If I had to guess it seems like some kind of high-end version of only fans. He may even have other high profile followers hence the posh firm representing him. Parents say the kid was on there at 17 and he’s now hooked on drugs - kid denies being on there that young. Police aren’t investigating. The estranged Parents have now gone to the Sun who are using it to wage war against the BBC.
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Surely he wouldn't have presented bbc news at 10 last night then either or does it not be on sundays?
Oh no...the weekend news is always presented by women and ethnic minorities unless a major news event happens. Then they get the senior white guy to do it.
The Sun inventing news shocker
The Sun's still got it.
You're coming perilously close to suggesting someone in particular is the person in question. Plese remember that person, whoever it is, has the legal right to a private life and nobody can legally over-rule that without good reason - not you, not the BBC and not the Sun. And what we've learned today is that there is currently no good reason in this case.
The name is going to come out one way or another. The presenter/BBC will be forced to reveal the name very soon as an MP is going to end up revealing the name at the House of Commons.
Last edited:
So just to establish the facts: a BBC presenter has groomed a child into a debauched life of sexual abuse and crack addiction. But the child might be 20 and the abuse might be onlyfans and the grooming might be an overzealous onlyfans user buying lots of photos, or it might all be a blackmail conspiracy. Oh and here's a sinister/cheeky private snap of your favourite presenter for good measure. Also you probably think that The Sun was a moral bastion but did you know they defile children's corpses.
That seems to be it. They're either the new Saville or someone who paid for porn. Didn't they do a countdown for Emma Watsons birthday? The only reason they have to be annoyed at a BBC presenter paying for a teens naked pictures is fear of inflating prices.
I certainly don't believe I know what happened here, I think there's lots of possibilities and this is just one of those. If I was addicted to drugs and the income that was funding my addiction was coming largely from one person, I would say the things I was asked to say, when they requested I talk to some lawyers they'd hired.
Good example of why you are innocent until proven guilty.
The bit I still don’t understand is why I’ve seen his arse
The mystery which will probably never go answered is why anyone would (allegedly) pay tens of thousands of pounds for some dick pics.
It does sound like incredibly bad value for money.
I think, more likely is that he got dick pics, then the person potentially blackmailed him given he's famous, married and a staunch Christian.
Most guys can't give their dick pics away for free but this guy's getting paid thousands of pounds for them. Maybe he's got a really special cock
I’ve never felt so left out for not seeing another man’s arse.
I've managed to avoid it so far, girl I sit with at work isn't on Twitter and keeps pestering me to borrow my phone so she can watch it.
She also keeps getting hit with a wall of no from me!
Paddy with absolutely the best take on all of this....
Warning if at work, he does use a swear word.
This still hasn't made it to the front of BBC
Paddy with absolutely the best take on all of this....
Warning if at work, he does use a swear word.
A grand a stroke
Paddy with absolutely the best take on all of this....
Warning if at work, he does use a swear word.
That's really what I want to understand. Why anybody would pay that much for nudes. There has to be way more to this.
This is all very odd...
Met police ask BBC to pause investigation into suspended presenter
Corporation’s director general reveals request as officers consider if there is reason for a criminal inquiry
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/11/met-police-bbc-pause-investigation-suspended-presenter
Met police ask BBC to pause investigation into suspended presenter
Corporation’s director general reveals request as officers consider if there is reason for a criminal inquiry
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/11/met-police-bbc-pause-investigation-suspended-presenter
If I had my conspiracy theory hat on I’d say the MET were part of the big old distraction from Boris’ phone as they’re implicated as well.
Its perfectly normal for a private/public company to pause investigations/inquiry if the police are reviewing the case.
Sounding more and more like the presenter and the youngster were both quite happy with what was going on but somebody got wind of it and thought they could make a few quid, pushed the blackmail too far by going to the news, and now its gotten way out of hand.
Paddy with absolutely the best take on all of this....
Warning if at work, he does use a swear word.
I'm glad Paddy isn't involved, and that grand a stroke bit is
If I was a fan of conspiracies I'd argue that BBC head Tim Davie, being the Tory that he is, kept this story in his pocket and let his Tory pals know that if they ever needed a distraction in the next few months they could use it to their advantage. It's obviously a stretch since the Tories have never used scandals to cover up their scandals in the past...
*Going to the Sun and making up a criminal offence. Sounds ballpark
Can’t someone sue these cnuts into oblivion?
Remember HIGNFY? When Deaton was caught with sex-workers and cocaine. If that happened today, you'd expect attitudes have moved on enough to just let it be. For AD it was that HIGNFY was satirical and they made jokes about the lives of public people, as Hislop and Merton each said at the time, which made his position impossible. A structural issue more than a moral one (hypocrisy). But for a news-caster, does it really matter? They read the news and ask people for opinions regarding the issues, they, via BBC law/regulation, cannot pass individual comment upon the topic. That is the premise of the BBC and why people are outraged when X or Y seem to favour this or that party over another.
I think it is a sort of nonsense at this point. There is an institutional problem in Britain, full stop, but I see this as a kind of scapegoating affair now. This or that outlet no doubt has had wind of this story for a reasonable amount of time and has decided now is the moment to push it. That's politics imo. What aren't we speaking about? This is individual morality testing. Not unimportant, but tabloid and serialized (a slow-bleed affair and orchestrated, as per the sale-platform of news operations, to be such). Pushing what to the back (or out of) the news? I don't know. Some say Johnson inquiry. Maybe. But this is hardly the most important news story to be had?
BBC presenter taken off air. Not sexual abuse, which is verified, but moral ambiguity and perhaps breach of contract and thus the police and courts deal with it. That's the start and end of the story really until decision is reached.
Sexual abuse within British institutions is a worthwhile investigative and legal approach. It is long overdue despite claims of having gone through it. I mean historical and present. But is this sexual abuse? I think not. I think it is moral abuse if it fed a drug habit, and technically illegal but in ways most people would, common sense, say is nonsense if it is just sexting which is illegal but the actual act itself would have been fine. Anyway, seems like individualizing it is the wrong scope.
I think it is a sort of nonsense at this point. There is an institutional problem in Britain, full stop, but I see this as a kind of scapegoating affair now. This or that outlet no doubt has had wind of this story for a reasonable amount of time and has decided now is the moment to push it. That's politics imo. What aren't we speaking about? This is individual morality testing. Not unimportant, but tabloid and serialized (a slow-bleed affair and orchestrated, as per the sale-platform of news operations, to be such). Pushing what to the back (or out of) the news? I don't know. Some say Johnson inquiry. Maybe. But this is hardly the most important news story to be had?
BBC presenter taken off air. Not sexual abuse, which is verified, but moral ambiguity and perhaps breach of contract and thus the police and courts deal with it. That's the start and end of the story really until decision is reached.
Sexual abuse within British institutions is a worthwhile investigative and legal approach. It is long overdue despite claims of having gone through it. I mean historical and present. But is this sexual abuse? I think not. I think it is moral abuse if it fed a drug habit, and technically illegal but in ways most people would, common sense, say is nonsense if it is just sexting which is illegal but the actual act itself would have been fine. Anyway, seems like individualizing it is the wrong scope.
Paddy with absolutely the best take on all of this....
Warning if at work, he does use a swear word.
It's made up stories from the right wing papers like this that conveniently always pop up when another tory scandal pops up that make me doubt a lot of stories being published in the news these days as I don't underestimate the right wing papers to do everything in their power to keep tories in power
Case in point though. One journalist, another citiizen journalist, and then another news article all taking stances upon a personalized issue when none of the three know the facts at all.
Well yes - everyone is now going to be talking about it as the Sun have printed about it for 3 days running. It’s a perfectly fair question to ask if it should have been printed at all considering the police originally deemed nothing illegal took place, as did the BBC and the person in question denies what the estranged parents are saying.
Journalists will do as they do: getting paid to take a position and claim moral stance when they have an output demand that completely overrides that fascade unless they are investigative journalists who publish infrequently or have different constraints. Profile building via branding upon social media wherein individuals are fodder for their own social capital and brands. It's a sickness in itself imo.
But if illegal, then report, and "police handling it". It's not a politician stealing taxpayer money or dubious PPE contracts which we still await proper investigation into (Sky news has a live shot of BBC headquarters: where is the live shot of Downing Street awaiting the arrest of those involved in all that nonsense during covid). This isn't Jimmy Saville (and the series of BBC abusers therein snared). It's a symbolic example of a possible breach of law, likely breach of morality, being used as if it were that.
I think that was 2002 and pre-dated privacy laws. The Max Mosley case in 2008 was when everything changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/24/mosley.privacy
I’m inclined to think that the amount quoted has come from a back of an envelope calculation by an innumerate Sun reporter based on some seriously flawed/misunderstood information. Because it does appear to be orders of magnitude away from what would seem a reasonable figure.