Huw Edwards named as BBC presenter accused of paying teenager for explicit photos
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Napp
The idea of someone paying 40k or so for a couple of nudes always sounded somewhat unlikely, to be extremely polite on the matter.
Not to say its definitely not true, stranger things have happened, but if were being blunt here child pornography is not hard to come by (at least according the BBC's own articles on it) so why anyone would pay an amount equivalent to an exceptionally nice care is bizarre.
Not to say its definitely not true, stranger things have happened, but if were being blunt here child pornography is not hard to come by (at least according the BBC's own articles on it) so why anyone would pay an amount equivalent to an exceptionally nice care is bizarre.
That’s what I am saying. Why would he pay a 17 yr old money that is equivalent to a car for some nudes he could get from the internet. There’s a reason the person hasn’t been named yet. Also if this indeed has happened I don’t see why the parents waited 3 yrs before reporting this to the police and the BBC. They’re only reported this after their son or daughter became addicted to cocaine and became estranged from them. Before they saw no problems with their daughter accepting payments from a stranger for nudes. Although the daughter is a minor it’s not against the law either as she’s at the age of consent which is 16 in the UK that’s probably why the met police didn’t rush to press charges immediately. I say let’s not go quick to judge as this might not be the full version of events
Original post by katnix
Although the daughter is a minor it’s not against the law either as she’s at the age of consent which is 16 in the UK that’s probably why the met police didn’t rush to press charges immediately.
Not true.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended) makes it an offence for a person to:
"(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so."
Also, "a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as a whole that he was then under the age of 18."
Hence if what has been suggested actually happened, then an offence would have been committed if the subject was indeed 17 at the time.
The Met have released a statement saying that "further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed." They also said, "There is no investigation at this time." It will be interesting to see what "evidence" The Sun received which prompted them to run the story, given that the Met are not yet convinced that a crime has been committed. I suspect the level of evidence required by The Sun is lower than that required by the Met.
The young person is being represented at present by a very expensive lawyer.
The mother and stepfather stand by their claims.
There may be inappropriate behaviour if it's not illegal. Time will tell.
The name of the presenter is spreading. The career of the presenter is over regardless.
The mother and stepfather stand by their claims.
There may be inappropriate behaviour if it's not illegal. Time will tell.
The name of the presenter is spreading. The career of the presenter is over regardless.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
That’s what I am saying. Why would he pay a 17 yr old money that is equivalent to a car for some nudes he could get from the internet. There’s a reason the person hasn’t been named yet. Also if this indeed has happened I don’t see why the parents waited 3 yrs before reporting this to the police and the BBC. They’re only reported this after their son or daughter became addicted to cocaine and became estranged from them. Before they saw no problems with their daughter accepting payments from a stranger for nudes. Although the daughter is a minor it’s not against the law either as she’s at the age of consent which is 16 in the UK that’s probably why the met police didn’t rush to press charges immediately. I say let’s not go quick to judge as this might not be the full version of events
I was reading yesterday that the minor in question at the time of the events was a boy, not a girl. Regardless, there are so many rumours and stuff going on now that it may as well be Chinese whispers until/unless the police and BBC release official details of the investigation.
Original post by DataVenia
Er, yes they can. Newspapers get things wrong all the time. Especially when, in the case of The Sun, there's some juicy gossip or scandal involved.
This is true. However, it is likely that the Sun's lawyers will have been all over this from the start and are still checking everything very thoroughly as things develop. I agree that the Sun may still have got it wrong or aspects of it wrong. I also think many papers would jump on a potential scandal like this.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by DataVenia
Not true.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended) makes it an offence for a person to:
"(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so."
Also, "a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as a whole that he was then under the age of 18."
Hence if what has been suggested actually happened, then an offence would have been committed if the subject was indeed 17 at the time.
The Met have released a statement saying that "further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed." They also said, "There is no investigation at this time." It will be interesting to see what "evidence" The Sun received which prompted them to run the story, given that the Met are not yet convinced that a crime has been committed. I suspect the level of evidence required by The Sun is lower than that required by the Met.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended) makes it an offence for a person to:
"(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so."
Also, "a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as a whole that he was then under the age of 18."
Hence if what has been suggested actually happened, then an offence would have been committed if the subject was indeed 17 at the time.
The Met have released a statement saying that "further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed." They also said, "There is no investigation at this time." It will be interesting to see what "evidence" The Sun received which prompted them to run the story, given that the Met are not yet convinced that a crime has been committed. I suspect the level of evidence required by The Sun is lower than that required by the Met.
Oh so it is a crime then if this actually occurred when they were 17. However the parents went to the police and they said “ no crime has been committed so can’t do anything about it” However what are your thoughts on the parents. The young person we could just say got groomed and that’s why this wasn’t revealed earlier however I am wondering how long the parents knew this was going on for.
Original post by Sorcerer of Old
I was reading yesterday that the minor in question at the time of the events was a boy, not a girl. Regardless, there are so many rumours and stuff going on now that it may as well be Chinese whispers until/unless the police and BBC release official details of the investigation.
Send the article please and link where it was suggested it was a boy and not a girl. I want to read this as well…
Original post by katnix
Oh so it is a crime then if this actually occurred when they were 17. However the parents went to the police and they said “ no crime has been committed so can’t do anything about it” However what are your thoughts on the parents. The young person we could just say got groomed and that’s why this wasn’t revealed earlier however I am wondering how long the parents knew this was going on for.
I think that it's not yet clear how long the parents knew.
I suppose one possibility is that the BBC presenter did not know that the young person was 17 when he paid for images, if that was the age when images were sold.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Cote1
I think that it's not yet clear how long the parents knew.
I suppose one possible scenario is that the BBC presenter did not know that the young person was 17 when he paid for images, if that was the age when images were sold.
I suppose one possible scenario is that the BBC presenter did not know that the young person was 17 when he paid for images, if that was the age when images were sold.
If he didn’t know that the young person was 17 at that time it could mean the young person had in fact lied about they age to him. There is no winners in this story tbh. Maybe the parents found out later when they were wondering how their child got all this money from.
Original post by katnix
If he didn’t know that the young person was 17 at that time it could mean the young person had in fact lied about they age to him. There is no winners in this story tbh. Maybe the parents found out later when they were wondering how their child got all this money from.
This is what I am thinking but it is all guesswork.
It could even be that the images were bought via some sort of website where the presenter in question thought or assumed that age rules had been established. All guesswork on my part.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
Send the article please and link where it was suggested it was a boy and not a girl. I want to read this as well…
I read it in yesterday’s Metro: the paper version. It said the way this was discovered was the mum saw an image on her son’s phone of the presenter lying on sofa in just his underwear presumably waiting for this boy to start a “performance”.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Sorcerer of Old
I read it in yesterday’s Metro: the paper version. It said the way this was discovered was the mum saw an image on her son’s phone of the presenter lying on sofa in just his underwear presumably waiting for this boy to start a “performance”.
They haven’t identified the young persons gender yet and I read the metro paper it didn’t specify gender whatever. I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down who the unnamed bbc presenter could be since they aren’t many gay bbc presenters. You read it wrong what it was saying that he , the bbc presenter , was on video call with them on his underwear. The person they referring to be in their underwear is the bbc presenter not the young person itself. However if you did indeed read it right and I read it wrong somehow then that narrows it down significantly to how many gay top paying bbc presenters who haven’t been on air recently since the dude has been suspended whilst further investigations been held it could likely be.
Original post by katnix
They haven’t identified the young persons gender yet and I read the metro paper it didn’t specify gender whatever. I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down who the unnamed bbc presenter could be since they aren’t many gay bbc presenters. You read it wrong what it was saying that he , the bbc presenter , was on video call with them on his underwear. The person they referring to be in their underwear is the bbc presenter not the young person itself. However if you did indeed read it right and I read it wrong somehow then that narrows it down significantly to how many gay top paying bbc presenters who haven’t been on air recently since the dude has been suspended whilst further investigations been held it could likely be.
It is possible that the presenter, whoever he is, could, in theory, not have come out as gay or bisexual. They could potentially be someone who presents as heterosexual to the outside world.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
They haven’t identified the young persons gender yet and I read the metro paper it didn’t specify gender whatever. I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down who the unnamed bbc presenter could be since they aren’t many gay bbc presenters. You read it wrong what it was saying that he , the bbc presenter , was on video call with them on his underwear. The person they referring to be in their underwear is the bbc presenter not the young person itself. However if you did indeed read it right and I read it wrong somehow then that narrows it down significantly to how many gay top paying bbc presenters who haven’t been on air recently since the dude has been suspended whilst further investigations been held it could likely be.
I didn’t assume it’s a boy, like pretty much everyone I assumed it was a girl till I read the article and I definitely didn’t read it wrong, it 100% said the mother’s SON. She saw on her SON’s phone. There are lots of people saying the victim is a male and apparently Ed Balls also let that slip on GMB.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
They haven’t identified the young persons gender yet and I read the metro paper it didn’t specify gender whatever. I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down who the unnamed bbc presenter could be since they aren’t many gay bbc presenters. You read it wrong what it was saying that he , the bbc presenter , was on video call with them on his underwear. The person they referring to be in their underwear is the bbc presenter not the young person itself. However if you did indeed read it right and I read it wrong somehow then that narrows it down significantly to how many gay top paying bbc presenters who haven’t been on air recently since the dude has been suspended whilst further investigations been held it could likely be.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
They haven’t identified the young persons gender yet and I read the metro paper it didn’t specify gender whatever. I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down who the unnamed bbc presenter could be since they aren’t many gay bbc presenters. You read it wrong what it was saying that he , the bbc presenter , was on video call with them on his underwear. The person they referring to be in their underwear is the bbc presenter not the young person itself. However if you did indeed read it right and I read it wrong somehow then that narrows it down significantly to how many gay top paying bbc presenters who haven’t been on air recently since the dude has been suspended whilst further investigations been held it could likely be.
That doesn’t narrow it down at all tbh, the presenter could be bi or even secretly gay so no one would necessarily know.
Original post by Welltemut
Who is lying then?
The Sun or the BBC?
The Sun can't be that stupid to post this story and get it wrong.
The Sun or the BBC?
The Sun can't be that stupid to post this story and get it wrong.
Option 3 - The 3rd party accuser
All the Sun did was report the allegation.
I suppose one question is, is the young person deliberately lying now when he says the mother's claims are rubbish?
Or the mother's claims may be completely wrong
Or is it about perception in that the young person thinks it was not inappropriate behaviour to buy those images. However, in the eyes of others it could be seen as inappropriate.
Or are the mother and stepfather lying?
Or have they got some facts wrong.
Or the mother's claims may be completely wrong
Or is it about perception in that the young person thinks it was not inappropriate behaviour to buy those images. However, in the eyes of others it could be seen as inappropriate.
Or are the mother and stepfather lying?
Or have they got some facts wrong.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by katnix
I just assumed it was a girl like how now ur assuming it’s a boy. If it is a boy that narrows down...
You're presenting your assumptions as fact when we don't know these things.
Original post by Cote1
I suppose one question is, is the young person lying now when he says the mother's claims are rubbish?
Or is it about perception in that the young person thinks it was not inappropriate behaviour to buy those images. However, inn the eyes of others it may be seen as inappropriate.
Or are the mother and stepfather lying?
Or have they got some facts wrong.
Or is it about perception in that the young person thinks it was not inappropriate behaviour to buy those images. However, inn the eyes of others it may be seen as inappropriate.
Or are the mother and stepfather lying?
Or have they got some facts wrong.
There’s so much crap going round, even stories of the boy’s parents trying to blackmail the presenter and using the money to fund their own cocaine habits as well as their son’s. There are even photos on Twitter of a presenter naked below the waist and you can see his arse. Could of course be faked and photoshopped but the bottom line is that no one knows what’s going on at this point, impossible to separate fact from fiction just yet.
(edited 1 year ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What’s going to happen next to Huw Edwards?
- Why is there freedom of the press?
- Survey Question
- OMAM
- Is UK Models legit or a scam
- Schools told not to teach about gender identity
- Illustration & Animation Masters at Cardiff Met
- someone please read my GCSE speech
- London Modelling agencies scam?
- Oliver James Online Models SoHo Fashion Studio has anyone else been scammed here
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- Identity Management - Modelling Platform Scam or Genuine?
- How to ask friends to pay me back?
- Who was your teenage crush?
- Please Grade my essay - English Lit GCSE
- is broadway studios legit?
- The Traitors
- My tier list of colleges that accept undergraduates of the University of Cambridge
- Attached siblings name to my final year coursework
- How to teach presentation skills?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
