BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

[andysays]

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

whether or not it's "the Urban way", it's still generally really tedious (imo, of course).

and mm isn't the worst offender, but he's the one doing it here.

anyway...

 

[Magnus McGinty]

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

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.

 

[platinumsage]

If it is who it has been suggested to me it is, then there is a very substantial age differential.

Aren't all "household name" BBC presenters 50+?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Aren't all "household name" BBC presenters 50+?

Paddy McGuinness is a month shy.

 

[SpookyFrank]

This is probably why the man’s not been named:

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

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.

Which is as it should be IMO. Too many innocent people have been monstered by the tabloids and the legions of ghouls they command.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Another reminder about libel laws:

Quality Post

 

[Dystopiary]

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.

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]

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.

Rarely? Just me and Tanya, hmm.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

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.

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).

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Rarely? Just me and Tanya, hmm.

I do enjoy it when you ‘like’ posts that refer to things that happened before you signed up.

 

[Looby]

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.

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.

 

[Dystopiary]

I do enjoy it when you ‘like’ posts that refer to things that happened before you signed up.

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?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

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.

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?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

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?

I’ve already been told off for doing this on this thread so apologies for not playing.

 

[Looby]

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?

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.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

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."

 

[Magnus McGinty]

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."

I guess because it’s still damaging even if it was all legal.

 

[Petcha]

If it is who it has been suggested to me it is, then there is a very substantial age differential.

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.

 

[friedaweed]

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.

How do we know the alleged person is 60?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Has it been mentioned that the teenager is male? I seem to have missed that.

 

[smokedout]

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.

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.

 

[Petcha]

I've got a lot of time for Nicky Campbell. Considering he's just come out public over his own abuse as a child this is even worse.

Nicky Campbell notifies police after being falsely identified in BBC scandal

Presenter says he had ‘distressing weekend’ after he was wrongly named as man accused of paying teenager for explicit images

www.theguardian.com

 

[Petcha]

How do we know the alleged person is 60?

Erm, because it's on his wikipedia?

 

[friedaweed]

Erm, because it's on his wikipedia?

Who? I though we didn't know who it was.

 

[Petcha]

Who? I though we didn't know who it was.

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.

 

[friedaweed]

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.

 

[Mumbles274]

Has it been mentioned that the teenager is male? I seem to have missed that.

It's been mentioned here. Is that the case? Just says young person on BBC news website

 

[platinumsage]

I'm still unsure as to why the parents didn't contact the police first though, rather than his employer.

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.

 

[likesfish]

the SUN paid and put Samantha fox topless on page 3 at 16.
so they claiming anysort of outrage is bollocks

 

[DJWrongspeed]

There’s an awful lot going on in the world and this does not clamour for my attention.