BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.
- Thread starter Calamity1971
- Start date
TheWolfshead
Well-Known Member
Maybe not but the amount of money mentioned would certainly enable him.
19sixtysix
Life as viewed from a Gay Gorbals Garret
The Sun has reguarily bought pictures of under 18 year olds and published them in the paper.
Not sure I can see any difference in their behaviour.
Not sure I can see any difference in their behaviour.
gosub
~#
Not sure Rupert Murdoch is being blackmailed by a crackhead for it
bimble
floofy
What a pile of shit of a story, thing comes from the mother (of this now 20 yr old person) choosing to phone the sun about it for £££ ? Probably inspired by the downfall of what’s it from the tv sofa. Saving what’s left of my moral outrage for something less ridiculous.
Last edited:
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
The report makes t clear she wasn't paid. she reported it to The Sun after BBC did nothing after she reported it to them in May.
Cid
Proper break this time
That is what my post was clarifying, yes. Evidently I should rethink my choice of words.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Have you been on the piss with Petcha?
bimble
floofy
nope. Will leave it. Bit envious of anyone who can get upset about this is all really, that must be nice.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Ah, you’ve been sniffing the Sherry cork with Sass!
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
And in the eyes of the law you were not an adult!
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Fair enough. If however, there is a thirty year age difference, what then?
circleline
Well-Known Member
Samantha Fox was just 16 when she started as a 'page 3' girl in The Sun.. Actually a child.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
No, generally he (or one of his outlets) would be the one doing the blackmailing, too.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I imagine the person supplying the pictures realised they could put the price up rather a lot lest they let it become public what was going on.
Not sure why the crack angle has relevance tbh. Unless the TV star was literally saying "Here, now go spend it on some crack."
Throbbing Angel
Well-Known Member
ikwym - but me as a 17 yr old and my kids, one of each, as a 17 yr old(s) were three very different people. I was an adult. Boy was almost there. Lil'Angel isn't an adult yet.
I haven't read a lot of this thread but does it involve someone having an OnlyFans, or similar, when they shouldn't have, being under 18 I mean?
It's like a game of GuessWho innit.
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
I have no idea. But being sent large amounts of money by someone for sex pics isn't going to help if you're already vulnerable you dickhead. The onus isn't on the teen, it's on the older wealthier bloke who has used him.
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
I was still a child at 17. I thought I was a clever cunt back then. Looking back, I was an average teen making mistakes and working out rights and wrongs with views I don't hold now.
Whether the mother or the bloke are trying to make money now is irrelevant.
The fact is, that some sleazy twat paid someone for pics for his own gratification and probably knew the lad was underage and had problems.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
As mentioned above, I think we need to wait and see what comes out here. Why would someone pay 35 grand for pics, when similar are available on the internet for free, and not illegal? According to The Sun, the mother complained to the BBC in May that this person was still paying the boy for pictures and he's 20 now. So this presenter continued to pay for pictures (and the boy continued to send them) after the parents and his employer had been made aware.
Hmmmmm ...
Last edited:
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Could we have some information on what this judgement has to do with the topic, or what you think about it?
not a trot
Well-Known Member
Tories loving all this. Never mind how sleazy we are, look at those lefty BBC types.
Similar threads
