BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

[gosub]

He does have a longstanding history of depression.

Huw Edwards tells of 20-year struggle with depression

BBC’s chief newsreader says illness has at times been so severe it has left him ‘bedridden’

www.theguardian.com

And came off anti depressants shortly before this started...came off Venlafaxine end ot 2019

 

[Epona]

Right I couldn't be arsed to read the last 10 pages of this thread (sorry, it's late) - I have caught up enough to know who is at the centre of the allegations.

I'd appreciate a bit of a summary - has it been determined that he has actually done anything illegal? Or is he just being hounded by the tabloid press for sales/clicks and anti-BBC sentiment?

 

[editor]

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Forgive me if I've missed something here as I've not followed much of this story, but is it the case that Edwards has broken no laws and the complaint was from the young person's parents (the young person being an adult who had nowt to do with the complaint)? If yes, why do a lot of people seem to be going along with the hypocritical bullshit disapproving moralism of the Sun and Daily Mail? What am I missing?

I think there were/are questions about the age of the first alleged victim as to how old they were when the interactions first started and the nature of photographs exchanged, and they've been variously reported as being a young person/a 20-year-old/a teenager/a 17-year-old - I suppose this depends on when things happened and how old they were at the time. (Obviously hard to clarify given the alleged victim's right to anonymity.)

Some people have pointed out that * if * the initial contact was via a dating site rather than just social media more broadly, then such sites usually have a minimum age of 18, so it would have been fair for another user of such a site/app to assume the young person was 18 or older.

Others have pointed out that * if * an older person met with a younger person and * if * anything happened between them, there's not necessarily any crime involved, if both are over the age of consent, which is 16-years-old in the UK.

However, in relation to that last point, even though two people with a large age gap might be able to legally meet and engage in consensual activities, providing they're both over 16, a weird legal anomaly means that while in-person stuff might not be illegal, the issue of sharing/receiving/viewing photographs of a minor might be something that an older person could get into trouble for.

So people have been raising those kinds of issues, generally speaking, of course, because it's not known for a fact what happened, when, and how old the parties were were in this particular case when certain things are alleged to have been said/messaged and photos shared.

 

[gosub]

Right I couldn't be arsed to read the last 10 pages of this thread (sorry, it's late) - I have caught up enough to know who is at the centre of the allegations.

I'd appreciate a bit of a summary - has it been determined that he has actually done anything illegal? Or is he just being hounded by the tabloid press for sales/clicks and anti-BBC sentiment?

Police both the Met and South Wales police didn't think there was a criminal case to be made.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Rod Liddle on BBC Newsnight. Never realised what a total cunt he is.

Yeah, he's got previous.

Accepted a caution for punching his pregnant girlfriend. Although subsequently denied it.

Editors have normalised hate, from Rod Liddle to Katie Hopkins | Suzanne Moore

The publication of racist views is now permissible – and the print media is to blame, says Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore

www.theguardian.com

 

[BristolEcho]

He does have a longstanding history of depression.

Huw Edwards tells of 20-year struggle with depression

BBC’s chief newsreader says illness has at times been so severe it has left him ‘bedridden’

www.theguardian.com

Yeah he's spoken about length at this.

It appears he admitted himself into hospital which I imagine is private, and he's very lucky to be able to do that during a personal crisis as most people wouldn't have the option. It's a bit different to being sectioned under the mental health act really - though I have no doubt he is suffering at the moment.

 

[Epona]

It must be awful for him - I mean it looks like at this point nothing illegal has happened, he's been hounded from pillar to post, and already had a history of mental health problems/depression.

I'll be ready to change my stance if the young person involved says they were abused or misused or coerced or led astray, but it doesn't look like anything major has gone on here apart from a tabloid that we all know to be an absolute piece of shit hounding someone to the point where they've had to check themselves into a psychiatric unit.

Shame on the Sun (again).

 

[Artaxerxes]

Right I couldn't be arsed to read the last 10 pages of this thread (sorry, it's late) - I have caught up enough to know who is at the centre of the allegations.

I'd appreciate a bit of a summary - has it been determined that he has actually done anything illegal? Or is he just being hounded by the tabloid press for sales/clicks and anti-BBC sentiment?

A few latecomers on the BBC staff say they've been made uncomfortable by him flirting or his comments but I've not seen anything on the scale of Clarkson punching or wandering hands been mentioned

 

[MrSki]

 

[tim]

Well the BBC has always treated stories about itself as matters of the most importance, even when its bad news.

I suppose it matters in so much as the BBC has been the face of modern propaganda since the 1926 general strike.

With regard to the current scandal, maybe, there are also lots of journalists working for the BBC who resent or dislike both Huw Edwards and Tim Davie.

 

[krtek a houby]

Well the BBC has always treated stories about itself as matters of the most importance, even when its bad news.

I suppose it matters in so much as the BBC has been the face of modern propaganda since the 1926 general strike.

Imagine the furore if the story was played down or dropped from BBC bulletins, though.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

A few latecomers on the BBC staff say they've been made uncomfortable by him flirting or his comments but I've not seen anything on the scale of Clarkson punching or wandering hands been mentioned

We don’t know what the precise details of the complaints about him from fellow workers are. We do know they allege ‘an abuse of power’ (according to the story on Newsnight yesterday).

The complaints from junior staff need to be handled by the employer and hopefully the BBC workers union via a proper investigation.

We shouldn’t tolerate or excuse away harassment under any circumstances and there is clearly a set of complaints - and possibly a wider culture within that part of the BBC - that need to be examined here.

 

[seeformiles]

And came off anti depressants shortly before this started...came off Venlafaxine end ot 2019

I’ve done that - sent me loopy for a bit

 

[cupid_stunt]

I did laugh yesterday that the BBC were doing the whole 'BBC News is separate from the rest of the BBC' thing when covering the story, even though the story was very much about BBC News and it was only a matter of time before that became clear.

And, how the replacement presenter on Monday night's News at Ten kept a straight face, when she said something like 'we at BBC News don't know who the presenter is', when standing in for him, I'll never know.

 

[Thora]

Right I couldn't be arsed to read the last 10 pages of this thread (sorry, it's late) - I have caught up enough to know who is at the centre of the allegations.

I'd appreciate a bit of a summary - has it been determined that he has actually done anything illegal? Or is he just being hounded by the tabloid press for sales/clicks and anti-BBC sentiment?

Turns out he's a dirty old perv, probably cheating on his wife, maybe a workplace bully, but not actually committed a crime.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Yeah, he's got previous.

Accepted a caution for punching his pregnant girlfriend. Although subsequently denied it.

Editors have normalised hate, from Rod Liddle to Katie Hopkins | Suzanne Moore

The publication of racist views is now permissible – and the print media is to blame, says Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore

www.theguardian.com

by his own depraved admission, Liddle shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near children:

 

[1927]

Turns out he's a dirty old perv, probably cheating on his wife, maybe a workplace bully, but not actually committed a crime.

Is any of that confirmed? Apart from the fact that he’s done nothing illegal!

 

[1927]

Isnt it entirely possible that the reason we havent heard anything from the “victim” and the fact that they were trying to downplay the criminal aspect was that the £35k was not for photos but a pay off from an attempted blackmail?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Is any of that confirmed? Apart from the fact that he’s done nothing illegal!

The allegations from 3 of his colleagues in the workplace are being investigated. Hopefully via a fair and transparent process involving their union reps.

Given his senior position and influence and the junior status of those making the complaints there is clearly an abuse of power issue - along with the sex harassment complaints - that need to be properly scrutinised

 

[1927]

The allegations from 3 of his colleagues in the workplace are being investigated. Hopefully via a fair and transparent process involving their union reps.

Given his senior position and influence and the junior status of those making the complaints there is clearly an abuse of power issue - along with the sex harassment complaints - that need to be properly scrutinised

No point investigating then if youve already decided that he’s “clearly” guilty of the allegations.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

How to misinterpret a post.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

No point investigating then if youve already decided that he’s “clearly” guilty of the allegations.

I won’t be investigating. His employer will. And the ‘clearly’ you reference was followed by ‘properly scrutinised’. If you don’t think abuses of power exist and are subtly embedded in institutions and industries you haven’t been paying close attention for the past few years.

 

[seeformiles]

Turns out he's a dirty old perv, probably cheating on his wife, maybe a workplace bully, but not actually committed a crime.

Reading his biography, he appears to have had the perfect upright morally upstanding credentials to be the face of the BBC - long term marriage, 5 kids, devout Christian beliefs, regular church attendee, occasional organist, patron of many highbrow institutions, etc. - perhaps he has overcompensated for his other inclinations? Whatever it is, it was a pretty unexpected revelation and I don’t think he’ll be coming back professionally from it. How much did his family know? I feel sorry for them if they were completely in the dark.

 

[Spymaster]

Isnt it entirely possible that the reason we havent heard anything from the “victim” and the fact that they were trying to downplay the criminal aspect was that the £35k was not for photos but a pay off from an attempted blackmail?

You can’t be blackmailed if you’ve nothing to hide.

 

[Chilli.s]

Now the name is out it goes to show what a nothing story this has been all along. Fuckin lazy press/journos pumping out this trivial crap with no value at all when there are far more important investigations to be getting on with

 

[brogdale]

You can’t be blackmailed if you’ve nothing to hide.

A Paul Joseph Goebbels quote?

 

[Ranbay]

You can’t be blackmailed if you’ve nothing to hide.

Yeah, 100% this

I would be mortfied if people knew i posted here.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yeah, 100% this

I would be mortfied if people knew i posted here.

Give us a grand and we’ll keep schtum.

 

[Serge Forward]

I think there were/are questions about the age of the first alleged victim as to how old they were when the interactions first started and the nature of photographs exchanged, and they've been variously reported as being a young person/a 20-year-old/a teenager/a 17-year-old - I suppose this depends on when things happened and how old they were at the time. (Obviously hard to clarify given the alleged victim's right to anonymity.)

Some people have pointed out that * if * the initial contact was via a dating site rather than just social media more broadly, then such sites usually have a minimum age of 18, so it would have been fair for another user of such a site/app to assume the young person was 18 or older.

Others have pointed out that * if * an older person met with a younger person and * if * anything happened between them, there's not necessarily any crime involved, if both are over the age of consent, which is 16-years-old in the UK.

However, in relation to that last point, even though two people with a large age gap might be able to legally meet and engage in consensual activities, providing they're both over 16, a weird legal anomaly means that while in-person stuff might not be illegal, the issue of sharing/receiving/viewing photographs of a minor might be something that an older person could get into trouble for.

So people have been raising those kinds of issues, generally speaking, of course, because it's not known for a fact what happened, when, and how old the parties were were in this particular case when certain things are alleged to have been said/messaged and photos shared.

That's a really clear and helpful explanation. Thanks.