[News] Huw Edwards

[A1X]

I couldn't be bothered to post yesterday, but I'd decided to watch the BBC six O'clock news. Well, the lead item was Huw Edwards. How can they prioritise the (not so) private life of this non entity above Putin's genocide ? Suffice to say, I didn't get to see the news last night.

Because the reality is if they had led on anything else the tabloids would have vented their collective spleen about the BBC "covering it up" or similar

 

[jcdenton08]

wasnt disagreeing with you, your first sentance though (to me at least)read as he had almost randomly asked a sweet niave 17 yr old to send him pictures nott that he was on a site where that is the whole point
sorry for any confusion

Oh I see, no, that isn’t what I meant.

Most content providers allow for “custom” requests for specific kinks. Reading inbetween the lines of the reporting, this looks a possibility. E.g “I’ll pay you £200 if you do a video doing this, or wearing that” etc.

 

[GT49er]

Well, without going too far into the realms of speculation, what is being reported is that he has allegedly paid a 17 year old to produce indecent images.

Realistically, the police and crown would need proof that he knew the person was underage, or could’ve reasonably assumed that they were. If he could reasonably claim he didn’t know, it would be next to impossible to secure a conviction.

For example, if an agreement was made via contact through OnlyFans, their terms and conditions state that content creators must be over 18. If they didn’t look visibly underage, it would be reasonable for a viewer to assume they are over 18 and that OnlyFans have done their due diligence.

In short, the crime would be Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.10. And subsequent to that, possession of indecent images.

However, I repeat, there is absolutely no suggestion he has acted illegally at this time.

This is roughly where I sit on this. I know there are things you have to be 18 (or say you are eighteen!) for, like buying alcohol or tobacco, and (this is where the saying you are 18 comes in) joining some websites for example. But the legal age for sex in this country is still 16, so no matter how reprehensible Edwards' behaviour may have been, it does not appear to be illegal.
Yes, dismissal for bringing the BBC into disrepute would seem reasonable - but that's it; end of story.

 

[nickbrighton]

This is roughly where I sit on this. I know there are things you have to be 18 (or say you are eighteen!) for, like buying alcohol or tobacco, and (this is where the saying you are 18 comes in) joining some websites for example. But the legal age for sex in this country is still 16, so no matter how reprehensible Edwards' behaviour may have been, it does not appear to be illegal.
Yes, dismissal for bringing the BBC into disrepute would seem reasonable - but that's it; end of story.

but why ? lets assume everything is actually legal,and consensual. No one has done anything wrong, no one has been injured, or damaged , other than by the press making this out to be something it isnt, and thereby causing distress to all perties . Why should someone lose their mental health, job, and livelihood over it.

Public figures are entitled to a private life, and salicious gossip mongers and self righteous do gooders have destroyed yet another life for the sake of a bit of tittle tattle. Unfortunatly he wont be the last because those who have actually done wrong in this case will face no questioning, no press speculation, no lurid headlines. They will just look for the next victim, regardless of the cost or percieved moral justification

 

[worthingweird]

Well, without going too far into the realms of speculation, what is being reported is that he has allegedly paid a 17 year old to produce indecent images.

Realistically, the police and crown would need proof that he knew the person was underage, or could’ve reasonably assumed that they were. If he could reasonably claim he didn’t know, it would be next to impossible to secure a conviction.

For example, if an agreement was made via contact through OnlyFans, their terms and conditions state that content creators must be over 18. If they didn’t look visibly underage, it would be reasonable for a viewer to assume they are over 18 and that OnlyFans have done their due diligence.

In short, the crime would be Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.10. And subsequent to that, possession of indecent images.

However, I repeat, there is absolutely no suggestion he has acted illegally at this time.

Ignorance is no defence...

 

[GT49er]

Ignorance is no defence...

Irrelevant. When there is no crime there is no need for defence.

 

[bWize]

This is roughly where I sit on this. I know there are things you have to be 18 (or say you are eighteen!) for, like buying alcohol or tobacco, and (this is where the saying you are 18 comes in) joining some websites for example. But the legal age for sex in this country is still 16, so no matter how reprehensible Edwards' behaviour may have been, it does not appear to be illegal.
Yes, dismissal for bringing the BBC into disrepute would seem reasonable - but that's it; end of story.

The laws for sex in the country are 16+ but sending or receiving indecent images of anyone under 18 is illegal.

 

[Napper]

the blokes a deviant . Hopefully he has got help and addressed the issues he had and has resolved with his family and they all live happily moving forward.

 

[boik]

the blokes a deviant . Hopefully he has got help and addressed the issues he had and has resolved with his family and they all live happily moving forward.

Wow! If that's your definition of a deviant then I'm completely at a loss how you manage to survive in the modern world.

 

[Justice]

Oh shit I’ve been caught being a tad noncey, do you think a convincing breakdown should get me off the hook? FFS is anyone believing this guy?

 

[GT49er]

The laws for sex in the country are 16+ but sending or receiving indecent images of anyone under 18 is illegal.

Fair enough, that's the law. It's daft though, isn't it - ask them to send you a nude picture - go to gaol. Shag 'em, that's fine, you're in the clear!

 

[worthingweird]

Irrelevant. When there is no crime there is no need for defence.

Atm...

 

[Pevenseagull]

...and with that.

Huw Edwards charged with making indecent images of children

The former BBC News presenter will appear in court on Wednesday.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Napper]

...and with that.

Huw Edwards charged with making indecent images of children

The former BBC News presenter will appear in court on Wednesday.

www.bbc.co.uk

and there it is. It just takes time to come out.

Pretty obvious from the start what this guy probably is

**if / when a guilty verdict is made

 

[RandyWanger]

f***ing wrongun

 

[Pavilionaire]

Career over, reputation shattered.

 

[Jackthelad]

Yikes category A which is the most severe according to the bbc. he seemed like one of the most unlikely people but then again we didn’t really know him did we.

 

[Birdie Boy]

If found guilty, he could receive a sentence of up to six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

That doesn't sound much. I take it they didn't charge him over that girl that he allegedly paid.

 

[The Rattler]

If found guilty, he could receive a sentence of up to six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

That doesn't sound much. I take it they didn't charge him over that girl that he allegedly paid.

Girl?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Career over, reputation shattered.

Big pension pot!