Forum menu
I idea that the young person with an expensive drug addiction might be the person in control in this situation is imo bizarre
given many of the details in the sun were clearly nonsense you are placing a lot of faith in their assertion that they are indeed a crack addict, something the person themselves has denied
As mentioned, you don’t know the full facts so can’t possibly know who, if anyone, was being exploited
don’t know the details of the other claims against him, do they indicate exploitation, or mearly that he is a bit of a sleeze and bully. If the former it may explain how he found himself on only fans in first place!
ernielynch
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.
Is there any indication that HE had any idea about the youth's drug habit? It's unlikely to be on their OF bio. is it?
Boom.
And that's the last time I'm coming back on this thread.
you are placing a lot of faith in their assertion
I am not placing any faith whatsoever on the claims made. I have repeatedly said that no one knows the facts behind this story.
As far as I am concerned we are talking about a hypothetical situation.
I idea that the young person with an expensive drug addiction might be the person in control in this situation is imo bizarre.
As a drug and alcohol support worker Mrs Daz used to work with dependent drug users and many of them did sex work to fund their habits. There was a lot of abuse (especially if they were women) but some of them were perfectly content with the situation and saw it as easy money. One of her clients turned up to an appointment with a middle aged businessman tied up in the boot of his car as that was his client's fetish. He couldn't believe he got paid for it. Obviously we don't know the facts in this case but we shouldn't make assumptions until more facts come out (if they ever do).
I don't really get the uproar over this. Nobody seems to have all of the facts yet.
So far the police have no evidence of anything criminal.
The man has apparently suffered with mental health issues for a while - and to me it looks like he must have been to act as he ALLEDGEDLY has. If he's broken the terms of his BBC contract, that's for the BBC to deal with and discipline him accordingly, but should he (like Philip Schofield) be publicly shamed and potentially lose his career over it?
It's obviously ill-judged and possibly in bad taste (depending on your opinion), immoral even. But should he have his entire life torn apart because of an allegation? I think not. Do those working in broadcasting waive their right to a private life or the usual rules of society?
Do you remember the golden era of BBC scandals, before Saville and all that nonsense, when it was just good old coke and hookers and maybe a bit of S&M?
Them were't days, eh?
Do those working in broadcasting waive their right to a private life or the usual rules of society?
Legally they do, which is why the Sun were dancing on the line and didn’t risk naming him.
I would love to see the editors/owners of these rags get the same treatment for their extramarital habits. See how they like it.
Even in the golden era it was always the ones you least expect. Not that I keep a list of celebs likely to be dodgy.
One of her clients turned up to an appointment with a middle aged businessman tied up in the boot of his car as that was his client’s fetish.
I am not sure if someone with a submissive fetish can be necessarily be described as not being in control (or vulnerable). Although I admit it isn't something which I have given much thought.
Is the high court judge wearing a nappy and a lacey bonnet and being scolded by a dominatrix really not in control of the situation?
To me it just sounds like weird role play, ultimately the high court judge is the person with the money and therefore has the power to dictate, and control, the situation.
One of her clients turned up to an appointment with a middle aged businessman tied up in the boot of his car as that was his client’s fetish. He couldn’t believe he got paid for it.
I am puzzling over this.
Did a female sexworker turn up to see a male client, with another male locked up in the boot of her car (who got paid - like a subcontractor presumably)?
hmmmm
I think this sounds way more illegal
https://twitter.com/rubytrubes/status/1679240800310382593
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? *
Siri, what's the power dynamic between a teenage sex worker and a famous, rich, white man?
What is it about newsreaders...?
https://www.thewrap.com/anchors-hosts-sexual-misconduct-gallery/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/french-tv-news-presenter-faces-multiple-allegations-of-sex-offences
Did a female sexworker turn up to see a male client, with another male locked up in the boot of her car (who got paid – like a subcontractor presumably)?
A male heroin addict turned up for an appointment with Mrs Daz (a drug support worker) for his regular check-in, and they talked about how he funded his drug use and he told my Mrs that he was a sex-worker and let slip that he had a client in the boot of his car in the car park. For some (not many admittedly) it's an easy way to make money so we need to be careful about making assumptions in cases like Huw Edwards'.
What is it about newsreaders…?
What is it about newsreaders that you have to go to the other side of the world to find examples of sexual misconduct?
Dunno, maybe the BBC and ITN have very good vetting processes?
Whilst the Jonathan Pie vid above is spot on, I think they should probably have considered re-filming it because the bit where he says a high percentage of the people walking past will have had a male member in various orifices (and vice versa) is followed by three or four kids walking past. 😬
Now, viewed objectively, it is still correct, but given the tone of much of the coverage*, perhaps negligent?
*Much of which is turning out to be lies.
The lawyers are putting talc on the wigs and getting the robes from the dry cleaners as I type.
(Well I really hope they are)
Can you still buy the sun is scum stickers if so I'm off to get a roll
Finbar: there are two 'clients'.
Client 1 is visiting his drug and alcohol support worker.
Client 2 is tied up in the boot of client 1s car.
Edit- ignore, already answered. I must have been on an old version of the thread.
The lack of mental health knowledge on here is depressing.
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.
Not the case if his behaviour was having a negative impact on the well being and welfare of others which it would appear it has or brought his employer into disrepute as it appears it has done. Mental health might explain erratic or poor behaviour, it doesn't excuse it.
Mental health problems gets trotted out far too often at the moment to excuse shitty behaviour, it denigrates the struggles people with severe mentally issues contend with and excuses otherwise unacceptable behaviour. And if we cant reference our own direct experience of mental health issues then you're verging on thought police territory.
brought his employer into disrepute
That's just a circular argument. Why should this bring his employer into disrepute? Why do we even know about it?
a negative impact on the well being and welfare of others
The others being whom in this case? The bloke he was allegedly sharing stuff with and giving money? Has he complained?
Do you remember the golden era of BBC scandals, before Saville and all that nonsense, when it was just good old coke and hookers and maybe a bit of S&M?
I was only thinking of Frank Bough when this started to rumble.
Mental health might explain erratic or poor behaviour, it doesn’t excuse it.
Mental health problems gets trotted out far too often at the moment to excuse shitty behaviour, it denigrates the struggles people with severe mentally issues contend with and excuses otherwise unacceptable behaviour. And if we cant reference our own direct experience of mental health issues then you’re verging on thought police territory.
FFS
Of course you can reference your own experiences. What you can't do is claim others have the same experience just because it comes under the umbrella of "mental health".
And to say it doesn't excuse it is ridiculous. It won't in all cases but to say someone suffering from extreme schizophrenia is capable of making logical decisions is utterly wrong.
In my case, despite being signed off with severe mental health issues, I walked into the office and started verbally abusing pretty much everyone I saw before curling up in a corner after I got freaked out by a postit note. I have no recollection of that at all. It was completely out of character and I was apparently even speaking in a strange accent.
Was my mental health an excuse? Of course. If I hadn't been mentally very ill, I wouldn't have done it. I was removed from site in an ambulance and I never returned.
Saying mental illness is not an excuse for out of character behaviour is like saying having a broken leg isn't an excuse for not being able to run a marathon.
Hew Edwards is in hospital due to his mental health issues. It's unlikely that's he's suffering from mild anxiety or depression. It's probable that he is very ill and as such is deserving of kindness and compassion.
It won’t in all cases but to say someone suffering from extreme schizophrenia is capable of making logical decisions is utterly wrong.
One of the things I learnt from a very close friend of mine developing severe schizophrenia (she was at one point sectioned) is despite very serious mental health issues she could still tell right from wrong.
I had previously assumed that serious mental health issues such as schizophrenia made it more or less impossible for a sufferer to behave within the norms of acceptable behaviour.
What something like schizophrenia does is to give them quite a serious handicap. In the same as someone with one leg might have a serious mobility issue but can nevertheless remain mobile.
I also learnt that it wasn't right, or good for her, to tolerate or justify aggressive behaviour, for example, by dismissing it as part of her illness. Instead it was important to expect the same standards of behaviour from her as from anyone else, even if it was harder for her to achieve.
In the years since her first diagnosis she is a completely different person, fully accepting her illness and just learning to live with it, including of course taking her medication. She is a model citizen. It is being treated like anyone else which has helped her to achieve this.
The others being whom in this case?
Others who have complained to their employer about his behaviour
Meanwhile the BBC reported on Wednesday that Edwards also faced claims about inappropriate behaviour towards some junior staff members.
Two current BBC workers and one former member of staff said they had been sent messages that made them feel uncomfortable.
An employee at the corporation told BBC News they received "suggestive" messages from Edwards. BBC News has seen the messages, which refer to the staff member's appearance and were sent this year.
One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation.
Speaking to the BBC's Newsnight programme, the workers and former employee spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.
The BBC said: "We always treat the concerns of staff with care, and would urge anyone to speak to us if they have any concerns. We have clear processes for making complaints."
In a separate BBC News investigation published on Tuesday, a young person who did not work at the BBC said they had felt "threatened" by messages sent by Huw Edwards.
Whilst the Jonathan Pie vid above is spot on, I think they should probably have considered re-filming it because the bit where he says a high percentage of the people walking past will have had a male member in various orifices (and vice versa) is followed by three or four kids walking past. 😬
Now, viewed objectively, it is still correct, but given the tone of much of the coverage*, perhaps negligent?
*Much of which is turning out to be lies.
Pretty sure he films using a green screen. the timing of a kid in the back giving a thumbs up after he says he couldn't give a **** is brilliant though!
Came here to post that vid as it sums up my feelings TBH, same with the Scofield witchhunt. The media/public always need to have the pitchforks out for someone.
Looks like this has become another swinging dick thread, this time about who's had worse MH issues.
Take a day off fellas.
Interesting episode of the Newsagents today about this topic.
I don't understand how you can keep on spiralling when you have access to the best medical care available
He earns an incredible amount of money. Has been highly paid for years.
Is not stupid in any way, comes across as an intelligent, educated man.
Has a family around to talk things through with
Probably has the ability to take a sabbatical for a year and return to the position, no questions asked.
Yet still somehow starts down the path of dping questionable things, which probably came with a dopamine hit. Was risque, he enjoyed it, and carried on. Getting deeper in to whatever floats his particular boat, till it surfaces and he crashes
Just seems strange to me, and i know being rich doesn't exclude you from mental health issue but the need to flog yourself into stress causing situation is removed when ypu probably could just retire
I don’t understand...
And so on...
Perhaps this story just needs a bit of a pause, not only in the media but also from all the random, uninformed speculation on SM?
In other (nicely overshadowed) news Bozza allegedly can't remember his iPhone password still...
Yet still somehow starts down the path of dping questionable things,
Now that is an unfortunate typo...
Not sure that has been alleged.
😳😳😳
Yet still somehow starts down the path of dping questionable things,
Now that is an unfortunate typo…
Not sure that has been alleged.
😳😳😳
Isn't that a scene from Requeim for a Dream?
Looks like this has become another swinging dick thread, this time about who’s had worse MH issues.
Looks like this thread has won the attention of the self-appointed thread police. Perhaps take a day off and let people say whatever it is they want to say? This is an internet forum, no?
Best thing I’ve seen on twitter all day was a screen shot of a chap from GB news, sitting in for a suspiciously absent Dan Wootton, whilst taking the moral high ground about how a presenter should behave..
😂
Dan Wootton
He's an Uber shit-****.
Didn't he start his career with the Sun doing celebrity gossip?
I don’t understand how you can keep on spiralling when you have access to the best medical care available
Because medicine isn't like fixing cars?
Looks like the parent/step parent of the unnamed person have filmed their part of an upcoming documentary for TalkTV, or Rupert Murdoch TV, i can only imagine what type of documentary this will be, is there an actual TalkTV channel now on TV?
I don’t understand how you can keep on spiralling when you have access to the best medical care available
He earns an incredible amount of money. Has been highly paid for years.
Which only matters if there is a treatment available. There are some areas of medicine where the best medical care will definitely help but the brain is still badly understood and so the best medical care will be limited to trying to provide copying mechanisms.
whilst taking the moral high ground about how a presenter should behave..
Think its time for Private Eye to go through their street of shame archives and ask the media companies to confirm they dont have any NDAs protecting some of their journalists.
I’d be amazed if only fans weren’t all over verifying the ages of people who produce/appear in content
they are.
Hah! Uber doesn't know its drivers are when there's a government-issued licence for them, and we think the scuzziest part of the gig economy is going to be "all over it"?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983
https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article265082134.html
Its a matter for the Police if its a criminal allegation.
It’s internal HR if it’s workplace harassment
Not that simple. Police investigate only a small slice of all criminal conduct. Employers often investigate alleged criminal conduct that relates to their operations. Harassment is (can be) a criminal offence, regardless of where it occurs. BBC has an investigations team that is not part of HR (as quite a few large companies do).
I was only thinking of Frank Bough when this started to rumble.
Each to their own...
lol
I've heard of Muffin the Mule, but boffing the Bough?
theres an explanation why gbnews presenters have been deleting their tweets about huw
it seems likely that Gbnews presenter Dan Wootton won't be returning from his holiday
https://twitter.com/KevSutherlandx/status/1679981718260838400?t=KIQZ7IG_R4tAk84AnDK3eA&s=19
singletrackmind
Full MemberI don’t understand how you can keep on spiralling when you have access to the best medical care available
Sometimes you don't get better. You can break a limb so badly that the best doctor in the world can't fix it, same with brains. And you mentioned intelligence, the trouble is that you and your enemy in this fight both have the exact same weapon.