Forum menu
but my understanding is that the original article said “paid for pictures when 17” but that their most recent wording is “paid for pictures” and “first met when 17”. Legally the two are rather different.
Guardian quotes it as “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” .
The sun are claiming that it doesnt mean the former but I think they will have a certain amount of difficulty if it goes to court of finding a jury who agrees with that.
this is a lie
The Scum's readers don't care if the rag lies. But, funnily enough, they will be up in arms if someone from the Beeb is caught telling a fib.
A civil case for libel is based on the balance of probability. I bet the Sun’s lawyers are having an interesting day at the office. On the balance of probability, does the ordinary person in the street believe that the Sun has alleged HW engaged in illegal activity with a minor?
I imagine they’re already formulating a not very grovelling apology to the effect that they were only reporting based on the parents’ concerns, etc. but I think they will issue one. Probably page 32 below the racing tips 😉
The Sun have paid out vast sums of money in out-of-court settlements to phone hacking victims, all to avoid having to explain their activities in an actual court, under oath
If this went legal, then I'm sure they'd attempt to do the same.
Unfortunately the laws in this country around this are absolutely insane and seriously skewed in favour of the likes of the Sun, which is exactly why they keep doing this kind of thing and getting away with it
If you want to see how completely dysfunctional our legal system is in this area then its well worth watching this on iplayer..
Scandalous: Phone Hacking on Trial
I really don't think he'll sue for libel. He won't want more headlines.
But there's no question The Sun went in harder than it would have for any non-BBC affiliated celebrity, for obvious reasons.
Remember, you don't have to pick a side on this. He can be a sleazy arsehole who may have done something illegal and The Sun can be a disgusting POS at the same time.
The original story and subsequent denial by the younger person involved reads to me like it was a parent unhappy that their son was making decent bunse running an onlyfans page.
I bet the Sun’s lawyers are having an interesting day at the office.
I have no doubt that the Sun's lawyers will have read the articles concerning this story and given their approval before publication.
They will have advised on the wording and the legal implications before publication. The Sun can't afford to seek legal advice after publication - they would be sued into extinction.
outed in 2005 in 'the thick of it' comedy :0)
If true though i stand by my point, let me know if thats ok..
And if it's false made up claptrap you'll be back with a full redaction and apology?
and age of consent is defined for a reason.
Although barking mad that the age of consent is 16, but you can't send a sexy picture till you're 17!
We don’t know all the facts yet, but if he has paid thousands for sexually explicit photos of a 17 year old*
Well, if the Police are saying theres no crime to investigate, the 17 year old did not supply any explicit photos.
you can’t send a sexy picture till you’re 17!
18 even. Agree that detail is a bit mad but it seems that the law wasn't broken anyway. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what was so wrong. Strange, sure, but if anyone's arguing either that over-18s can't validly consent to this stuff in general, or that the particular person in question wasn't able to in this situation, then I've yet to hear it.
Guardian quotes it as “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” .
If there wasn't meant to be an implication they were underage why say 17? It could be just badly worded, but equally that's what editors and lawyers are supposed to sort out and so doesn't form an excuse in my opinion.
I mean, why not say “more than £35,000 since they were 12 in return for sordid images” if it's that easy to weasel out of - that would really have sold papers / covered up Boris' missing phone / whatever else the purpose of this was.
Although barking mad that the age of consent is 16, but you can’t send a sexy picture till you’re 17!
Wait until you find out that someone can only withhold their consent for something their parents want done until they're 18....
it seems that the law wasn’t broken anyway. I’m still waiting for an explanation of what was so wrong.
It is not only illegal behaviour which is deemed "wrong". No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves. In whether or not this did actually happen.
Just the idea of a married man engaging in morally questionable activities behind his wife's back, whether or not legal, could be considered "wrong" by some people. I would certainly take a dim view if any mate of mine did that.
The BBC probably believes that the moral behaviour of its very high profile employees should be a matter of concern for them. Many employers would, law breaking doesn't necessarily come into it.
Here is the fullest details I have found on the story
https://news.sky.com/story/everything-we-know-about-huw-edwards-scandal-12917471
“Since they were 17” can only mean starting at that age, it’s nonsense to suggest otherwise. If that’s their best defence they are stuffed.
Oh yes, to the extent that affairs are wrong, it’s wrong. Someone with that lack of moral fibre has no place reading an autocue, they ought to be PM.
I’m sure that anyone posting on this thread who has ever cheated on a partner will immediately out themselves and resign from their jobs.
Or just possibly they might gain a sense of perspective over all this.
The BBC probably believes that the moral behaviour of its very high profile employees should be a matter of concern for them. Many employers would, law breaking doesn’t necessarily come into it.
Agreed, rightly or wrongly it's a publicly funded org / 'National Institution' and also one with a reputation of having not dealt with this sort of thing well in the past. I undrstand a desire to get it right this time and that includes avoiding insinuations of cover ups.
Oh yes, to the extent that affairs are wrong, it’s wrong. Someone with that lack of moral fibre has no place reading an autocue, they ought to be PM.
Or Leader of the Opposition.
I’m sure that anyone posting on this thread who has ever cheated on a partner will immediately out themselves and resign from their jobs.
It's not that simple though, there is still the question of vulnerable people and/or abuse of power. That's different to having a bit of extra marital.
The sky news link that ernie posted is enough for me to think he's a wrongun. He seems to have targeted young people, paid for photos and threatened them when he thought his name might get out.
May not be illegal, but it's well ****ing dodgy!
No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves. In whether or not this did actually happen.
im going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Huw may not have known the person was spending all the money on coke. I mean given it appears he never met them in person I doubt they were sending over pics and videos of themselves smashing lines
Id also speculate that a fair few only fans creators spend a proportion of their earnings on ‘vices’. If I used only fans (I don’t) then it’s not my responsibility to check what they are spending their profits on. It’s none of my business.
Timing of the story was quite fortuitous for the tories too.
We could have been talking about a minibus full of tories bringing the house into disrepute (including my MP) or the migrant bill battles. But instead the BBC becomes the story. Must just have been a coincidence.
Always is for those ****. Classic distraction technique that's now so easy to see through its laughable. The crying shame is that many still lap it up and allow it to happen.
Its barely even a story. Police say he hasn't broken any laws. So its just bollocks. Who cares?
Had a good laugh at this absolute belter from the OP regarding the BBC; the best (roughly) impartial news source in the UK
Dear god. Jaw dropping naivety. They've been found guilty of harbouring and protecting paedophiles for decades, faced no real punishment, its still going on and they still exist s an organisation. And people think they're impartial?! What will it take?
its still going on
Oh. Presumably you'll be submitting a specific complaint that we can all read about in The Sun soon, then?
And people think they’re impartial?!
You can have a few wronguns in an organisation the size of the Beeb without affecting its impartiality...?
OK, so perhaps C4 news might give the Beeb a run for its money on impartiality - hence the attacks from Dorries. But, pray tell, can you please let us know of a mainstream UK media outlet that is widely viewed that is better than the Beeb with regard to impartiality?
Congratulations on the most number on non-sequiturs and conflated points per word count in a post, though. Quite an achievement. 👏
given the clear law about posession of photos of under 18s (which surprised me, I figured it would be 16 like the age of concent) - I'd be amazed if only fans weren't all over verifying the ages of people who produce/appear in content - it'd absolutely destroy the company if they were found in violation of kiddyporn laws.
So the likelyhood is (and given the police has given the all clear) that maybe some adult paid some other adult for some naughty pictures.
I’d be amazed if only fans weren’t all over verifying the ages of people who produce/appear in content
they are. Basically if they get busted for underage folk being on there, the US govt can prosecute the payment facilitators, so they’ve said ‘make sure you’re compliant or we won’t process your payments. OF said they were gonna ban porn, before realising what an enormous % of their business it is…
No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves.
There's still a lot of "what ifs" in there though.
What consenting adults choose to do is no one elses business if no laws are broken. The public outcry over this may also be wrecking a happily private arrangement Huw Edwards had with his wife.
But instead the BBC becomes the story. Must just have been a coincidence.
TBF we have a government that has been balls deep in constant rolling scandals for about the last 7 years
So the timing of this really doesnt have to be deliberate
I think Murdoch & GBNews happy to bash the BBC at every opportunity
TBF we have a government that has been balls deep in constant rolling scandals for about the last 7 years
I think Murdoch & GBNews happy to bash the BBC at every opportunity
The BBC were very happy ripping into ITV regarding Schofield. They are hardly an innocent party in this ...
Are there any facts we can actually verify?
I'm sure I saw some of the early reports refer to the young person as 'she', however there's a few on here that think they are male. Has there been any comformation of gender?
I've not seen any mention of Only Fans in the media, is that speculation on the forum or is it reported somewhere?
ernielynch
it seems that the law wasn’t broken anyway. I’m still waiting for an explanation of what was so wrong.
It is not only illegal behaviour which is deemed “wrong”. No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves. In whether or not this did actually happen.
The youth was already on Only Fans and HE handed them £35k - who, exactly, was exploiting who?
The lack of mental health knowledge on here is depressing.
Saying "I had mental health issues and I never did anything like this" is just ignorant I'm afraid.
Mental health is like physical health. Issues manifest themselves in many, many ways.
Some people just get sad and withdrawn.
Some people rant and rave.
Some people get violent.
Some people just eat and drink a lot.
Others eat and drink very little.
Some shout at the sky.
Some gamble away their life savings and everything their families own.
Some shout at their loved ones.
Some hurt themselves.
Some kill themselves.
And some make really odd, out of character decisions and do odd out of character things.
As far as I'm aware Hew has written about his mental health struggles for a number of years. If during these struggles he's done out of character things, then this is a symptom of his illness and if he's done nothing illegal then he should be treated with kindness, compassion and understanding, both by the public and his employers.
Sadly it seems our understanding of mental health in this country still has a long way to go.
there is still the question of vulnerable people and/or abuse of power
Well I sort of started off with the question, where's the power in this and who is vulnerable?
So far I've just seen "oooh, looks a bit weird".
Which I agree with, but I suspect there are plenty of people with weird sex lives posting to this thread and it's not really my business.
The youth was already on Only Fans and HE handed them £35k – who, exactly, was exploiting who?
I know nothing about Only Fans. Does being on Only Fans mean that you are not being exploited?
I certainly wasn't aware of that.
where’s the power in this and who is vulnerable?
The power question relates to later allegations made by other BBC employees after the initial complaint by the 17yo's parents.
Who is vulnerable? Whether they were asked for / provided photos before their 18th birthday or not (and it seems not or at least the police have indicated there isn't evidence to take further), the fact the dynamic started at that sort of age is a cause for concern. It doesn't mean an adult can never have a friend who is under 18 but when that develops into what it seems to have become then there are (as i said in the post) questions. Was it a purely platonic friendship that then some time later became sexual - I'm sure these things do happen but does it pass the sniff test to you?
So who is vulnerable - to me yes by virtue of age / the disparity in age. And then later because of the addiction, whether that's anything to do with HE or not. Maybe HE is also vulnerable because of his own MH issues, but that doesn't get you a free pass
Bottom line - to me this is markedly different to a simple extra marital affair between two adults, and if you can't see it no amount of explaining is going to change that.
Are there any facts we can actually verify?
Yes, have a read of the sky news link posted earlier. Threatening messages sent by HE and a meeting during covid lockdown with a following purchase of a semi naked photo. Both BBC verified.
I find it strange than when a tory politician shags around a bit or is caught kissing somepone other than his wife, they get roasted on here, continually, but apparently Huw Edwards is ok to meet and buy sexually explicit photos from young people, potentially teenagers and threaten them when they think about telling people his name on twitter.
Edit: @theotherjonv +1
ernielynch
I know nothing about Only Fans. Does being on Only Fans mean that you are not being exploited?
I certainly wasn’t aware of that.
I've not been on it, from either end but my understanding is that one sets up an account and publishes on it whatever "content" one likes with the aim of monetising it, somehow. If that happens to be biking vids, naked pics, or jiggly videos they're perfectly fine with that. I'd say it was unlikely that this youth was forced by HE to set up an account or innocently set up an account and was coerced. OF has a certain reputation (that they're trying to paper over - See the Lewis Buchanen debate for details) so it's likely they knew exactly what they were doing and they got luckier than they ever could have imagined - to the tune of £35k. One could just as easily say that they exploited an person in quite poor mental health for their own gain. Two sides and all that.
The lack of mental health knowledge on here is depressing.
very much this..^
also, playing devils advocate, did the rich celebrity exploit the young drug addict, or did a young good looking person with an only fans account exploit some old, unhappily married bloke with mental health issues? *
Without all the facts you can speculate either way.
* for avoidance of doubt I personally doubt anyone was exploited here..
edit..pretty much as the previous post stated
also, playing devils advocate, did the rich celebrity exploit the young drug addict, or did a young good looking person with an only fans account exploit some old, unhappily married bloke with mental health issues? *
All of them? Do you think there is a gang of 17 to 23 year olds going around trying to exploit old news readers? Who's next? Please tell me its not John Craven!!
ads678
All of them? Do you think there is a gang of 17 to 23 year olds going around trying to exploit old news readers? Who’s next? Please tell me its not John Craven!!
Well they're almost certainly trying to exploit someone for monetary gain. That's kind of the point.
So who is vulnerable – to me yes by virtue of age / the disparity in age
I appreciate your point, but again, we are speculating about something that is none of our business.
I used to cycle with someone who was quite open that they worked in the adult industry, and had done since 18. It provided them and their family with quite a nice comfortable lifestyle working 2-3 days a week. They were happy to talk about what they did, and how they often filled a void or acted as a kind of therapist for customers.
It's wrong to assume that all young people involved in such actions are victims. For some its a sensible choice - I just hope that none of my family choose it.
All of them? Do you think there is a gang of 17 to 23 year olds going around trying to exploit old news readers? Who’s next? Please tell me its not John Craven!!
eh? All of who? Have no idea what you are talking about tbh
did the rich celebrity exploit the young drug addict, or did.....
I would have thought that anyone with a substance dependacy in a vulnerable person, and not least if they are struggling to pay for their drug habit.
I idea that the young person with an expensive drug addiction might be the person in control in this situation is imo bizarre.
All of who?
There maybe only one story in the Sun but it isn't the only accusation, as has been mentioned many times on the thread. Some of these have been verified by the BBC as well, so not speculation.
Any way, I'm bored so keep dipping into this thread, but am gonna bugger off now as I don't really want a semantics argument and shoul dreally get some work done.
I used to cycle with someone who was quite open that they worked in the adult industry, and had done since 18....... how they often filled a void
I'm trying to give up double entendres but occasionally I slip one in.