The report I read said the payment was the total since 2020 so perhaps it could be regular only fans payments or something similar? I guess we will find out in due course.
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Given the fact the Sun hasn't named the person, they obviously aren't confident that their story stands up to scrutiny. Did a BBC presenter use OnlyFans and get recognised?
Onlyfans is hardly illegal. Would a BBC presenter actually get in trouble for that? Surely half the country is looking at similar stuff for free.
When my dad had his pub in Kingswear that he had for nearly 16 years, two of the customers who had moved to retire to the village were ex BBC employees. One was an ex BBC cameraman for over 20 years and one was more freelance, who worked on various graphic design and musical projects, but he said he worked for the BBC for over 30 years on and off.
Obviously we had the pub during the whole Jimmy Saville scandal and revelations and he mentioned it more than a few times. As did the cameraman who had worked on Jim'l Fix It for a couple of years.
Both of them said that EVERYBODY knew what Jimmy was like and what he got up to. When I asked why nobody said anything I was told that people had said things but those who did were often replaced quickly. Apparently it was a case of you just don't mess with one of the biggest talents in the country. Also, apparently many felt it wasn't a big deal back then as these things just happened. The victims were often bullied in to staying quiet or told they wouldn't be believed. Apparently the Police often ignored many claims too.
When I pressed both of them further (and I did on a number of occasions over several years) they often said that it was almost commonplace in the industry and that Jimmy wasn't even the worst. There were apparently much worse, at both ITV and BBC and throughout the radio shows staff as well. But if Ior my dad or anyone ever spoke to them together at the same time it was like they had their own conversation going on and they would often just wink at each other or give nods or smiles etc.... It was like they had their own little in the know gang that nobody else was part of.
Now neither of them ever named names, but.... the guy who worked freelance always came across to me as he was hiding something, I was always suspicious about him and his best friend was an ex private school headteacher... That headteacher was released.last month for serving 6 years for having affairs with underage students at his school back in the 70's and 80's....
The cameraman (who I won't name) dated and lived with a really good friend of mine. One day she came to me and said she felt he was more interested in her 13 year old daughter than she was in her and he'd freaked her daughter out so she was leaving him and she wanted me to be there when she kicked him out in case he got violent towards her.
A couple of years ago he was arrested and charged with having indecent images of children and child abuse videos on his laptop and charged for sending indecent pictures and videos via email and instant message and also for having and sending images and videos of beastiality, including a woman having sex with a dog, that he shared with a contact he was trying to date on a dating site.
He was given a suspended sentence as he claimed he was looking after his elderly mum at the time and was her career.
So as far as I'm concerned, and especially after Rolf Harris too, anyone who worked at the BBC is definitely someone you wouldn't leave your kids or pets alone with. And the worst part is, like with Jimmy Saville, even though they all know, the rest of us won't find out until they are dead and burried.
But as with Epstein, I think it goes a lot further and deeper than just the BBC, and just thinking about it makes me quite sick tbh.
Obviously we had the pub during the whole Jimmy Saville scandal and revelations and he mentioned it more than a few times. As did the cameraman who had worked on Jim'l Fix It for a couple of years.
Both of them said that EVERYBODY knew what Jimmy was like and what he got up to. When I asked why nobody said anything I was told that people had said things but those who did were often replaced quickly. Apparently it was a case of you just don't mess with one of the biggest talents in the country. Also, apparently many felt it wasn't a big deal back then as these things just happened. The victims were often bullied in to staying quiet or told they wouldn't be believed. Apparently the Police often ignored many claims too.
When I pressed both of them further (and I did on a number of occasions over several years) they often said that it was almost commonplace in the industry and that Jimmy wasn't even the worst. There were apparently much worse, at both ITV and BBC and throughout the radio shows staff as well. But if Ior my dad or anyone ever spoke to them together at the same time it was like they had their own conversation going on and they would often just wink at each other or give nods or smiles etc.... It was like they had their own little in the know gang that nobody else was part of.
Now neither of them ever named names, but.... the guy who worked freelance always came across to me as he was hiding something, I was always suspicious about him and his best friend was an ex private school headteacher... That headteacher was released.last month for serving 6 years for having affairs with underage students at his school back in the 70's and 80's....
The cameraman (who I won't name) dated and lived with a really good friend of mine. One day she came to me and said she felt he was more interested in her 13 year old daughter than she was in her and he'd freaked her daughter out so she was leaving him and she wanted me to be there when she kicked him out in case he got violent towards her.
A couple of years ago he was arrested and charged with having indecent images of children and child abuse videos on his laptop and charged for sending indecent pictures and videos via email and instant message and also for having and sending images and videos of beastiality, including a woman having sex with a dog, that he shared with a contact he was trying to date on a dating site.
He was given a suspended sentence as he claimed he was looking after his elderly mum at the time and was her career.
So as far as I'm concerned, and especially after Rolf Harris too, anyone who worked at the BBC is definitely someone you wouldn't leave your kids or pets alone with. And the worst part is, like with Jimmy Saville, even though they all know, the rest of us won't find out until they are dead and burried.
But as with Epstein, I think it goes a lot further and deeper than just the BBC, and just thinking about it makes me quite sick tbh.
Clearing the air. I think he slapped Chris rock shortly after writing that last line.
That's messed up. If there is a historical problem institutionally in the BBC it does make you wonder as well how high up the the knowledge of it goes and what kind of leverage that would give them over the organisation.
What are the odds on the suspects?
Nothing's changed since Savile, has it?
So if they'd been meeting in a hotel room it would have been fine, but because there are photos it's not?
Bizarre country.
Bizarre country.
Yeah, maybe I'm missing something here in the articles I read but not sure if the person has done anything illegal?
Knew Operation Yewtree would catch up with Mr. Blobby sooner or later.
I mean a country where a 17 year old can’t share explicit photos to a grown adult is a good idea to me.
But they can die in a war, have a family and get married?
You're either a adult or you're not surely?
No, they're still kids. You have to be 18 in the UK to marry and you need your parents permission to join the armed forces at 16 (they're barred from serving on the front line until they reach 18).
Only thing I know about the issue is that there is no "If" involved (though I'm not saying you were raising doubt about it). It has been a nest of sexual exploitation and much worse as proven by trial after trial and that said reaches into politics/etc. is also now well documented. Leaving individuals aside, there is a systemic top-down abuse legacy in Britain via institutions. Saville is the most revolting of the various named, but a symbol which exposes and hides a far larger list. Always has been state policy to let a celebrity, if they can, take the hatred and viotriol whilst the state-types, of whatever nation, try to maintain distance from something they all absolutely knew/know about (whatever about partaking in) for they gather intelligence on everyone.
18 in England and Wales, not the UK. You can get married at 16 in Scotland. Hence Gretna. Also 16 in Northern Ireland.
C'mon now, you can't have a debate about modern civilised society and then just drop Scotland in as some sort of reference point.
To be fair, this is what your average 16 year olds getting married in Northern Ireland look like.
Seems at odds with the fact they could legally have sex.
The two ages need to be aligned to make sense don't they?
Of course it goes further - Google Cyril Smith of Rochdale
This story is difficult to judge really without knowing the details but it does feel like it aligns more morally wrong than legally unfortunately. It's still not very clear on how old the presenter is or was but either way that comes with moral problems since they were in a position of power (not only wealth wise but in terms of their job). If they're of a similar age I don't really see a problem with sharing pictures with each other but when you're facilitating it with large lumps of cash that leads to the said individual spiralling into drug abuse then it becomes particularly morally dubious and gross of the presenter. If there is a significant age gap and it's a presenter who is 40+ then the age dynamic is very clearly fecked up. It's probably legally impossible to enforce disallowing it but I do find it really sinister when you have 50 or 60 year old blokes with 18 year old girls.
Read earlier that the kid showed the mum a picture of the presenter wearing only his pants, on the sofa leaning forward to watch the screen
Disgusting, imagine being near-sighted
My best guess is that said presenter has done nothing illegal (or he should have been arrested) or in breach of his contract (or he should have been suspended or fired.) Tinder is awash with young women selling OnlyFans and Suberbabe nudes and videos (made fashionable during lockdown by Euphoria) so I expect it's something like that. I would say it's nobody's business unless the law or an employment contract has been broken but obviously that's not how tabloid journalism works.
It can't be OF. You have to be 18 to use the site. You have to have photo ID proving your age to make a creator account. Whoever it is most likely used other social media apps to talk to them.
Maybe it's bad to say it, but I just can't get upset over this. It's probably morally wrong, but there are so many more important things to get mad about in the UK today.
I wouldn't rely on the Sun's account. They lie all the time. If they had the story they would have named the presenter.
You’re overly defending this presenter and setting some dubious goalposts from which to argue from here
I guess, but I will just take the story at face value. If it was OF, I don't see what the BBC would have to investigate. Millions of people use the site and aren't doing anything wrong.
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. I know loads of BBC people and they are no more likely to be nonces than anyone else. You need to stop inhaling twitter threads.
We were wondering if it might have anything to do with the recent tightening of anti grooming law. Historically offending in England only concerned under 16s and were considered for charges against the groomer but now, anyone considered vulnerable to being groomed have been quoted for protection and chargers against the groomer.
I have no knowledge of the true situation but it smells of tabloid bullshit. If people aren't breaking the law then I stay out of their business. If that's dubious then happy to be dubious.
A tabloid would probably pay a fecking fortune for that picture
Last edited:
Aaaaand here we go, the tories new get of jail free card story for the next week or two and the right wing paper's new main story to cover over all the real issues effecting the British public as result of tories failure as a government.
I feel bad for when the presenter gets name because they are not going to get a rational trial both in court or by public opinion because the daily mail will be frothing at the mouth at this new opportunity to drag bbc down due to being not fascist enough for them.
The culture Secretary has some bloody cheek, they quick to pounce on this issue and want assurance this will be acted on swiftly but they sure as hell don't have the same pro active approach to solving the countless scandals involving the Tory party
I feel bad for when the presenter gets name because they are not going to get a rational trial both in court or by public opinion because the daily mail will be frothing at the mouth at this new opportunity to drag bbc down due to being not fascist enough for them.
The culture Secretary has some bloody cheek, they quick to pounce on this issue and want assurance this will be acted on swiftly but they sure as hell don't have the same pro active approach to solving the countless scandals involving the Tory party
statistically, that's not true is it? the presenter list had dozens of sex offenders on it over the decades which would impy that they are indeed more likely to be child sex offenders than most other people.
You're right. Sorry - the heroin plays havoc with the old judgement sometimes.
We're talking current BBC presenters. Clearly Radio One/Top of the Pops in the 1970s and 1980s was the ideal environment for older men who wanted teenage girls. But I'm not sure that extrapolates to the rest of the BBC even then and it's clearly not true now.
What's the deal with not naming them, is it a superinjunction situation?