first featured topless in the paper with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'. "

 

https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a622891/8-startling-facts-about-the-suns-page-3-from-16-year-old-models-to-the-dungeon-of-drax/

 

 

[simon43]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yes it's been all over Twitter for a while. Everyone knows huw it is.

I thought the Welsh only liked sheep.....

[sometime]

Todays Dailymail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12287911/Huw-Edwards-overtakes-Radio-5-Lives-Stephen-Nolan-jump-fourth-list-highest-BBC-earners.html

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Seppius said:

I suppose it depends on your definition of  "a few years" for me 1983 was a few years ago, but then, I am an old far*

 

"Previously, printing images of women aged 16 or 17 on Page 3 was deemed acceptable. In 1983, Sam Fox was the youngest at only 16 when she first featured topless in the paper with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'. "

 

https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a622891/8-startling-facts-about-the-suns-page-3-from-16-year-old-models-to-the-dungeon-of-drax/

 

 

You said " regularly". Then you link to one.????

[onthedarkside]

UPDATE: Huw Edwards in hospital as he is named in BBC presenter row

 

 

Huw Edwards is in hospital with "serious mental health issues", his wife says, as she named him as the BBC presenter at the centre of allegations.

 

His wife Vicky Flind said she was issuing a statement on his behalf after days of speculation "primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children".

 

The Sun has claimed he paid a young person for sexually explicit images.

 

The Met Police says Edwards, 61, will not face any police action.

 

READ MORE

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66180799

 

[Henryford]

Why will he not face criminal charges, wasn't a crime committed?

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

The Met Police says Edwards, 61, will not face any police action.

 

Bit early for that conclusion isn't it? The allegations were only made a few days ago. Surely a thorough police investigation needs to take place before deciding whether to take action or not.

 

Or are BBC stars exempt from the law now? It wouldn't surprise me given how The Woke Met Police and The BBC are so perfectly aligned politically. 

 

 

[onthedarkside]

An off topic post and reply has been removed:

[RuamRudy]

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Bit early for that conclusion isn't it? The allegations were only made a few days ago. Surely a thorough police investigation needs to take place before deciding whether to take action or not.

 

Or are BBC stars exempt from the law now? It wouldn't surprise me given how The Woke Met Police and The BBC are so perfectly aligned politically. 

 

 

Are you familiar with the details of the investigation that the Met has undertaken? Do you know how many manhours of policing have been expended on this?

 

It certainly gained a lot more publicity than the other high profile person accused last week of sexual impropriety. It beggars the question of why the Sun sat on the story for so long.

 

Might it be that rather than a conspiracy between the Met and the BBC to protect Edwards, it was a conspiracy between Rupert Murdoch and the Nasty Party to protect a former senior government minister?

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Are you familiar with the details of the investigation that the Met has undertaken? Do you know how many manhours of policing have been expended on this?

Well it can't have been much seeing as the story only broke a few days ago.

 

Anyway, it seems Edwards has (predictably) played the mental health card so presumably that will be the end of it. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use.

 

Time to defund the BBC. There appears to be a culture of impropriety and left wing political bias that directly opposes it's mission statement and values.

 

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission

 

 

 

All just empty words unfortunately. 

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Are you familiar with the details of the investigation that the Met has undertaken? Do you know how many manhours of policing have been expended on this?

 

It certainly gained a lot more publicity than the other high profile person accused last week of sexual impropriety. It beggars the question of why the Sun sat on the story for so long.

 

Might it be that rather than a conspiracy between the Met and the BBC to protect Edwards, it was a conspiracy between Rupert Murdoch and the Nasty Party to protect a former senior government minister?

Actually it wasn't just the Met but also the Welsh Police. 

 

The Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police looked at allegations against the BBC presenter and both said there was no information to indicate criminal offences had been committed.

https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368

[brewsterbudgen]

1 hour ago, Henryford said:

Why will he not face criminal charges, wasn't a crime committed?

It appears not!  The Sun is likely to be in BIG trouble!  Hopefully it will go the same way as the News of the World.????

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well it can't have been much seeing as the story only broke a few days ago.

 

Anyway, it seems Edwards has (predictably) played the mental health card so presumably that will be the end of it. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use.

 

Time to defund the BBC. There appears to be a culture of impropriety and left wing political bias that directly opposes it's mission statement and values.

 

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission

 

 

 

All just empty words unfortunately. 

You may have become aware of the story only in the last few days, but it's several months since the mother of the alleged victim went to the police - oh, sorry, not the police but the Scum.

 

Surely the first stop of any mother, concerned about a crime being perpetrated against their child, would be the police?

 

Or is all this simply a fabricated attack on the BBC, previously held held back until an opportune moment arose, and now unleashed to ensure that George Osborne's wedding went off unsullied?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

It appears not!  The Sun is likely to be in BIG trouble!  Hopefully it will go the same way as the News of the World.????

Highly unlikely. Suing The Sun would mean all the evidence laid bare for the public to see. No chance of that happening when they want it all swept under the carpet.

 

No. This will all just go away so the gravy train known as The BBC can continue.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

You may have become aware of the story only in the last few days, but it's several months since the mother of the alleged victim went to the police - oh, sorry, not the police but the Scum.

 

Surely the first stop of any mother, concerned about a crime being perpetrated against their child, would be the police?

 

 

Fresh allegations today from BBC colleagues.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html

 

Oh and the BBC itself confirmed the existence of the threatening messages. Strange that the police are ignoring them then, giving the illegality of sending threatening digital messages.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Fresh allegations today from BBC colleagues.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html

 

Oh and the BBC itself confirmed the existence of the threatening messages. Strange that the police are ignoring them then, giving the illegality of sending threatening digital messages.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

He sent adults messages that they now say were flirtatious and  inappropriate but didn't complain about at the time.

 

And he sent a message containing expletives to a 20-something when the 20-something threatened to blackmail him?

 

If that's enough to get the pitchfork mob out, a former chancellor must be beside himself with worry this week. 

[brewsterbudgen]

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Highly unlikely. Suing The Sun would mean all the evidence laid bare for the public to see. No chance of that happening when they want it all swept under the carpet.

 

No. This will all just go away so the gravy train known as The BBC can continue.

You might be right.  But as Edwards' career is now finished anyway, I would think he (not the BBC) would be able to sue The Sun for defamation.  

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

He sent adults messages that they now say were flirtatious and  inappropriate but didn't complain about at the time.

That's the problem with abuse of power. Victims can be intimidated into silence until others speak out. It's no laughing matter.

 

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

And he sent a message containing expletives to a 20-something when the 20-something threatened to blackmail him?

Sending threatening digital messages is a criminal offence.

 

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Both criminal penalties and civil,to know amounts to harassment.

 

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If that's enough to get the pitchfork mob out, a former chancellor must be beside himself with worry this week. 

Off topic again. 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You might be right.  But as Edwards' career is now finished anyway, I would think he (not the BBC) would be able to sue The Sun for defamation.  

If Edwards sued The Sun all the messages would be laid bare for everyone to see. Victims would get their day in court to speak out. 

 

No, Edwards will go quietly. 

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

That's the problem with abuse of power. Victims can be intimidated into silence until others speak out. It's no laughing matter.

 

Sending threatening digital messages is a criminal offence.

 

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Both criminal penalties and civil,to know amounts to harassment.

 

Off topic again. 

I disagree that it's off topic but feel free to report it again.

The discussion is about allegations of sexual impropriety by public figures. You are convinced that there is a conspiracy to protect the one who has been publicly named - the correlation with the allegations against Osborne are possibly inconvenient for the hard right, but they are totally on topic.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If Edwards sued The Sun all the messages would be laid bare for everyone to see. Victims would get their day in court to speak out. 

 

No, Edwards will go quietly. 

Who is the victim? 

 

Claims against BBC presenter are ‘rubbish’, says letter from young person’s lawyer, BBC reports

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2023/jul/10/bbc-investigation-suspended-presenter-police-latest-updates?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[BritManToo]

I'd be more concerned that someone professing to be a devout Christian married 'heterosexual' BBC presenter was using gay dating sites.

Edited July 13, 2023 by BritManToo