Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

Pickman's model said:
It's still the urban way tho and it's been such a staple of threads for years that it's clear mm not the only and def not the worst offender
Click to expand...
I rarely do it. I was just wondering why someone would think it appropriate to suggest I take my ten year old to a penis museum. I thought it was a wind up.
 
bimble said:
This is probably why the man’s not been named:
www.theguardian.com

Bloomberg loses landmark UK supreme court case on privacy

Media will find it harder to publish information about people in criminal investigations
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

That’s pretty big recent change in case law - the principle now (in cases where it could be that a crimes been committed) is a right to privacy during any investigation until / unless actually charged with an offence.
Click to expand...

Which is as it should be IMO. Too many innocent people have been monstered by the tabloids and the legions of ghouls they command.
 
Looby said:
Putting legalities aside for a moment, I’m continually surprised that there’s a question over this being a safeguarding issue or whether calls the older person’s morality and character into question.
This presenter doesn’t have to have broken the law for the BBC to decide he doesn’t have a place in their shows.

I supported a child of the same age through an issue with an older male behaving in a sexually inappropriate way and grooming them. A law might not have been broken (I feel it was) but it was still absolutely wrong for this much older man to behave the way they had been towards someone who was vulnerable.

On a professional level, I see the damage that is done to young people that might not be clear immediately.
16/17/18 year olds (and older) are in a really vulnerable place because the laws do not safeguard them in the same ways and it’s hard to ‘take action’ but they’re not mature. They’re still naive as hell, lack judgment and easily influenced by older, more powerful people.

Personally, I did shitloads of stuff and put myself in lots of risky situations thinking I was an adult and could handle it and even liked it. I wish someone had been looking out for me.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but a law was broken if the presenter acquired sexualised pictures of someone under 18, even if above the age of consent.
 
Dystopiary said:
I agree with this, but a law was broken if the presenter acquired sexualised pictures of someone under 18, even if above the age of consent.
Click to expand...
Is it that simple though? If someone chooses to broadcast themselves for money via an adult website, doesn’t the client have the reasonable expectation that they are an adult? (Assuming that is what happened).
 
Dystopiary said:
I agree with this, but a law was broken if the presenter acquired sexualised pictures of someone under 18, even if above the age of consent.
Click to expand...
Yes of course. I was making the point that regardless of law in your particular country/state it’s still gross and exploitative which is why it’s a big deal. Some here can’t see the issue if he was an adult or close to.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
I do enjoy it when you ‘like’ posts that refer to things that happened before you signed up.
Click to expand...
So, even though you said you accepted I was being honest (which I was) about not being a returner, you actually don't.
Whenever I dare to disagree with you, out come the false accusations.
I could tell you a load of stuff about myself and my life which would show you I haven't been here before, but I'm not going to trust you, so Idk what else I can do.
I like posts that I agree with, find interesting, to show solidarity with someone etc.
What posts have I liked that refer to things that happened before?
 
Looby said:
Yes of course. I was making the point that regardless of law in your particular country/state it’s still gross and exploitative which is why it’s a big deal. Some here can’t see the issue if he was an adult or close to.
Click to expand...
Am I wrong in thinking there’s a difference between someone voluntarily signing up to a cam website and them being groomed for that purpose? I mean the end result is the same but is it different regarding the voyeur?
 
Dystopiary said:
So, even though you said you accepted I was being honest (which I was) about not being a returner, you actually don't.
Whenever I dare to disagree with you, out come the false accusations.
I could tell you a load of stuff about myself which and my life which would show you I haven't been here before, but I'm not going to trust you, so Idk what else I can do.
I like posts that I agree with, find interesting, to show solidarity with someone etc.
What posts have I liked that refer to things that happened before?
Click to expand...
I’ve already been told off for doing this on this thread so apologies for not playing.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
Am I wrong in thinking there’s a difference between someone voluntarily signing up to a cam website and them being groomed for that purpose? I mean the end result is the same but is it different regarding the voyeur?
Click to expand...
I think they’re all gross and my husband would be gone if he used one but there’s a difference between a 17/18 year old desperate for money and a 30 year old celeb who is looking to cash in while they can.
 
If it was an OnlyFans thing the celeb should come out fighting, "I paid for content from a creator on OnlyFans, he was 18 and I am over 18, two adults legally operating with full consent. He can't have been 17 as you can't post content on OnlyFans until you are 18."
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
If it was an OnlyFans thing the celeb should come out fighting, "I paid for content from a creator on OnlyFans, he was 18 and I am over 18, two adults legally operating with full consent. He can't have been 17 as you can't post content on OnlyFans until you are 18."
Click to expand...
I guess because it’s still damaging even if it was all legal.
 
philosophical said:
If it is who it has been suggested to me it is, then there is a very substantial age differential.
Click to expand...

Well yeh, 60 as opposed to 20 (by their ages today). But that's not really the issue. If this guy knew that the young lad was using the cash for crack then that's awful. I mean the whole thing's fucking gross but if he knew that, then. He deserves all the shit coming his way.
 
Petcha said:
Well yeh, 60 as opposed to 20 (by their ages today). But that's not really the issue. If this guy knew that the young lad was using the cash for crack then that's awful. I mean the whole thing's fucking gross but if he knew that, then. He deserves all the shit coming his way.
Click to expand...
How do we know the alleged person is 60?
 
Looby said:
Yes of course. I was making the point that regardless of law in your particular country/state it’s still gross and exploitative which is why it’s a big deal. Some here can’t see the issue if he was an adult or close to.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about not seeing an issue, I think anyone middle aged (or younger) involving themselves sexually with an 18/19 year old is creepy as fuck and there is a huge capacity for abuse and exploitation. But also there are many young people doing this kind of low level sex work who do not feel they are being exploited, who are able to maintain bounderies and who would not appreciate their parents sticking their oar in and running off to the tabloids with tittle tattle about their sexual behaviour.

That's not to make excuses for whichever creepy old perv this turns out to be, just a recognition that young people have autonomy and we do not yet know whether they have consented to being part of the inevitable salacious media circus that is likely to come.
 
friedaweed said:
Who? I though we didn't know who it was.
Click to expand...

It's out there on the web, but no, im not gonna post the name here.

The BBC are damned if they do and damned if they dont here by not naming/naming him. But their initial handling of it. Unbelievable. It's been almost 2 months since the complaint was made. I'm still unsure as to why the parents didn't contact the police first though, rather than his employer.
 
Aren't there lots of names on the web including the poor chap you just posted about? How do you know that this one is true? Just asking like, I don't do twitter etc so I actually have no idea who you're talking about.
 
Petcha said:
I'm still unsure as to why the parents didn't contact the police first though, rather than his employer.
Click to expand...

Lots of possible reasons, from the victims apparent drug use through to not actually being aware any criminal offence had been committed. It seems perfectly reasonable for them to have contacted the BBC, especially if all they wanted, at least initially, was for the behaviour to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Gramsci
Gramsci
danny la rouge
5:2 Diet book author and TV presenter, Michael Mosley, missing
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
7K
Maggot
Maggot
Larry O'Hara
Bowyer Bell Secret Army BBC 27.3.24
Replies
21
Views
621
JimW
JimW
Wilf
Things you'd like to see over the next 6 weeks
Replies
24
Views
801
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
E
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
4K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Back
Top Bottom