Huw! Edwards!

Edit:

<Deleted>

Not playing with trolls.

I’m sure, that if the management at the beeb had had the slightest sniff of this sort of thing being rumoured about their top news reader, that he wouldn’t have been nailed on to present news of the queen’s death etc.

Oh I don’t know, I think Her Majesty would have had some respect for brazenly ignoring allegations of middle aged men behaving inappropriately with teenagers and hoping money and status could buy you out of trouble 😉

Can someone explain what sort of power he’s alleged to have abused?

Thats a follow up story about apparent misconduct with regards to bbc employees.

* This maybe have been bullshit but how old was that person and what was he paying them for….obvs the police say nothing illegal atm so must not have been 17. I assume that would be illegal?

It is not out of the bounds of possibility that the only illegal activity might have been on the part of the person providing the photos. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

I imagine investigations are still ongoing to rule out all possibilities. As stated above if nothing illegal, and not relevant for HR (no other BBC employees involved), then there will be no case to answer and it’s not in the public interest.previous cases have focussed on revelations of illegality, and I am sure the Sun believes this to be the case before backpedaling.

Employees is a different matter, but not relevant to the original story is it? So what is the abuse/power/misconduct angle here? I just don’t get it. (Assuming not under age.)

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-accused-of-sending-flirtatious-messages-to-bbc-employees-12920117

I would have had him down as a bully rather than a sleaze, but you never can tell eh.

He was clearly a miserable sod anyway.

the Sun believes this to be the case before backpedaling

Quite. But the damage is done.

Awaits to see the shoot storm develop before making an opinion. Does appear he wasn’t a very nice person given what’s coming out.

It sounds as if the only people to have done anything wrong in this story might be the BBC!

I haven’t read the original sun article because I won’t add to their profits directly or indirectly…

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.

so,

– Huw, may have done some things which were poorly judged but not illegal.  How much of the original allegations is true will remain to be seen (eg I would not be surprised if “crack cocaine addict” turns out to be sniffs a bit too much cocaine), nor would I be surprised if £35k is not all from HE (eg an only fans account – which the Sun/parents have not understood or chosen not to understand).  It not being illegal doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong (if proven).

– the young person may have done nothing wrong with regard their involvement with HE but if they were an adult in law and we are to view the “transaction with HE” as purely professional then they’ve done something to breach his trust by sharing that with their parents.  Of course if there is something sinister about the relationship that is likely justified but they are now denying any wrong doing.

– the parents have acted oddly.  Their child’s denial makes their version all the more bizzare.  Why that route to escalate things (first step might be to follow up with complaints, then the DG or another director, then an MP).

– the sun have sensationalised a story by implying things which were not quite right – as is their way.  If they genuinely wanted the BBC to deal with it properly and ensure a due process was followed they would have given them time to do it after telling them they had a story

– the suns owners have hyped up the story on all its other channels.

– the BBC may have a case to answer around it’s investigation process BUT if we take at face value their response of replying to an email by email and phoning once to follow up, what level of response should be pursued for isolated,  allegations from a person who is not actually claiming to be the victim and which don’t amount to illegality?  How much of your license fee do you want spent chasing round after people who don’t reply to email or answer the phone?

– the police seem to have done a good job of quickly investigating, but it seems the matter was previously reported to them and they said then there was nothing they could do.  Did they do enough then to help a worried relative who believes their young adult child was being exploited and led to a world of drug use?

– various MPs seem to have done a good job of stoking the fire without actually knowing any detail

– everyone here (including me) and on social media fanning the flames means this story carries on whilst far worse allegations against George Osborn go ignored, the government **** up running the country and our Defence Minister says Ukraine should be more grateful!

so, I’m not sure how you get to the conclusion that the BBC are the only people who did anything wrong.  Actually they seem to have mostly behaved reasonably if perhaps a bit slowly. (Of course we don’t know what more substantiated complaints they have from other people on other matters that took priority).

Employees is a different matter, but not relevant to the original story is it? So what is the abuse/power/misconduct angle here? I just don’t get it. (Assuming not under age.)

Public figure/celebrity and impressionable young people? IDK, it just doesn’t sit right with me though. Maybe I’m wrong though, we’ll see I suppose but If this was a footballer, I’m not sure there would be the same support.

 the parents have acted oddly.  Their child’s denial makes their version all the more bizzare.  

If they were paid by the Sun not so bizarre, but so far I’ve not heard that they were.

far worse allegations against George Osborn go ignored

FYI – Private Eye have analysed the Osbourne allegations as misleading and the most-shocking bits as without evidence. They are usually happy to stick the boot into him, so I trust their judgement that it’s a smear.

He’s also engaged Harbottle and Lewis to point this out to media outlets. And the email was reported to some extent.

Public figure/celebrity and impressionable young people? IDK, it just doesn’t sit right with me though.

What, like Charles and Diana, celebrated joyously up and down the country? Even famous people are allowed to have sex lives, and age of consent is defined for a reason.

The Sun have now completely changed tack and issued a statement saying that they ‘at no point alleged any criminality’

Erm…. I think you’d have to be stretching semantics to the absolute limit, and beyond, to make that claim

I know they carefully word everything so that they can weasel out of it should anyone have the huge amount of both time and funds to litigate. – the correct assumption usually being that they won’t – but I can’t see that assertion standing up to any reasonable legal examination in court.

The Sun are being very careful to now say they never said anything illegal had occurred (this is a lie, they did)

Sounds like the Sun’s legal team are getting twitchy

IF the parents were paid for their stories then it could change things

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 **** 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.