Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children

Salt Bailly said:
What's the deal with not naming them, is it a superinjunction situation?
Click to expand...

It's defamatory so if it's not true or highly misleading then not naming him is the way to go. If it is true it would also be an invasion of the person's privacy if there is no public interest defense to publishing it, which is also actionable in law.
 
glazed said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I remember Onlyfans skyrocketed during COVID so I'm surprised it would even be a scandal (assuming that's even what this is).
 
Some people on here trying to make out this sort of thing is ok....wtf
 
If 2 consenting 17 year old send each other nudes does there be nuance in those situations or would it still be prosecuted?
 
arnie_ni said:
If 2 consenting 17 year old send each other nudes does there be nuance in those situations or would it still be prosecuted?
Click to expand...

Not sure if it’s been changed in the last few years, but a bunch of kids had been investigated for distributing child porn, and they were said child. Vast majority were dropped but a few were at the least cautioned I think.
 
Cascarino said:
Not sure if it’s been changed in the last few years, but a bunch of kids had been investigated for distributing child porn, and they were said child. Vast majority were dropped but a few were at the least cautioned I think.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I understand completely why they have the age limit at 18 for it though.
 
langster said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was a camera man for RTE in ireland that was going over to east asia raping young girls there. Sickening really and i think he was married. He was only caught because the hunters got him going over to the uk to meet a young teenage girl.
 
arnie_ni said:
If 2 consenting 17 year old send each other nudes does there be nuance in those situations or would it still be prosecuted?
Click to expand...

If I recall sending it is not the offence but receiving it and then keeping it.
 
I'm not sure what we're doing here. How could this conceivably be resolved without us all learning who it was? If it can't, what's the aim of the secrecy?
 
astracrazy said:
Some people on here trying to make out this sort of thing is ok....wtf
Click to expand...

We don't know what it was. If it's legal then it's a matter of individual moral tastes and if it's not legal then it's not. Pretty simple really.
 
glazed said:
If I recall sending it is not the offence but receiving it and then keeping it.
Click to expand...

Might have changed, but when I was doing teacher training a decade ago, they were definitely warning kids that they could get done for distribution of child porn even if the picture they were sending was a selfie.
 
glazed said:
We don't know what it was. If it's legal then it's a matter of individual moral tastes and if it's not legal then it's not. Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this clearly not legal? Why do you think otherwise?
 
Well, there’s clues there to know who it is if the media keeps saying it’s going to be huge.
 
cyberman said:
Isn’t this clearly not legal? Why do you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

I don't know any of the facts and nor do you. The Sun is deeply dishonest and that is the source of the story. My hunch is that it was OnlyFans or a Tinder Sugarbaby in which case the person would reasonably thought they were 18, but I have no clue at all.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Utterly repugnant cnut of the highest order.

The details of that make me fecking SEETH.

He was protected, and you wonder how it went / goes.
Click to expand...
I grew up in the area, we all knew there was something off about him, he was also involved in cover-upd regarding asbestos, that's stink that is still going on in Rochdale to this day
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560

  • The BBC has suspended an unnamed male presenter over allegations he paid a teenager £35,000 for sexually explicit photos
  • The Metropolitan Police has confirmed the BBC has made initial contact with the force over the claims
  • But the Met says no formal allegation has been made and it requires additional information before it can make a decision about further steps
  • The BBC's director general says the corporation first became aware of the allegations in May, adding that he is taking the situation "extremely seriously"
Click to expand...
 
A house hold name presenter

It’s going to be quite a difficult task keeping that secret for long

the rumours are leaning heavily into one particular Presenter now
 
Media, TV, politics, police, music, and film is just infested with nonces and perverts. Not even surprising anymore when this stuff comes out.
 
As much as it’s wrongun behaviour if it’s a 17 year old then there’s no problem in the eyes of the law?
 
Offside said:
As much as it’s wrongun behaviour if it’s a 17 year old then there’s no problem in the eyes of the law?
Click to expand...

It is illegal if the person is under 18. But if the adult reasonably thought they were 18 then it's not clear. It's also not clear who commits the offence if the under 18 creates the image themselves.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/indecent-images-of-children-guidance-for-young-people/indecent-images-of-children-guidance-for-young-people#:~:text=under%20the%20Protection%20of%20Children,sentence%20of%2010%20years'%20imprisonment
 
You have to get the balance right but refusing to name this high profile individual is just resulting in a load of slander against innocent presenters.
 
DOTA said:
Paying 17 year olds for sexually explicit images of them is a crime, I would imagine.
Click to expand...

I think creating them or giving them is irrespective of money.
 
TheLiverBird said:
A house hold name presenter

It’s going to be quite a difficult task keeping that secret for long

the rumours are leaning heavily into one particular Presenter now
Click to expand...

We will know one way or another by this time tomorrow give or take an hour.
 
glazed said:
I think creating them or giving them is irrespective of money.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Are you suggesting that the person who was taking sexual pictures of themselves at 17 could face charges? Cause I don't think that's realistic here.
 
DOTA said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Are you suggesting that the person who was taking sexual pictures of themselves at 17 could face charges? Cause I don't think that's realistic here.
Click to expand...

well the guidance has been withdrawn but it said:


Types of examples covered by these laws could include the following:
  • a person under the age of 18 who creates, possesses and/or shares sexual imagery of themselves with a peer under the age of 18 or adult over 18
  • a person under the age of 18 who possesses and/or shares sexual imagery created by another person under the age of 18 with a peer under the age of 18 or an adult over 18
  • a person over the age of 18 who creates, possesses and/or shares sexual imagery of a person under the age of 18
 
DOTA said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Are you suggesting that the person who was taking sexual pictures of themselves at 17 could face charges? Cause I don't think that's realistic here.
Click to expand...
Making, sending or showing "indecent" pictures of someone under 18 is illegal.

However, there's no legal definition of what constitutes indecency, so that's probably a pretty big loophole in cases like this.
 
glazed said:
well the guidance has been withdrawn but it said:


Types of examples covered by these laws could include the following:
  • a person under the age of 18 who creates, possesses and/or shares sexual imagery of themselves with a peer under the age of 18 or adult over 18
  • a person under the age of 18 who possesses and/or shares sexual imagery created by another person under the age of 18 with a peer under the age of 18 or an adult over 18
  • a person over the age of 18 who creates, possesses and/or shares sexual imagery of a person under the age of 18
Click to expand...
It wouldn't happen though. If the story we've heard is remotely accurate there is no chance they would now, or ever, have faced charges in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.