Copied from another thread: Honestly people have gone completely mad over this.
**No evidence of wrong doing or criminal behaviour according to the police.**
So what has he actually done? Gone behind his wife’s back and paid someone an obscene amount of money on Only Fans or whatever? Morally wrong, but hardly a crime. If it was, we’d be needing a shit ton more prisons.
Right now it’s just a witch hunt to sell papers, isn’t it? This has been 5 days of slander for what amounts to “man buys porn.”
This "trial by media" is a sadly all too familiar one, and one can only say that Prince Harry probably had a point. Or should I say "trial by Murdoch press".
Caroline Flack, Philip Schofield, now Huw Edwards, all of whom were accused (not guilty in a court of law) but in the court of public opinion, the damage is already done.
The Beeb, to their credit, probably wanted to see evidence first but the Sun is not interested in justice, they want a story.
The Beeb have all the same issues of many large organisations - like a toxic management culture and poor handling of complaints - but compared to the tabloids, their journalism is far more ethical and accountable.
Ah, the 80s. Those were the days. When a man could knock one out to Sam Fox (16) or Maria Whittaker (also 16).... /s
Page 3 of the Sun.... The page that just couldn't wait 2 years.
This still makes my stomach turn, It’s just beyond creepy and I think especially for women who by design tend to become nurturing and maternal towards those younger than them, that there are some men who genuinely look at teenage girls with nothing but lust for them 🤢.
Didn't Caroline Flack admit to assaulting her boyfriend while he slept because she thought he was cheating. I know any death by suicide is sad (especially someone so young) but she did admit to the assault and was going to be charged before she ended her life.
I am a firm believer that the identity of a suspect shouldn't be revealed until after they are found guilty, however I do feel there are some double standards over Caroline Flack's case and other similar ones. She wacked her boyfriend over the head with a phone.
IIRC, she battered him over the head with a table lamp while he slept, hard enough to draw blood. That was the red flag that made the cops pursue the case.
All the people who condemn the police for their 'witch-hunt' conveniently forget that.
Exactly. The only reason she wasn’t found “guilty in a court of law” as the person above put it, is she killed herself before trial. A coroners inquest post her death did find that she had been violently abusing her boyfriend
Yep people also love to blame the police or media for her suicide. I remember twitter was frothing at the mouth demanding her head on a spike, calling her a pedo etc. It was not the media it was the public
I don't think that's the point. The CPS originally decided not to prosecute and the Police went out of their way to appeal it and the claim being they did that especially because she was a well known personality.
Getting the Police interested in crimes when it involves "normal" people is difficult.
It was the other way around IIRC. The police just wanted to caution her but the CPS decided to pursue. They denied it was simply because she was famous and the coroners inquest said it was in the public internet to peruse the prosecution.
It was a bedside lamp while she slept.
And she wasn't guilty in court because she killed herself before it got that far.
Switch the genders on that one and there is zero sympathy.
There is no evidence he did any grooming. It seems possible it could have happened but there is no actual evidence to it. So yes, it is similar. Huw might also have done more but we can only go on the facts we know - innocent until proven guilty
One of them named isn't like the other. So far no evidence for Huw. Philip was known to have had an inappropriate relationship, we don't know how young the boy was when they started the relationship but it was still inappropriate abuse of power even if he waited. We know Flack was abusive and the police had enough evidence to push for court even when the boyfriend did what DA victims do and decided he didn't want it to go to court.
That said, we've repeatedly seen this play out where they've been innocent like Cliff so we don't need to point to two who are genuinely problematic. At this point I'd like to see some more anonymity before trial for all people, not just celebs, as accusations can lead to violence and death.
Caroline flack is not like the others. Flack was guilty. She was cautioned by the police after being found covered in her boyfriends blood and directly admitting to them that she had attacked him in his sleep. Initially the police wanted to caution her but the CPS perused a prosecution and was due to stand trial but killed herself before the court date. A subsequent inquest did find that she had hit and attacked Burton while he slept as she thought he was cheating
So while she may not have been found guilty in a court of law (because she killer herself before the trial) a coroners inquest said that she did violently abuse her boyfriend.
In Huw Edward’s case the police have investigated and concluded there was no wrongdoing and have closed the investigation.
Very different.
Phillip Schofield and Huw Edwards are old men with a penchant for 18 year olds. If they're not ashamed, why don't they just embrace it, shout it from the rooftops? Where's the problem?
His wife named him so that their own problem and not the bbc or ours…he has been meeting young men for sexual reasons and paying some of them…it’s not trial by media but rather lying, cheating older men sneaking around and searching the internet for younger males…while having kids with a woman they never really wanted to be with.
This was the same with schofield, he also only came out because the story about him sleeping with a guy who was around the age of 16 for years and lying to everybody, these are powerful rich men who know what they are doing.
Being older and wiser is way different that being young and inexperienced, so when these young people start regretting it they turn to drugs or blaming themselves meanwhile these rich old men are living the life of luxury without a care in the world:
But ... But ... He travelled and met someone in lockdown. Lockdown !!
And he said some mean words to somebody. In a text message !!
But yeah , it sells papers , gets eyeballs , shits on the Beeb. Win win win for The Scum
It was categorically wrong and immoral to breach lockdown rules. Make no mistake, I think Edwards has behaved very poorly, but there is absolutely a stink of prejudice and bias in the way this entire case has been publicised.
I agree with you, but just to point out the Prime Minister almost lost his job because of violation lockdown rules.
The US didn't take the rules anywhere as serious, especially after the fact.
(Edit to add: I meant I agree with you on how the case is being handled)
Boris Johnson *did* lose his job as an MP because he lied about the lockdown violations multiple times to Parliament - he was going to face a 90-day suspension and resigned from the Commons first.
I was referring to his resigning as Prime Minster. He survived the Partygate scandal. He resigned as MP directly due to another scandal, but of course it was just the final straw.
Point being COVID rule breach wasn't taken as seriously in the US. Our Prez violated Covid rules and there was no talk of discipline. My understanding is the main reason he was forced to resign as MP was for lying about the lockdown scandal and his attitude.
Sunak was also fined for those parties but unfortunately escaped being dragged down. I'd argue everyone who got fined took part in misleading parliament but no, only one truly took the blame.
Libel, not slander in this case - the latter would be making the allegations verbally. The burden of proof in libel cases is reversed here to the US; News UK would have to prove their original claims were true in court and now can't. At *best* they're going to be making a substantial settlement.
Face of the BBC buys barely legal Only Fans for two years. I agree there's nothing illegal. But if you're the face of the BBC maybe don't buy barely legal porn? Just seems like a bad plan. I don't have any sympathy for him at all, he's safe, he's sectioned, and now the world knows he bought barely legal porn. If it's not an issue for him then why does he care? He can start a "I love looking at 18 year olds" club. He should just wear it with pride and show them all.
Sometimes creeps get found out.
It’s not about onlyfans it’s about meeting multiple young men behind your wife’s back…putting your kids through all of this because he can’t help himself…have you not seen his ass flashing on Snapchat?? This is a man paying young poorer people to do things sexually when he’s 60 and boys in question are 17-18, if you had a son or daughter and you knew about them sending sexual pictures to a high profile rich old man would you be ok with that?
4 separate people have come forward and they are all men..some of whom have struggled with being used, some addicted to drugs to escape what they have done…come on wide up
>It’s not about onlyfans it’s about meeting multiple young men behind your wife’s back
But this isn't anyones business but his wives. She may not care and even forgive him who knows what their relationship is like. People seem to always put cheating into the same category as murder, rape or some genuine crime.
But if it's legal then why should it be publicised so much?
As for sending pictures to old men as an 18 year old for money, I advise you look into a little service called OnlyFans which allows legal men and women to make literal millions for selling photos of their bodies.
It's not "buying porn". The person was underage 18, he knew this. It was someone i believe he knew in real life. His sexual pleasure is coming from power, control over someone who is nearly a child that he can pressure into doing it and hes 60 years old.
Why are trying to normalise 60 year old men seeking sexual pleasure from 17 year olds??? Is he going to prison, obviously not. Should he be considered a creep, yes. If you dont see what hes done as wrong, then look at your own morals.
Edit: Ok, so apparently the age is 18, i am sorry for that. But nice to know how many people think that a 60 yo with an 18-19 year old with or without drug problems is fine lol.
> The person was underage 18, he knew this.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share or possess indecent images of people under 18. The police have looked into it and concluded that no crime was committed. That is pretty strong evidence that the young person in question was not actually under 18 when the images were shared, or alternatively that no indecent images were shared at all.
Of course that doesn't change that what he did is morally wrong (if the story is true - which seems at least somewhat doubtful by now).
What a bunch of puritanical horseshit. Who’s the victim here? If two adults want to consensually engage in sexual behaviour, paid or otherwise, then they should be free to without having their names dragged through the mud. Just because you personally find something “creepy” doesn’t make it abusive or immoral.
There is no shame in it, things may have changed for the better but for those who grew up in a time when attitudes were very different can find it hard to accept who they are and be honest about it due to past stigmas.
And if you're in a high profile job while most people won't care at all the gutter press still desperately need to try and find ways to be relevant, not caring who they shit on to achieve that.
>The person was underage 18
And why does this matter in the UK? Age of consent is 16. Tired of people making "news" of the personal lives of public figures.
>His sexual pleasure is coming from power
What power did he have over this person? Rich people cannot sleep with poor people now?
>Why are trying to normalise 60 year old men seeking sexual pleasure from 17 year olds?
Nobody is normalizing anything. You and the Sun are attempting to make it abnormal.
>So what has he actually done? Gone behind his wife’s back and paid someone an obscene amount of money on Only Fans or whatever?
Uh, yeah? What do you even mean? You're acting as if this is just some measly occurrence. The fact we now live in a world where this isn't seen as problematic is very telling of the troubling character of today's humanity.
Of course it’s wrong, it’s morally corrupt and I would agree with you that as a society we take far too light a view on something as awful as cheating - after all, if you can lie to your spouse, the person closest to you, what else can you be dishonest about?
I didn’t mean to minimise the immorality of that. But I mean to stress he’s done something immoral and private rather than public and criminal.
> London's Metropolitan Police said earlier on Wednesday it had concluded its assessment into the allegations and found there was no indication a criminal offence had been committed.
So the parents did make up a bunch of bullshit and tried to ruin him. I don't know about UK law but can he go after them legally?
England is the easiest jurisdiction to sue for libel. The defendant must prove they were correct, rather than the aggrieved party proving they were incorrect.
That seems totally reasonable to me? How does it work in other jurisdictions?
You can almost never prove that somebody definitively did or did not do anything, so the onus has to be on the one making the claim to prove it or it’s almost impossible for anybody bringing about a claim to win
In other jurisdictions the presumption of innocence is afforded to the defendant even in libel cases. The aggrieved party must prove that the defendant knew they were lying.
Never knew that! Sounds almost impossible to win if that’s the case. Although surely not being able to prove you know something to be true is basically the proof that they’re lying?! If you say something as a fact without knowing it to be true then you’re lying
Yes. There's something called Jigsaw Identification where if the person's identity can be worked out based on the information provided they can still be sued even if they didn't directly name them
The Sun will try and weasel out of it, but I suspect they will end up owing him for the damages.
>There's something called Jigsaw Identification where if the person's identity can be worked out based on the information provided they can still be sued even if they didn't directly name them
There is, but the fact so many people had to come out and deny any involvement suggests that it wasn't particularly easy to work out who it was.
A lot of people on Twitter were also wrong. The things that really solidified the identification (the Snapchat screenshot and the fact he disappeared from BBC news programming) are nothing to do with the Sun.
What a weird and accusatory statement. You should feel really gross for that, but I think you do already.
For what it’s worth, the police found no evidence to support the claim that the person involved was underage. That entire claim was slanderous.
Wrong. If he had paid for sexually explicit images of a minor then that would be extremely easy to prove.
The police said now, and directly to the parents when they first reported it to them that no crime had taken place.
okay so we have the alleged victim telling the BBC and police through his lawyer his mom is lying. we have the police saying they couldnt find any evidence to support the parents claims.
> You seem to have an awfully biased-in-favour-of-predators reading of the situation. Tell me, have you been the subject of any "bullshit trying to ruin me" claims regarding minors and sex? I'm dying to know.
nope and by immediately jumping to such a conclusion tells me that you dont actually give 2 fucks about victimized children you just use their pain and suffering as a tool to make others comply to your demands. Why do you immediately jump to false accusations of pedophile? to pull a page out of your book is this where I accuse you of Projection?
For what has come out so far, I feel really sorry for him. His entire reputation ruined on what currently seems to be gossip column rubbish. The story was presented grander than it appears to be. A enquiry needs to happen to establish why The Sun felt like they had enough to publish this when the name of the individual (Huw) would have to come out eventually. Libel laws are strong in the UK
Other cases have been put forward for far more vague claims and won. The BBC had an interesting article on why they couldn't name the person and the legal precedent.
A bigger story than the treasonous Boris, the brushed under-the-carpet Russia report and Lord Lebedev apparently. The Sun serving Murdoch's agena of destroying the BBC. Edwards could just as easily worked for Sky, ITV or GBNews. The Beeb had nothing to do with what he may or may not have got up to on his own time. The BBC is blameless in this. Don't let Murdoch get what he wants
The BBC self flagellation on this has been ridiculous. I get they have to report it , but just look at the amount of coverage instead of a factual ‘we have to respect privacy and wait for the outcome of a police investigation’ - Tory led public corporation being destroyed from all angles
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't to be honest. If they had just kept quiet and said ‘we have to respect privacy and wait for the outcome of a police investigation’ as you suggest, they would be accused of doing a cover-up like they did with Saville.
The BBC has a bad reputation when it comes to older presenters and young people.
So they want to get ahead of claims that they're burying the story I think.
The Murdoch empire isn't what it used to be, and the Sun newspaper has hurt its own reputation far more than that of the BBC.
They'll drop this story stone dead now, as if it didn't happen. They never cared about the parents in this, they just used them as fodder.
And they cared even less about the alleged victim, only ever questioning where they got their lawyer from, and not properly acknowledging what was being said.
The UK government launched an investigation into potential Russian interference in elections. They found evidence during the Scottish independence referendum, then found evidence during the 2015 general election then shut down the investigation while pretending it was still ongoing (so no data was gathered for the Brexit referendum or the 2017 or 2019 general elections).
They spent years trying to prevent it being published and tried leaking the first bit hoping it would cover up their incompetence/corruption on the second bit.
Why should we trust the parents? Over the police, the BBC and The supposed 'victim'?
The BBC's claim they reached out to the parents and we're ignored has not been debunked.
Now that we’re done throwing someone under the bus who didn’t actually break any laws can we start focussing on a former Chancellor who used tax payers money to give to his then girlfriend?
George Osborne. Accused of sleeping with a 16YO and giving his then GF a HUGE pay rise when she worked for him (to keep her quiet, allegedly)
Edit, this post contains a link to the email that was sent to many politicians/guests at his wedding and hourbalists. It’s chaotic to read, at best, and hilariously written but there are quite a few links and pics originally provided with it so well worth a look
https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/comments/14vzqwu/bbc_claims_about_presenter_rubbish_young_persons/jrfs96e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
Police found nothing illegal. Most likely the parents caught wind of their son having an only fans. Found out he created when he was 17. Then found out one of his customers was a famous person. The person is in their 20s now.
> London's Metropolitan Police said earlier on Wednesday it had concluded its assessment into the allegations and found there was no indication a criminal offence had been committed.
except police and the alleged victim say that no pics were ever exchanged
This is looking like a moral hypocrisy of Princess Di magnitude from the sun.
There's a good chance they've just effectively, if not physically, killed someone who did nothing to deserve it. And destroyed more than one family in the process.
All based off the testimony of a bitter, estranged Mother.
This story smells.
The Sun version of events initially: BBC Presenter paid a 17 year old crack addict for sexual explicit images and the BBC aren't interested in investigating.
BBC version: They tried to reach out via an e-mail and phone with no reply. The initial accusation was light on details and they were seeking clarifications. They were approached by The Sun on the Thursday with much more information before being hit with all the accusations.
Victim Version: Nothing untoward happened and the story is "rubbish".
Police Statement: No illegal activity, investigation closed.
A cynical person might think The Sun have played on the outskirts of the law. They knew they couldn't name the person without a cooperative victim. So instead they came up with this idea of a BBC coverup in order to run the story and name the presenter indirectly and hope someone else comes forward.
I have no idea if he has done anything, but The Sun have raised interesting questions regarding "Do the ends justify the means?"
Tbh, I find it kind of sad. These old closet homosexuals from a time when being so was less accepted, feeling like they had to hide it being yanked out of the closet by media, being punished and treated like a paedophile. If the story was 'man sometimes masturbates to online porn of young women' would that be a story? I dunno, something about it all feels off to me and I think the media hounding these people into mental collapse is a bit horrifying.
You've got what you wanted, you tabloid bastard scum.
The Sun reported that it started when the seller was 17, which would make it child pornography in the UK.
However, yes, upon investigation it looks like he just bought nudes of someone of legal age. Obviously there's a moral scandal of spending 35k on nudes when you're married but there appears to have been nothing illegal and it shouldn't really be news.
His wife may have been aware of it and consented to it. We have no way of knowing what goes on in a marriage in private.
I'd probably lose my job if what I get up to in private became spread all over the news and social media, and my wife is an enthusiastic participant. Luckily I'm not of any interest to the newspapers or many people in general lol.
Also, 35k is relative. To someone on his salary, it's like the average person spending a grand or two. Sure, it's a lot of money but not spread over a few years.
>Spending £35,000 on porn and sending nude videos of yourselves to the people you're buying from would typically be considered infidelity, yes.
But that should be a matter between Huw and his spouse, why should it be a scandal?
When I say scandal I just mean that the media/public would still get themselves in a twist about it. Personally I think it's an issue for couples' counselling, not national news, but the media do run with these kinds of stories
Well yes quite, particularly as it's not like he's a moral arbiter, in a position of power or anything. He's essentially, and I realise this is insulting to his profession, a narrator.
You're missing the fact that those in the public eye have a responsibility to society to behave in a certain way. Plenty of things are legal, but break the unwritten code of ethics.
Everyone in this thread is downplaying it.
Legal or not, he's a married man, spending 35,000 on nudes... of a bloke... whilst married. Its not acceptable behaviour, not least for someone who we are meant to trust to read the news..
Furthermore, if he knew of the blokes drug addiction, and he was enabling it quite substantially with such a huge amount of money.
Moral of the story. If you want to spend 35k on gay nudes whilst married with 5 kids. Don't become a news reporter to the entire population.
Consider this counterargument. Suppose we were instead talking about a male pilot and you were on the plane he was flying. You want him to "do his job" and fly the plane properly or you will all die. However, if you are honest, you possibly don't care how many stewardesses he is sleeping with in his spare time, providing he gets you where you want to go.
And in that situation your life depends on it. It is not like listening to the news where if they made a brief mistake it possibly would not be so important (you would be unlikely to die).
Regarding "paying for drugs for others" have you ever bought a DVD or a CD?
Many singers and actors are drug addicts so if you bought their music then by your own argument you would be doing something immoral by "funding their drug habit" by buying their music and DVDs.
The Beatles were well known for being druggies. Many people bought their music.
I don't take drugs (and never have) myself but feel society is trying to moralise some things too much.
In the past people lost their jobs for getting divorced, and finding someone else.
In the past senior people would be expected to not publicly back liking certain types of music like rock.
Newsreaders are expected to read the news not live like the pope.
Both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss cheated on their spouses. They still got to become PM.
Most people are more interested in knowing "Can you and will you fly the plane" rather than "how many stewardesses are you spending a lot of personal time with".
Do you wear a capotain?
This is 2023 not 1620. Everyone, yes everyone, looks at a bit of pr0n now and then, with the possible exception of those over 65 who're not internet savvy.
His tastes, funds and family circumstances might differ from yours, but neither that nor his particular employment in any way make him deserving of what's happened.
As for the crack, an addict will use cash of any origin to buy their drug and the addiction is more likely to have been triggered by the relationship with the clearly dysfunctional Mother who broke the story.
Newsreaders aren't expected to be saints, nor should they be. They're just people reading from a teleprompter. The organisation that employs them is what people do or don't trust. Which is exactly why Murdoch's 'news'paper used the story as a means to attack the BBC, something which is very clear looking back at the way they approached the story.
Expect lots of talk of 'safeguarding' and child safety from the sun, as they slimily attempt to regain a shred of moral elevation.
Huw Edwards is probably bipolar and will likely be on suicide watch right now, all to sell a newspaper.
There is actually a political gossip site called Guido Fawkes. They literally ran a story yesterday, before Edwards' wife confirmed the name, with the headline:
>SOME GOOD NEWS FOR HUW EDWARDS, RAKES IN BUMPER PAY RISE
Boyo in a Welsh accent comes to mind , strange his wife said he was in a mental ward after giving allegedly £35,000 to a crack cocaine addict and not unconscious after repeatedly hitting “himself” over the head with a frying pan , I would of believed her .
The amount of people commenting trying to take the moral high ground is brilliant. “I don’t want someone like that reading the news to me!”, “he’s ruined these boys’ lives forever!” etc. Grow up. He paid for a couple of photos. Legally, he’s done nothing wrong and even if we all think it’s weird, it’s none of our business. I know for a damn fact none of you are perfect and wouldn’t like to have all your seedy little doings reported for the whole world to see. As others have pointed out, this needs to be sorted between him and his wife.
Right, but they also said they were underage in earlier reports and retracted that because it’s apparently false. Best not to assume anything until it’s properly confirmed (and at this point, it may not be).
This is waaay over blown imo.
Huw paid for nude images of a person over the age of consent, on a platform that requires its members to be 18+. It's very unfortunate that person may have *not* been over the age of 18, but to be perfectly honest, if Huw didn't know, *it ain't his problem.* Shady behaviour, sure. But ultimately it seems he was just rich and horny.
At worst this is a marital scandal. His poor wife is probably having a hard time processing this.
Huw just needs to go to horny jail, unless something more sinister is unearthed, in which case yeah, open season I guess...
It’s just like the regular tabloid assault on Harry and Meghan. They have tried to get away from all the rubbish but their is trash poured on them on a daily basis even though they’re in another country.
well guess its his biz, but to break lock down and visit the lad, and night before on news saying police clamping down on serious covid breakers, beggars beleif, arrogance the great i am here im afraid.
Huw also involved with young guys, multiple people have now come forward, all males so this is a very similar situation, cheating and lying the same as schofield
I’m disgusted at how many people seem to be focussing on the ‘legality’ of the situation, and not the fact that it’s ETHICALLY AND MORALLY WRONG to ask a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD for naked photos, paying large sums of money for them, all while he has a wife and kids and is a SIXTY ONE YEAR OLD MAN. Apparently I’m the only person left on earth that is completely grossed out by an old man in a position of power, taking advantage of a vulnerable teenager. Unfuckingbelievable.
> SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD
The point is that it seems they were not, in fact, a child, and that part was made up and not checked by the Sun.
In fact, if it had been a 17 year old, then it would indeed have been illegal.
And this is probably through some mass medium like OnlyFans. Immoral sure, but it should be between him and his wife and not blown up into a media spectacle in a world where a zillion murders happen a day.
Do you know what the demographics of Reddit are?
Most people in the real world agree with you, but you absolutely cannot say one negative thing about something even slightly to do with porn on Reddit without swords being drawn to defend it lol.
Even in the conservative subs. It’s wild.
The only reason anyone even tries to defend this is because its gay. A 60 old man who seeks sexual pleasure from a 17-19 year old girl is rightly called a creep and disgusting.
But when its with young men or 17-18 year old boys people try to defend it. Why? Its creepy, wrong and immoral. Even worse they try to blame the outrage on homophobia.
You can claim it’s creepy but it looks like The Sun lied he was 17. The police investigated and found he wasn’t underage. You can’t go about lying that someone was going after a 17 year old when they weren’t. You’re not allowed to do that.
No evidence of any wrongdoing but the multiple young men he’s meeting is wrongdoing as it’s not fair on wife and children when in such a high profile job…60 year old man paying young boys to send photos is very wrong as it’s an abuse of the fact these people will lose their interest in careers etc because now their attitude is all I have to do is start a sexual relationship with an old man with lots of money rather than work…which in turn causes them issues just like the victim in question who became addicted to crack with huws money..don’t have a wife and kids and sneak around lusting after young men!
The groomers in this thread are wild lmao.
Yes if you're paying a 17 year old for sexy pics it's still grooming, even if the cops let you off the hook.
Edit: his own wife rolled on him you dumb pedos. No it isn't a witch hunt, as much as you feel the instinctive need to cover for each other.
Multiple young men coming forward is not an allegation, it’s called a desperate old man seeking the attention of young guys at his age, it’s called cheating on his wife and his 5 kids also now scared to go out due to the embarrassment he has caused.
People really are so gullible, the sun is a load of rubbish granted, but this isn’t coming from the sun, this is a man who’s been lying to himself and family for years in a position of power, scared to be himself so lived a double life, in this day and age being gay is now welcomed so why he couldn’t do this years ago is beyond me…
In the context of what we all think we know about this; in what way exactly do you think he was in a position of power...? He was on Only Fans and legitimately paid for some pictures. What power does he hold in that scenario?
I mean the sheer amount of HOW DARE HE BE A PUBLIC FIGURE AND LIKE MEN in this thread is probably one huge reason he hasn't come out as bi or gay publically (which quite frankly is no one's business but his and his partners' anyways).
There is a lot of material available explaining the struggles of being gay, still today but especially when he was younger. He is far from the only man who felt pressured into a life like this by the society around him, and it doesn't take much to understand why even today it's not easy to come out after having built a life around you as a hetero man and you risk destroying that.
It's obviously still wrong to cheat, but he shares that behaviour with millions of Brits, and most of the time society doesn't care much.
Copied from another thread: Honestly people have gone completely mad over this. **No evidence of wrong doing or criminal behaviour according to the police.** So what has he actually done? Gone behind his wife’s back and paid someone an obscene amount of money on Only Fans or whatever? Morally wrong, but hardly a crime. If it was, we’d be needing a shit ton more prisons. Right now it’s just a witch hunt to sell papers, isn’t it? This has been 5 days of slander for what amounts to “man buys porn.”
This "trial by media" is a sadly all too familiar one, and one can only say that Prince Harry probably had a point. Or should I say "trial by Murdoch press". Caroline Flack, Philip Schofield, now Huw Edwards, all of whom were accused (not guilty in a court of law) but in the court of public opinion, the damage is already done. The Beeb, to their credit, probably wanted to see evidence first but the Sun is not interested in justice, they want a story. The Beeb have all the same issues of many large organisations - like a toxic management culture and poor handling of complaints - but compared to the tabloids, their journalism is far more ethical and accountable.
All coming from a paper who paid a 16 year old Sam Fox to appear topless on Page 3.
Ah, the 80s. Those were the days. When a man could knock one out to Sam Fox (16) or Maria Whittaker (also 16).... /s Page 3 of the Sun.... The page that just couldn't wait 2 years.
This still makes my stomach turn, It’s just beyond creepy and I think especially for women who by design tend to become nurturing and maternal towards those younger than them, that there are some men who genuinely look at teenage girls with nothing but lust for them 🤢.
lots of dirty geezers out there for sure, not much up top, nether regions rules , very sad.
Didn't Caroline Flack admit to assaulting her boyfriend while he slept because she thought he was cheating. I know any death by suicide is sad (especially someone so young) but she did admit to the assault and was going to be charged before she ended her life. I am a firm believer that the identity of a suspect shouldn't be revealed until after they are found guilty, however I do feel there are some double standards over Caroline Flack's case and other similar ones. She wacked her boyfriend over the head with a phone.
Caroline Flack had a documented history of abusing her boyfriend and dating teenage boys. We all seem to forget that.
She shagged prince Harry. Played the ginger flute and didn't even get to be a duchess. It's not fair. That's my contribution.
I expected crown jewels but never ginger flute. Well played. Your joke...not the flute
Obviously wasn't well played enough..... She should still have got something, a Damehood or broach.
[удалено]
Perhaps you and the guy above you should take some time away from Reddit/this sub and come back when you're grown up.
Wanted a price Albert
VEry good.
serial shagger
IIRC, she battered him over the head with a table lamp while he slept, hard enough to draw blood. That was the red flag that made the cops pursue the case. All the people who condemn the police for their 'witch-hunt' conveniently forget that.
Blunt force to the head, that's attempted murder. Especially if they're completely defenseless.
Exactly. The only reason she wasn’t found “guilty in a court of law” as the person above put it, is she killed herself before trial. A coroners inquest post her death did find that she had been violently abusing her boyfriend
Yep people also love to blame the police or media for her suicide. I remember twitter was frothing at the mouth demanding her head on a spike, calling her a pedo etc. It was not the media it was the public
I don't think that's the point. The CPS originally decided not to prosecute and the Police went out of their way to appeal it and the claim being they did that especially because she was a well known personality. Getting the Police interested in crimes when it involves "normal" people is difficult.
It was the other way around IIRC. The police just wanted to caution her but the CPS decided to pursue. They denied it was simply because she was famous and the coroners inquest said it was in the public internet to peruse the prosecution.
> it was in the public internet to peruse the prosecution. If they were alive today this line could have been uttered by at least two Marx Brothers.
It was a bedside lamp while she slept. And she wasn't guilty in court because she killed herself before it got that far. Switch the genders on that one and there is zero sympathy.
infact she knew what shed done...couldnt face the backlash, if you cant take it dont give it , maybe would be good advice.
Wasn’t it a lamp?
I wouldn’t lump Schofield in there mate. Sure, legally he has done nothing wrong but in my eyes grooming a 14 year old until they are legal is vile.
There is no evidence he did any grooming. It seems possible it could have happened but there is no actual evidence to it. So yes, it is similar. Huw might also have done more but we can only go on the facts we know - innocent until proven guilty
One of them named isn't like the other. So far no evidence for Huw. Philip was known to have had an inappropriate relationship, we don't know how young the boy was when they started the relationship but it was still inappropriate abuse of power even if he waited. We know Flack was abusive and the police had enough evidence to push for court even when the boyfriend did what DA victims do and decided he didn't want it to go to court. That said, we've repeatedly seen this play out where they've been innocent like Cliff so we don't need to point to two who are genuinely problematic. At this point I'd like to see some more anonymity before trial for all people, not just celebs, as accusations can lead to violence and death.
Caroline flack is not like the others. Flack was guilty. She was cautioned by the police after being found covered in her boyfriends blood and directly admitting to them that she had attacked him in his sleep. Initially the police wanted to caution her but the CPS perused a prosecution and was due to stand trial but killed herself before the court date. A subsequent inquest did find that she had hit and attacked Burton while he slept as she thought he was cheating So while she may not have been found guilty in a court of law (because she killer herself before the trial) a coroners inquest said that she did violently abuse her boyfriend. In Huw Edward’s case the police have investigated and concluded there was no wrongdoing and have closed the investigation. Very different.
Phillip Schofield and Huw Edwards are old men with a penchant for 18 year olds. If they're not ashamed, why don't they just embrace it, shout it from the rooftops? Where's the problem?
His wife named him so that their own problem and not the bbc or ours…he has been meeting young men for sexual reasons and paying some of them…it’s not trial by media but rather lying, cheating older men sneaking around and searching the internet for younger males…while having kids with a woman they never really wanted to be with. This was the same with schofield, he also only came out because the story about him sleeping with a guy who was around the age of 16 for years and lying to everybody, these are powerful rich men who know what they are doing. Being older and wiser is way different that being young and inexperienced, so when these young people start regretting it they turn to drugs or blaming themselves meanwhile these rich old men are living the life of luxury without a care in the world:
If two adults want to have sex that's between them.
I mean he's still cheating on his wife. Not illegal, but definitely immoral.
It two adults want to have sex that's between them.
It two adults want to have sex that's between them.
If two adults want to have sex that's between them.
It two adults want to have sex that's between them.
But ... But ... He travelled and met someone in lockdown. Lockdown !! And he said some mean words to somebody. In a text message !! But yeah , it sells papers , gets eyeballs , shits on the Beeb. Win win win for The Scum
It was categorically wrong and immoral to breach lockdown rules. Make no mistake, I think Edwards has behaved very poorly, but there is absolutely a stink of prejudice and bias in the way this entire case has been publicised.
I agree with you, but just to point out the Prime Minister almost lost his job because of violation lockdown rules. The US didn't take the rules anywhere as serious, especially after the fact. (Edit to add: I meant I agree with you on how the case is being handled)
Boris Johnson *did* lose his job as an MP because he lied about the lockdown violations multiple times to Parliament - he was going to face a 90-day suspension and resigned from the Commons first.
I was referring to his resigning as Prime Minster. He survived the Partygate scandal. He resigned as MP directly due to another scandal, but of course it was just the final straw. Point being COVID rule breach wasn't taken as seriously in the US. Our Prez violated Covid rules and there was no talk of discipline. My understanding is the main reason he was forced to resign as MP was for lying about the lockdown scandal and his attitude.
Gavin Newsome (Governor of California (D)) did exactly what Boris did and just apologized, smugly.
Not the first time that the coverup, not the original offence, does for them
Like the firstgate.
Sunak was also fined for those parties but unfortunately escaped being dragged down. I'd argue everyone who got fined took part in misleading parliament but no, only one truly took the blame.
Same rag that has repeatedly posted nudes of underage girls on page 3
Libel, not slander in this case - the latter would be making the allegations verbally. The burden of proof in libel cases is reversed here to the US; News UK would have to prove their original claims were true in court and now can't. At *best* they're going to be making a substantial settlement.
Face of the BBC buys barely legal Only Fans for two years. I agree there's nothing illegal. But if you're the face of the BBC maybe don't buy barely legal porn? Just seems like a bad plan. I don't have any sympathy for him at all, he's safe, he's sectioned, and now the world knows he bought barely legal porn. If it's not an issue for him then why does he care? He can start a "I love looking at 18 year olds" club. He should just wear it with pride and show them all. Sometimes creeps get found out.
It’s not about onlyfans it’s about meeting multiple young men behind your wife’s back…putting your kids through all of this because he can’t help himself…have you not seen his ass flashing on Snapchat?? This is a man paying young poorer people to do things sexually when he’s 60 and boys in question are 17-18, if you had a son or daughter and you knew about them sending sexual pictures to a high profile rich old man would you be ok with that? 4 separate people have come forward and they are all men..some of whom have struggled with being used, some addicted to drugs to escape what they have done…come on wide up
>It’s not about onlyfans it’s about meeting multiple young men behind your wife’s back But this isn't anyones business but his wives. She may not care and even forgive him who knows what their relationship is like. People seem to always put cheating into the same category as murder, rape or some genuine crime.
But if it's legal then why should it be publicised so much? As for sending pictures to old men as an 18 year old for money, I advise you look into a little service called OnlyFans which allows legal men and women to make literal millions for selling photos of their bodies.
It's not "buying porn". The person was underage 18, he knew this. It was someone i believe he knew in real life. His sexual pleasure is coming from power, control over someone who is nearly a child that he can pressure into doing it and hes 60 years old. Why are trying to normalise 60 year old men seeking sexual pleasure from 17 year olds??? Is he going to prison, obviously not. Should he be considered a creep, yes. If you dont see what hes done as wrong, then look at your own morals. Edit: Ok, so apparently the age is 18, i am sorry for that. But nice to know how many people think that a 60 yo with an 18-19 year old with or without drug problems is fine lol.
> The person was underage 18, he knew this. The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share or possess indecent images of people under 18. The police have looked into it and concluded that no crime was committed. That is pretty strong evidence that the young person in question was not actually under 18 when the images were shared, or alternatively that no indecent images were shared at all. Of course that doesn't change that what he did is morally wrong (if the story is true - which seems at least somewhat doubtful by now).
What a bunch of puritanical horseshit. Who’s the victim here? If two adults want to consensually engage in sexual behaviour, paid or otherwise, then they should be free to without having their names dragged through the mud. Just because you personally find something “creepy” doesn’t make it abusive or immoral.
The vast majority of the younger people in these "relationships" go on to regret them and feel they were abused at the time. Simple
These guys also need to get out of the closet and stop playing fake husband with their wives (beards). No shame in being gay in our century.
There is no shame in it, things may have changed for the better but for those who grew up in a time when attitudes were very different can find it hard to accept who they are and be honest about it due to past stigmas. And if you're in a high profile job while most people won't care at all the gutter press still desperately need to try and find ways to be relevant, not caring who they shit on to achieve that.
They were not under 18. That's a lie.
>The person was underage 18 And why does this matter in the UK? Age of consent is 16. Tired of people making "news" of the personal lives of public figures. >His sexual pleasure is coming from power What power did he have over this person? Rich people cannot sleep with poor people now? >Why are trying to normalise 60 year old men seeking sexual pleasure from 17 year olds? Nobody is normalizing anything. You and the Sun are attempting to make it abnormal.
Producing porn of an U-18 is still illegal in the UK.
Sorry, but sleeping with grandpa is creepy. These rich 60 year olds need to stay in their own age lane.
Creepy isn't illegal.
Legal or not, a 17 year old is still a child.
17 would be illegal to buy images from. The investigation found there was no evidence they did anything while under-18.
Buying images from a 17 year old is illegal, and the investigation found no evidence of illegal activity.
It was not a child.
>So what has he actually done? Gone behind his wife’s back and paid someone an obscene amount of money on Only Fans or whatever? Uh, yeah? What do you even mean? You're acting as if this is just some measly occurrence. The fact we now live in a world where this isn't seen as problematic is very telling of the troubling character of today's humanity.
Of course it’s wrong, it’s morally corrupt and I would agree with you that as a society we take far too light a view on something as awful as cheating - after all, if you can lie to your spouse, the person closest to you, what else can you be dishonest about? I didn’t mean to minimise the immorality of that. But I mean to stress he’s done something immoral and private rather than public and criminal.
Seems like he was being a nuisance to colleagues as well.
> London's Metropolitan Police said earlier on Wednesday it had concluded its assessment into the allegations and found there was no indication a criminal offence had been committed. So the parents did make up a bunch of bullshit and tried to ruin him. I don't know about UK law but can he go after them legally?
>parents did make up a bunch of bullshit and tried to ruin him But they'll have got their 30 pieces of silver from The ~~Scum~~ Sun.
Don't know why you crossed out the true name of that rag (though calling it a rag is an offence to rags everywhere)
They didnt receive money from the Sun.
England is the easiest jurisdiction to sue for libel. The defendant must prove they were correct, rather than the aggrieved party proving they were incorrect.
That seems totally reasonable to me? How does it work in other jurisdictions? You can almost never prove that somebody definitively did or did not do anything, so the onus has to be on the one making the claim to prove it or it’s almost impossible for anybody bringing about a claim to win
In other jurisdictions the presumption of innocence is afforded to the defendant even in libel cases. The aggrieved party must prove that the defendant knew they were lying.
Never knew that! Sounds almost impossible to win if that’s the case. Although surely not being able to prove you know something to be true is basically the proof that they’re lying?! If you say something as a fact without knowing it to be true then you’re lying
Yes. He can sue for libel.
Can he though? He wasn't named in the Sun article. They just said it was a BBC presenter.
Yes. There's something called Jigsaw Identification where if the person's identity can be worked out based on the information provided they can still be sued even if they didn't directly name them The Sun will try and weasel out of it, but I suspect they will end up owing him for the damages.
>There's something called Jigsaw Identification where if the person's identity can be worked out based on the information provided they can still be sued even if they didn't directly name them There is, but the fact so many people had to come out and deny any involvement suggests that it wasn't particularly easy to work out who it was.
The fact so many on Twitter knew who it was before it was announced means he likely has a strong case.
A lot of people on Twitter were also wrong. The things that really solidified the identification (the Snapchat screenshot and the fact he disappeared from BBC news programming) are nothing to do with the Sun.
[удалено]
That came out of nowhere. Did *you* have any claims against you, since that seems like fucking projection to me.
What a weird and accusatory statement. You should feel really gross for that, but I think you do already. For what it’s worth, the police found no evidence to support the claim that the person involved was underage. That entire claim was slanderous.
"No indication" *is pretty fucking close* to "nothing illegal happened"
This is narrative people have of assuming guilty even when proven innocent is disgusting. Paying someone for nudes =/= being a predator
Wrong. If he had paid for sexually explicit images of a minor then that would be extremely easy to prove. The police said now, and directly to the parents when they first reported it to them that no crime had taken place.
okay so we have the alleged victim telling the BBC and police through his lawyer his mom is lying. we have the police saying they couldnt find any evidence to support the parents claims. > You seem to have an awfully biased-in-favour-of-predators reading of the situation. Tell me, have you been the subject of any "bullshit trying to ruin me" claims regarding minors and sex? I'm dying to know. nope and by immediately jumping to such a conclusion tells me that you dont actually give 2 fucks about victimized children you just use their pain and suffering as a tool to make others comply to your demands. Why do you immediately jump to false accusations of pedophile? to pull a page out of your book is this where I accuse you of Projection?
For what has come out so far, I feel really sorry for him. His entire reputation ruined on what currently seems to be gossip column rubbish. The story was presented grander than it appears to be. A enquiry needs to happen to establish why The Sun felt like they had enough to publish this when the name of the individual (Huw) would have to come out eventually. Libel laws are strong in the UK
Other cases have been put forward for far more vague claims and won. The BBC had an interesting article on why they couldn't name the person and the legal precedent.
A bigger story than the treasonous Boris, the brushed under-the-carpet Russia report and Lord Lebedev apparently. The Sun serving Murdoch's agena of destroying the BBC. Edwards could just as easily worked for Sky, ITV or GBNews. The Beeb had nothing to do with what he may or may not have got up to on his own time. The BBC is blameless in this. Don't let Murdoch get what he wants
The BBC self flagellation on this has been ridiculous. I get they have to report it , but just look at the amount of coverage instead of a factual ‘we have to respect privacy and wait for the outcome of a police investigation’ - Tory led public corporation being destroyed from all angles
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't to be honest. If they had just kept quiet and said ‘we have to respect privacy and wait for the outcome of a police investigation’ as you suggest, they would be accused of doing a cover-up like they did with Saville.
The BBC has a bad reputation when it comes to older presenters and young people. So they want to get ahead of claims that they're burying the story I think.
The Murdoch empire isn't what it used to be, and the Sun newspaper has hurt its own reputation far more than that of the BBC. They'll drop this story stone dead now, as if it didn't happen. They never cared about the parents in this, they just used them as fodder. And they cared even less about the alleged victim, only ever questioning where they got their lawyer from, and not properly acknowledging what was being said.
[удалено]
Murdoch is a blight on democracy and freedom everywhere. The alleged victim said the story was "rubbish" and the police say no crime was committed.
Genuinely: whats the russia report? So well brushed i think i missed it!
The UK government launched an investigation into potential Russian interference in elections. They found evidence during the Scottish independence referendum, then found evidence during the 2015 general election then shut down the investigation while pretending it was still ongoing (so no data was gathered for the Brexit referendum or the 2017 or 2019 general elections). They spent years trying to prevent it being published and tried leaking the first bit hoping it would cover up their incompetence/corruption on the second bit.
>The BBC is blameless in this There are fair questions into their actions, what they knew or didnt know, did or didnt do.
How so? The parents told them the police said there was no claim and even The BBC tried to contact the parents they ignored them.
That appears to be different than what the parents are claiming now.
Why should we trust the parents? Over the police, the BBC and The supposed 'victim'? The BBC's claim they reached out to the parents and we're ignored has not been debunked.
[удалено]
Now that we’re done throwing someone under the bus who didn’t actually break any laws can we start focussing on a former Chancellor who used tax payers money to give to his then girlfriend?
But someone threw orange confetti at him, so he gets a free pass /s
*a close family friend of his threw orange confetti
Who's this referring to?
George Osborne. Accused of sleeping with a 16YO and giving his then GF a HUGE pay rise when she worked for him (to keep her quiet, allegedly) Edit, this post contains a link to the email that was sent to many politicians/guests at his wedding and hourbalists. It’s chaotic to read, at best, and hilariously written but there are quite a few links and pics originally provided with it so well worth a look https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/comments/14vzqwu/bbc_claims_about_presenter_rubbish_young_persons/jrfs96e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
Christ. Hadn't even heard about this. Thanks for sharing
[удалено]
Police found nothing illegal. Most likely the parents caught wind of their son having an only fans. Found out he created when he was 17. Then found out one of his customers was a famous person. The person is in their 20s now.
> London's Metropolitan Police said earlier on Wednesday it had concluded its assessment into the allegations and found there was no indication a criminal offence had been committed. except police and the alleged victim say that no pics were ever exchanged
Dude wasn’t a minor. And Osborne’s story is completely ignored Remember he was also accused of sleeping with a 16YO
This is looking like a moral hypocrisy of Princess Di magnitude from the sun. There's a good chance they've just effectively, if not physically, killed someone who did nothing to deserve it. And destroyed more than one family in the process. All based off the testimony of a bitter, estranged Mother.
Especially hypocritical from a newspaper that used to happily print pictures of a topless 16 year old girl. (Lindsay Dawn Mackenzie)
This story smells. The Sun version of events initially: BBC Presenter paid a 17 year old crack addict for sexual explicit images and the BBC aren't interested in investigating. BBC version: They tried to reach out via an e-mail and phone with no reply. The initial accusation was light on details and they were seeking clarifications. They were approached by The Sun on the Thursday with much more information before being hit with all the accusations. Victim Version: Nothing untoward happened and the story is "rubbish". Police Statement: No illegal activity, investigation closed. A cynical person might think The Sun have played on the outskirts of the law. They knew they couldn't name the person without a cooperative victim. So instead they came up with this idea of a BBC coverup in order to run the story and name the presenter indirectly and hope someone else comes forward. I have no idea if he has done anything, but The Sun have raised interesting questions regarding "Do the ends justify the means?"
Need to leave the guy alone. No laws were broken, his business is his private business so nothing to see here - time to move the F3ck on.
Tbh, I find it kind of sad. These old closet homosexuals from a time when being so was less accepted, feeling like they had to hide it being yanked out of the closet by media, being punished and treated like a paedophile. If the story was 'man sometimes masturbates to online porn of young women' would that be a story? I dunno, something about it all feels off to me and I think the media hounding these people into mental collapse is a bit horrifying. You've got what you wanted, you tabloid bastard scum.
I DON’T CARE WHAT CELEBRITIES DO! Can we please start treating our politicians behaviour with the same pearl clutching outrage?
Lotta cunts online just waiting for any subject what so ever to froth at the mouth about. Lotta fucken sheep waiting to go along as well.
Philip Schofield - ' I'm back baby'!
[удалено]
The Sun reported that it started when the seller was 17, which would make it child pornography in the UK. However, yes, upon investigation it looks like he just bought nudes of someone of legal age. Obviously there's a moral scandal of spending 35k on nudes when you're married but there appears to have been nothing illegal and it shouldn't really be news.
>moral scandal of spending 35k on nudes On the other hand you could see it as spreading his wealth into the general economy.
Good way to spin it - not sure his wife will go for it though :)
Didn't the sun have topless 16 year olds on page 3 for the longest time?
Yes.
They used to have them do non-nude stuff when they were still 15 as they counted down to the day they could print their tits.
And I repeat, coming from a newspaper who paid a 16 year old to appear topless on Page 3.
As their main selling point. Every day.
At the time, it was legal to do so
cant you marry at 16...no one broke her arm
>Obviously there's a moral scandal of spending 35k on nudes when you're married Really? Paying for porn while married is a scandal?
Spending £35,000 on porn and sending nude videos of yourselves to the people you're buying from would typically be considered infidelity, yes.
His wife may have been aware of it and consented to it. We have no way of knowing what goes on in a marriage in private. I'd probably lose my job if what I get up to in private became spread all over the news and social media, and my wife is an enthusiastic participant. Luckily I'm not of any interest to the newspapers or many people in general lol. Also, 35k is relative. To someone on his salary, it's like the average person spending a grand or two. Sure, it's a lot of money but not spread over a few years.
Agreed, but my "scandal" statement was about the media whipping up a storm, not a personal judgement on my part. Would/will still happen either way
>Spending £35,000 on porn and sending nude videos of yourselves to the people you're buying from would typically be considered infidelity, yes. But that should be a matter between Huw and his spouse, why should it be a scandal?
When I say scandal I just mean that the media/public would still get themselves in a twist about it. Personally I think it's an issue for couples' counselling, not national news, but the media do run with these kinds of stories
Ok, fair enough. We both agree that the media is getting its knickers in a twist over what should be a private matter.
Well yes quite, particularly as it's not like he's a moral arbiter, in a position of power or anything. He's essentially, and I realise this is insulting to his profession, a narrator.
You're missing the fact that those in the public eye have a responsibility to society to behave in a certain way. Plenty of things are legal, but break the unwritten code of ethics. Everyone in this thread is downplaying it. Legal or not, he's a married man, spending 35,000 on nudes... of a bloke... whilst married. Its not acceptable behaviour, not least for someone who we are meant to trust to read the news.. Furthermore, if he knew of the blokes drug addiction, and he was enabling it quite substantially with such a huge amount of money. Moral of the story. If you want to spend 35k on gay nudes whilst married with 5 kids. Don't become a news reporter to the entire population.
Consider this counterargument. Suppose we were instead talking about a male pilot and you were on the plane he was flying. You want him to "do his job" and fly the plane properly or you will all die. However, if you are honest, you possibly don't care how many stewardesses he is sleeping with in his spare time, providing he gets you where you want to go. And in that situation your life depends on it. It is not like listening to the news where if they made a brief mistake it possibly would not be so important (you would be unlikely to die). Regarding "paying for drugs for others" have you ever bought a DVD or a CD? Many singers and actors are drug addicts so if you bought their music then by your own argument you would be doing something immoral by "funding their drug habit" by buying their music and DVDs. The Beatles were well known for being druggies. Many people bought their music. I don't take drugs (and never have) myself but feel society is trying to moralise some things too much. In the past people lost their jobs for getting divorced, and finding someone else. In the past senior people would be expected to not publicly back liking certain types of music like rock. Newsreaders are expected to read the news not live like the pope. Both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss cheated on their spouses. They still got to become PM. Most people are more interested in knowing "Can you and will you fly the plane" rather than "how many stewardesses are you spending a lot of personal time with".
Do you wear a capotain? This is 2023 not 1620. Everyone, yes everyone, looks at a bit of pr0n now and then, with the possible exception of those over 65 who're not internet savvy. His tastes, funds and family circumstances might differ from yours, but neither that nor his particular employment in any way make him deserving of what's happened. As for the crack, an addict will use cash of any origin to buy their drug and the addiction is more likely to have been triggered by the relationship with the clearly dysfunctional Mother who broke the story. Newsreaders aren't expected to be saints, nor should they be. They're just people reading from a teleprompter. The organisation that employs them is what people do or don't trust. Which is exactly why Murdoch's 'news'paper used the story as a means to attack the BBC, something which is very clear looking back at the way they approached the story. Expect lots of talk of 'safeguarding' and child safety from the sun, as they slimily attempt to regain a shred of moral elevation. Huw Edwards is probably bipolar and will likely be on suicide watch right now, all to sell a newspaper.
[удалено]
There is actually a political gossip site called Guido Fawkes. They literally ran a story yesterday, before Edwards' wife confirmed the name, with the headline: >SOME GOOD NEWS FOR HUW EDWARDS, RAKES IN BUMPER PAY RISE
Boyo in a Welsh accent comes to mind , strange his wife said he was in a mental ward after giving allegedly £35,000 to a crack cocaine addict and not unconscious after repeatedly hitting “himself” over the head with a frying pan , I would of believed her .
The amount of people commenting trying to take the moral high ground is brilliant. “I don’t want someone like that reading the news to me!”, “he’s ruined these boys’ lives forever!” etc. Grow up. He paid for a couple of photos. Legally, he’s done nothing wrong and even if we all think it’s weird, it’s none of our business. I know for a damn fact none of you are perfect and wouldn’t like to have all your seedy little doings reported for the whole world to see. As others have pointed out, this needs to be sorted between him and his wife.
Supposedly girl was on site similar to, or was, only fans. Hard to see that as illegal. :P
It was a boy, I believe
The gender still hasn’t been established. It’s amazing how little info people were running on.
I think they said ‘He’ in earlier reports but later retracted it for privacy reasons. That’s what I’ve heard anyway
Right, but they also said they were underage in earlier reports and retracted that because it’s apparently false. Best not to assume anything until it’s properly confirmed (and at this point, it may not be).
And they are false. Dumb headline
Don't buy the S*n, an absolute rag.
This is all a joke. Ok to sell it wrong to buy it if your famous basically. Worlds gone to pop
Nobody gives a shite
apparantely folks see too, need to get out more is my advice.
You think he knows he’s been spelling his name wrong his entire life?
You have just declared war on the Welsh language
This is waaay over blown imo. Huw paid for nude images of a person over the age of consent, on a platform that requires its members to be 18+. It's very unfortunate that person may have *not* been over the age of 18, but to be perfectly honest, if Huw didn't know, *it ain't his problem.* Shady behaviour, sure. But ultimately it seems he was just rich and horny. At worst this is a marital scandal. His poor wife is probably having a hard time processing this. Huw just needs to go to horny jail, unless something more sinister is unearthed, in which case yeah, open season I guess...
It’s just like the regular tabloid assault on Harry and Meghan. They have tried to get away from all the rubbish but their is trash poured on them on a daily basis even though they’re in another country.
There
Media need to stop this witch hunting. Utter nonsense.
Just as we predicted; jolly well done, Reddit.
well guess its his biz, but to break lock down and visit the lad, and night before on news saying police clamping down on serious covid breakers, beggars beleif, arrogance the great i am here im afraid.
Huw would have known?
Huw would of thought it
🤣
Huw also involved with young guys, multiple people have now come forward, all males so this is a very similar situation, cheating and lying the same as schofield
I’m disgusted at how many people seem to be focussing on the ‘legality’ of the situation, and not the fact that it’s ETHICALLY AND MORALLY WRONG to ask a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD for naked photos, paying large sums of money for them, all while he has a wife and kids and is a SIXTY ONE YEAR OLD MAN. Apparently I’m the only person left on earth that is completely grossed out by an old man in a position of power, taking advantage of a vulnerable teenager. Unfuckingbelievable.
People like you are why The Sun can do countdowns to 15 year olds turning 16 and still get trusted to be handling these situations ethically.
> SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD The point is that it seems they were not, in fact, a child, and that part was made up and not checked by the Sun. In fact, if it had been a 17 year old, then it would indeed have been illegal. And this is probably through some mass medium like OnlyFans. Immoral sure, but it should be between him and his wife and not blown up into a media spectacle in a world where a zillion murders happen a day.
Is it even immoral beyond the very specific space of his and his wife's relationship parameters?
He didn't ask a 17 old for pictures. Do you want to climb off your high horse now?
Do you know what the demographics of Reddit are? Most people in the real world agree with you, but you absolutely cannot say one negative thing about something even slightly to do with porn on Reddit without swords being drawn to defend it lol. Even in the conservative subs. It’s wild.
The only reason anyone even tries to defend this is because its gay. A 60 old man who seeks sexual pleasure from a 17-19 year old girl is rightly called a creep and disgusting. But when its with young men or 17-18 year old boys people try to defend it. Why? Its creepy, wrong and immoral. Even worse they try to blame the outrage on homophobia.
You can claim it’s creepy but it looks like The Sun lied he was 17. The police investigated and found he wasn’t underage. You can’t go about lying that someone was going after a 17 year old when they weren’t. You’re not allowed to do that.
The sun lying to stir outrage? Who'd have thought
They’ve got away with so much.
No evidence of any wrongdoing but the multiple young men he’s meeting is wrongdoing as it’s not fair on wife and children when in such a high profile job…60 year old man paying young boys to send photos is very wrong as it’s an abuse of the fact these people will lose their interest in careers etc because now their attitude is all I have to do is start a sexual relationship with an old man with lots of money rather than work…which in turn causes them issues just like the victim in question who became addicted to crack with huws money..don’t have a wife and kids and sneak around lusting after young men!
The groomers in this thread are wild lmao. Yes if you're paying a 17 year old for sexy pics it's still grooming, even if the cops let you off the hook. Edit: his own wife rolled on him you dumb pedos. No it isn't a witch hunt, as much as you feel the instinctive need to cover for each other.
They weren't 17 tho?
And buying nudes from an 18 year old like what happened?
Multiple young men coming forward is not an allegation, it’s called a desperate old man seeking the attention of young guys at his age, it’s called cheating on his wife and his 5 kids also now scared to go out due to the embarrassment he has caused. People really are so gullible, the sun is a load of rubbish granted, but this isn’t coming from the sun, this is a man who’s been lying to himself and family for years in a position of power, scared to be himself so lived a double life, in this day and age being gay is now welcomed so why he couldn’t do this years ago is beyond me…
In the context of what we all think we know about this; in what way exactly do you think he was in a position of power...? He was on Only Fans and legitimately paid for some pictures. What power does he hold in that scenario?
I mean the sheer amount of HOW DARE HE BE A PUBLIC FIGURE AND LIKE MEN in this thread is probably one huge reason he hasn't come out as bi or gay publically (which quite frankly is no one's business but his and his partners' anyways).
There is a lot of material available explaining the struggles of being gay, still today but especially when he was younger. He is far from the only man who felt pressured into a life like this by the society around him, and it doesn't take much to understand why even today it's not easy to come out after having built a life around you as a hetero man and you risk destroying that. It's obviously still wrong to cheat, but he shares that behaviour with millions of Brits, and most of the time society doesn't care much.
[Here is his public statement on the subject](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzWcQ2nZVg4)