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

[proton]

28 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

The 'young person' played his cards perfectly and got loads of money for simply sending photos. Agreed, he allegedly, from his Mum, spent it on Crack.

I am amazed that someone like Huw could hide this from his Mrs, withdraw money from his accounts to send to the man, and his wife suspected nothing, except that he was severely depressed, probably cos he couldn't get his end away.

Of course she knew, easy for a women to fool a man, when it comes to a wife they always know, unless totally stupid.

[proton]

1 hour ago, norfolkandchance said:

NHS or Private hospital.

Five star health resort posing as a mental health retreat

[onthedarkside]

A post along with replies removed:

 

"5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

 

The person in question has now been named. Ensure you have a credible link to any further allegations against them or your post will be removed.

 

Off topics posts also removed.

[FruitPudding]

So, how did he come to contact this young man?

 

I missed that part of the story

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

My point is a lot more relevant i.e. the BBC covering up allegations of abuse from within the organization.

What are the BBC covering up?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours 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. 

 

 

A pattern is emerging.

 

You’ve jumped to conclusions that turnout to be baseless so you now switch to an accusation of conspiracy within the BBC and Police while hitting your keyboard shortcut to insert ‘woke’ into the thread.

 

It might have been better to not jump to unsubstantiated assumptions in the first place.

 

Or, heaven forbid, admit you were wrong.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[brewsterbudgen]

3 hours 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. 

Not if the allegations made by The Sun were false!

[brewsterbudgen]

21 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

So, how did he come to contact this young man?

 

I missed that part of the story

Dating apps.

[brewsterbudgen]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

Unlikely 

"Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC.

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-bbc-presenter-latest-police-teenager-explicit-pictures-12917955

No, they all quoted the 'story' from The Sun.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

On 7/9/2023 at 5:00 PM, Chelseafan said:

I assume that the minor is male. All the articles I've read have been careful not to name the sex.

 

Why make that assumption?

No need for assumptions now as several media reports are now referring to "him" and "the young man".   My presumption is that he's a bloke.

[JonnyF]

38 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What are the BBC covering up?

 

 

The name of the presenter for starters.

 

Didn't end too well for them.

[JonnyF]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

A pattern is emerging.

 

You’ve jumped to conclusions that turnout to be baseless so you now switch to an accusation of conspiracy within the BBC and Police while hitting your keyboard shortcut to insert ‘woke’ into the thread.

If the police have already decided not to charge him then that would be very concerning. They need to do a through investigation before reaching such a conclusion.

 

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

It might have been better to not jump to unsubstantiated assumptions in the first place.

 

It is not unsubstantiated. Even the BBC admit to seeing the messages.

 

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Or, heaven forbid, admit you were wrong.

 

 

 

Wrong about what? Are you accusing the victims of lying? Victim blaming in sexual harrassment cases isn't really a great look.

 

The BBC have a long history of covering for sexual abuse in their ranks, the lack of action against a certain cigar smoking, shellsuit wearing individual is testament to that. They kept that covered up until his demise. If there is a pattern emerging, there it is.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The name of the presenter for starters.

 

Didn't end too well for them.

Hang on a minute.

 

An employee is accused by the gutter press without basis of committing a crime, and you want the employer to name the employee?!

 

And when they don’t you accuse them of a cover up.

 

I don’t think you’ve thought that through.

 

Perhaps your oft posted visceral hatred of the BBC is blinding your judgment.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If the police have already decided not to charge him then that would be very concerning. They need to do a through investigation before reaching such a conclusion.

 

 

It is not unsubstantiated. Even the BBC admit to seeing the messages.

 

 

Wrong about what? Are you accusing the victims of lying? Victim blaming in sexual harrassment cases isn't really a great look.

 

The BBC have a long history of covering for sexual abuse in their ranks, the lack of action against a certain cigar smoking, shellsuit wearing individual is testament to that. They kept that covered up until his demise. If there is a pattern emerging, there it is.

Expert on police investigations now are we?

 

Let’s make a distinction.

 

In the past covered up, in the present (your claim) covering up.

 

If you are claiming ‘covering up’, and you are, you need to back up your claim.

 

Firstly, why is it the duty of an employer to name an employee who is baselessly accused of illegal activities? 
 

 

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hang on a minute.

 

An employee is accused by the gutter press without basis of committing a crime, and you want the employer to name the employee?!

 

And when they don’t you accuse them of a cover up.

 

I don’t think you’ve thought that through.

 

Perhaps your oft posted visceral hatred of the BBC is blinding your judgment.

The BBC had seen the messages. 

 

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

 

 

Perhaps you oft posted visceral hatred of the tabloids is blinding your judgement.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Expert on police investigations now are we?

 

Let’s make a distinction.

 

In the past covered up, in the present (your claim) covering up.

 

If you are claiming ‘covering up’, and you are, you need to back up your claim.

 

Firstly, why is it the duty of an employer to name an employee who is baselessly accused of illegal activities? 
 

 

There are 3 separate accusations from 3 different sources.

 

The BBC has seen the messages, so clearly they exist.

 

If the police have thoroughly invesigated all 3 cases and concluded there is no case to answer after only a few days then yes I suspect another coverup. These things can take months.

 

The BBC is not just "an employer" as you well know. It is a publicly funded organization with a clear mission statement. I would point you towards the words Trust. Truthful. Respect. Accountability. That's why they need to name the accused. They have a duty to the public since they are funded by the public. It's not some private family run business answerable to nobody, although they often act like it is. This is very much in the public interest. It is news. 

 

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

 

 

Time to defund them. The current model belongs in a previous century. "We're kind" lol. 

[freedomnow]

I'd have thought sharing of naked photos under 18 in UK to him - illegal.

Is that one thing not the crux of it ?

Got to be a digital trail to his phone and apps, and yet now, potential legal escalation is being dropped ?

That kind of thing is black-and-white usually in UK.

 

Weird stuff.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

There are 3 separate accusations from 3 different sources.

 

The BBC has seen the messages, so clearly they exist.

 

If the police have thoroughly invesigated all 3 cases and concluded there is no case to answer after only a few days then yes I suspect another coverup. These things can take months.

 

The BBC is not just "an employer" as you well know. It is a publicly funded organization with a clear mission statement. I would point you towards the words Trust. Truthful. Respect. Accountability. That's why they need to name the accused. They have a duty to the public since they are funded by the public. It's not some private family run business answerable to nobody, although they often act like it is. This is very much in the public interest. It is news. 

 

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

 

 

Time to defund them. The current model belongs in a previous century. "We're kind" lol. 

There you go again with your accusations of a police coverup.

 

The BBC is an employer, the BBC mission statement does not change that fact.

 

On what basis would any employer have to name employees baselessly accused of crimes by the gutter press.

 

The Sun is almost certainly in line for a libel suit, I doubt very much the BBC wishes to be named a co-respondent, and if they were you’d be on here ranting about public money being wasted.

 

Your consistent attempts to insert your anti-BBC fixation into the thread are noted.

At question here is the behavior of The Sun, not your BBC thing.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

I'd have thought sharing of naked photos under 18 in UK to him - illegal.

Is that one thing not the crux of it ?

Got to be a digital trail to his phone and apps, and yet now, potential legal escalation is being dropped ?

That kind of thing is black-and-white usually in UK.

 

Weird stuff.

Weirder even that the alleged victim’s lawyer has said there is no wrong doing.

 

Maybe the lawyer and the Police are right and The Sun was wrong.

 

 

[vinny41]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go again with your accusations of a police coverup.

 

The BBC is an employer, the BBC mission statement does not change that fact.

 

On what basis would any employer have to name employees baselessly accused of crimes by the gutter press.

 

The Sun is almost certainly in line for a libel suit, I doubt very much the BBC wishes to be named a co-respondent, and if they were you’d be on here ranting about public money being wasted.

 

Your consistent attempts to insert your anti-BBC fixation into the thread are noted.

At question here is the behavior of The Sun, not your BBC thing.

You must know that when you approach lawyers they are always cautious and rarely come out with Slam Dunk 100% guarantee to win 

The short answer is yes there is a possibility. Obviously the fact that The Sun hasn’t named the individual in question makes it far less clear cut

Mr Campbell said it would probably be difficult for the presenter to pursue a libel claim when the story first broke as “nobody would know” who the article was referring to.

https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc-presenter-accused-photo-scandal-legal-action-not-named-the-sun-2470192

Edited July 13, 2023 by vinny41
add url

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go again with your accusations of a police coverup.

 

The BBC is an employer, the BBC mission statement does not change that fact.

 

On what basis would any employer have to name employees baselessly accused of crimes by the gutter press.

 

The Sun is almost certainly in line for a libel suit, I doubt very much the BBC wishes to be named a co-respondent, and if they were you’d be on here ranting about public money being wasted.

 

Your consistent attempts to insert your anti-BBC fixation into the thread are noted.

At question here is the behavior of The Sun, not your BBC thing.

No. This is not about The Sun's behaviour. The Sun isn't the only source. There are many now including other ex-BBC employees. This is is about the BBC and Huw Edwards seedy behaviour.

 

As I already stated the BBC is a publicly funded company. They have a duty to the people who they extort in order to fund it. The story is in the public interest since the public pay this guy's huge salary. If they want a private business where they can keep their sordid stories hidden from the public then they can stop taking the public's money and stand on their own 2 feet like other media companies. Until then, the public has a right to know what is happening there especially when it involves abuse of power and threatening behaviour.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

You must know that when you approach lawyers they are always cautious and rarely come out with Slam Dunk 100% guarantee to win 

The short answer is yes there is a possibility. Obviously the fact that The Sun hasn’t named the individual in question makes it far less clear cut

Mr Campbell said it would probably be difficult for the presenter to pursue a libel claim when the story first broke as “nobody would know” who the article was referring to.

That’s a little ambiguous, I’m not sure if you are arguing against the statement made by the alleged victim’s lawyer or that statements libel action would probably be difficult.

Direct naming isn’t a necessity in libel suits.

Also, I suspect others who were put under public scrutiny by The Sun’s allegations might also have a claim to file suit. 
 

By example members on this forum made unsubstantiated guesses at who  The Sun we’re referring too.

[youreavinalaff]

Most of this thread has become pure speculation.

 

Whether you read The Sun or loathe The Sun, watch BBC or hate BBC, trust the police or not, believe people have mental health or not, posters are doing nothing more than speculating and posting links to news stories that are not doing much better.

 

Let everything take it's course. For the accused to get better, if you believe he is ill, so he can explain himself. Let the BBC or police or The Sun offer more information or withdraw information and apologise, Maybe the victims, parents, lawyers will make more statements. 

 

There will be more reporting on this and the bigger, or smaller, picture will be on hand. Until then, petty and political comments are inane.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

No. This is not about The Sun's behaviour. The Sun isn't the only source. There are many now including other ex-BBC employees. This is is about the BBC and Huw Edwards seedy behaviour.

 

As I already stated the BBC is a publicly funded company. They have a duty to the people who they extort in order to fund it. The story is in the public interest since the public pay this guy's huge salary. If they want a private business where they can keep their sordid stories hidden from the public then they can stop taking the public's money and stand on their own 2 feet like other media companies. Until then, the public has a right to know what is happening there especially when it involves abuse of power and threatening behaviour.

You are once again on your BBC thing, your use of the pejorative term ‘extort’ is the first clue.

Why is anyone’s salary relevant to the topic of discussion, or are you stoking envy?

 

Please can you provide evidence of why the public have the right to expect an employer to name an employee who has been baselessly accused by the gutter press if anything, let alone the accusations laid by The Sun.

 

Putting aside the obvious problems with employers naming employees, here’s a clue as to another reason why naming names might be problematic - The Sun, which made the accusations, chose not to name the person they were accusing.

 

 

 

[theoldgit]

Nonsense troll post reported and removed.

[brewsterbudgen]

31 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

I'd have thought sharing of naked photos under 18 in UK to him - illegal.

Is that one thing not the crux of it ?

Got to be a digital trail to his phone and apps, and yet now, potential legal escalation is being dropped ?

That kind of thing is black-and-white usually in UK.

 

Weird stuff.

It would have been illegal if he'd done that, but he didn't!  Not for the first time, The Sun was wrong (just like with their Hillsborough reporting).  It seems perfectly black & white, which is why, currently, the police are satisfied that no crime has been committed. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by brewsterbudgen

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are once again on your BBC thing, your use of the pejorative term ‘extort’ is the first clue.

By definition it is extortion. Previously it was Pay or go to jail. Now it is Pay or we send the bailiffs round. Obtaining funds via threats. For a service many people do not even want or watch. Hard to call it anything else.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why is anyone’s salary relevant to the topic of discussion, or are you stoking envy?

I believe the public can expect better from a man paid from public money. The level of salary is not particularly relevant but the fact that the public pay it, is.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Please can you provide evidence of why the public have the right to expect an employer to name an employee who has been baselessly accused by the gutter press if anything, let alone the accusations laid by The Sun.

It is in the public interest if someone in the publicly funded state broadcaster is accused of abuse of power by other employees in the organization.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Putting aside the obvious problems with employers naming employees, here’s a clue as to another reason why naming names might be problematic - The Sun, which made the accusations, chose not to name the person they were accusing.

 

 

 

Why? They knew who it was. They suspended him. Why do they have to try to hush it up? Just made themselves look stupid again.

[steven100]

The mother sounds downright evil .....  is she on cocaine also,   nothing excuses what the presenter is alleged to have done but the teenager being a cocaine addict and now 20,  why did it take 3 yrs to speak up....   and it sounds like the mother is after more money.   Any why would anyone with half a brain pay 35,000 pounds for a few nude pics,   that's crazy.    The story has many holes in it .....  

But if the presenter did in fact break the law then he will be charged.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by steven100

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

By definition it is extortion. Previously it was Pay or go to jail. Now it is Pay or we send the bailiffs round. Obtaining funds via threats. For a service many people do not even want or watch. Hard to call it anything else.

 

 

I believe the public can expect better from a man paid from public money. The level of salary is not particularly relevant but the fact that the public pay it, is.

 

It is in the public interest if someone in the publicly funded state broadcaster is accused of abuse of power by other employees in the organization.

 

Why? They knew who it was. They suspended him. Why do they have to try to hush it up? Just made themselves look stupid again.

Yeh Yeh.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

The mother sounds downright evil .....  she's probably on cocaine also,   nothing excuses what the presenter is alleged to have done but the teenager being a cocaine addict and now 20,  why did it take 3 yrs to speak up....   and it sounds like the mother is after more money.   Any why would anyone with half a brain pay 35,000 pounds for a few nude pics,   that's crazy. 

Evil is a bit strong, but perhaps she does have ‘issues’.