Again, this is technical talk. You don't actually think there is any chance this person could face charges, I assume? We all know the police would have no interest in pursuing that, surely?
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Hard to say without knowing anything about it. Remember the Sun is likely to be distorting things.
This doesn't really feel like a scandal all that worthy of our attention. The Jimmy Saville comparisons seem, awfully far off the mark, but always incredible how empowered decent folk get with this kind of story.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's technically Illegal, but theres a pretty big get out of jail clause.
I'd seriously doubt the "kid" in this scenario would face charges.
Unless the pictures include other people too or something.
I’m already leaning forward in my boxer shorts
I had a friend of my wife’s around yesterday, whose friend had a relationship with a high profile, much older BBC presenter who was apparently known for such things. Young boys. Reckons it’s him.
Last edited:
Possession of child pornography is illegal, no matter who took the picture. Even if you're not in possession of it, it's still illegal to "make" the picture, which involves everything from opening an attachment to saving something to your device. If the allegations are true, then the presenter is in big trouble. It doesn't matter that he got sent the pics.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...ldren Act 1978,of indecent images of children.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...ldren Act 1978,of indecent images of children.
Where? I haven't seen anyone say that or anything close.
Not that we know what this sort of thing is yet.
Last edited:
If it’s an onlyfans thing and she claimed to be older (18+) I really don’t see an issue here?
If it was that easily explained away I feel someone would've probably gotten round to letting us know, at some point in the last few days of it being the biggest news story in the country.
It's not a she. It's a he.
It's one of many things I've heard in the industry but people like to exaggerate so not sure on just one off rumours I've heard. Nevertheless, their career is rightfully ruined
Didn’t the Sun used to have 16 year olds with their tits out on page 3?
But rich for then to take the high ground morally here
If it was an onlyfans thing then it would be onlyfans in trouble and not the dude in question I'd imagine
Its the sun. Their moral high ground is whatever they think it is this week
No naming, no asking who etc etc, or we will have to close this thread until at least the identity of the person is common public knowledge. And then of course we will end up closing it because 4 of the first 10 posts will be wildly defamatory.
Last edited:
I would add that all the names being thrown around twitter are likely to just be wrong.
Those were the days.
Cool stuff happening here.
Arse..
I can’t get this image off my mind
It's directly linked to how many copies they think they can sell.
Got sent a picture of the person in question with his ass out in a group chat this morning. What a way to ruin your career.
I saw that too, put me right off me cornflakes.
Nice arse mind!
I saw that as well, but do we know if it is even real?
There's no way that photos real is it? 
There's no way that photos real is it?
There’s a video as well. Resisted the temptation to watch it.
I don’t think this is really nonce territory, but it is all rather sad. The real evil here would be if the accused knew the money was used to feed a crack habit. It’s all a bit sad & fecked up really.
I obviously don’t want to victim blame here but from what we know I can’t help but wonder if he’s been honey trapped and blackmailed rather than him just spending however many thousands on a random teenager’s nudes.
They used to do countdowns to girls turning 18 so they could appear on page 3. Scummiest of all the tabloids
Word on the street is that presenter was possibly being blackmailed. Nobody pays that much money just for nudes to a crack addict. That might be why police are involved.
He should of gone to the cops straight away if that was the case.
I’m being serious here, are you related in some way to the accused?!
Fantastic arse
No but I'm not as innocent as you about how tabloids operate. Who pays £35,000 for nudes you can get for free? Why aren't the Sun naming him if he's broken the law? And why are they running the story if he hasn't? Do you really believe a crack head or The Sun? It's all a bit shady don't you think? Or are you so excited to attack the BBC that you don't want to ask such basic questions?
Horrific way to be outed as well.
All good questions that I'm surprised more people are not asking, but BBC bashing is a very popular British past time and other UK media organisations benefit from it greatly!
It is weird that the Sun hasn't named the person in question and it suggests that maybe they haven't seen all the evidence and are worried they may not be 100% correct in everything they allege. The other possibility is that they are playing the game purely for cash and are building up a frenzy before they finally do their big reveal having maximised clicks and sales, though I would guess it is the first possibility.
For other news organisations it makes perfect sense not to name as all their details are effectively coming from the The Sun in the first place.
It is surprising that the everyone is prepared to take the Sun at face value given their reputation. And I do not believe the BBC given their history would purposefully protect someone they knew had broken the law in the way suggested, it's the most self defeating act you could imagine. I would hazard a guess that they obviously knew something was wrong and have quietly been investigating and have been blindsided by the Sun's front pages with details and allegations they were unaware of.
I suspect we know far from the full story here.
Last edited:
There is possible legalities around naming the presenter from a criminal law POV, presumably.
I am not certain but there are definite offenders under the Sexual Offences Act they prevent the naming of the offender to protect the victims.
I am not saying this is the case in this matter but it could be an issue