Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

Spymaster said:
Yes.

Worth bearing this in mind whlist everyone's queuing-up to defend Saint Huw of Llanelli, against the nasty right-wing tabloids.
Click to expand...

Well, not everyone, but I do wonder how the justified hatred of the Sun, as the paper that broke the story, is blurring reactions a bit, and if it had been the Mirror instead some people may be reacting slightly differently, and judging by what Kevin Maguire, associate editor at the Daily Mirror, said on last night's Sky Press Review, it could well have done so if the story had been given to them.

He said he believes the media should be able to hold high profile public figures to account for their behavior, and therefore it was a legitimate for the Sun to run the story, but where they may have erred is in inferring the photos started when the person was 17, I guess as there doesn't seem to be evidence of that. He went on to say, the fact that he's 61, and these people are in their early 20s, you don't have to be a great prude to think that's inappropriate, plus the use of money, and the power relationship being incredibly unequal.

I tend to agree with that, although breaking the story shouldn't have developed into a massively ridiculous media frenzy, with so much time wasted on endless speculation, just mention the allegations and that the police are looking into them, and move on to real news. And, as for the twitter twats, I would like to see some of them end-up in court, but I don't expect that to happen.

There's so many unanswered questions about the first allegations, made by the parents that seem to have legit concerns over the safe-guarding of their 'child', about what photos, if any, was sent at what age, and why was Edwards funding their crack habit, allegedly. Also questions about the 'child' saying it's all false, if they are indeed a crack addict receiving sizeable sums from a cash-cow, how reliable are they?

I also find it odd that a number of reporters have said that the police have confirmed there's no criminality, rather than what the two forces actually said, which is they have no evidence of a crime being committed.
“Detectives from the Met’s Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed”, the Metropolitan Police’s statement read.

“In reaching this decision, they have spoken to a number of parties including the BBC and the alleged complainant and the alleged complainant’s family, both via another police force. There is no further police action. As such, the Met has advised the BBC it can continue with its internal investigation.”
Click to expand...
"At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police.

"However, should evidence of criminality or safeguarding issues be identified at any point in future then they will be investigated."
Click to expand...

The parents said they never wanted an investigation, just that the BBC should to talk to him and stop him sending money, so if they have actual evidence that dodgy photos were exchanged when the 'child' was only 17, it's likely they wouldn't be forthcoming with it, and clearly it's not in the 'child's' best interest to do so.

As there doesn't seem to be a complainant in respect of any criminality,, and no evidence is forthcoming, the police have no case to question Edwards or examine his electronic devices, and that is rightly the end of the matter as far as the police are concerned, plus on the basis of innocent until proved guilty, everyone needs to accept that, unless, of course, there's further twists and turns at some point further down the line.

But, whilst nothing illegal appears to have happened, there's still the issue of the parents in turmoil, a young person with a possible crack addiction and allegations that Edwards is funding that addiction, even if not criminal, that could add up to gross misconduct.

The breaking of the story does seem to have empowered others to come forward, as is so often the case when such inappropriate behaviour becomes public, including now staff/former staff of the BBC, which creates a whole load of more questions, and problems for Edwards, and indeed, the BBC.

I can't see a come back for him now.
 
The Sun's defence is, and will be, that they never actually accused him of committing a crime. They just 'put the facts there and left other outlets to join the dots'.

I'm still confused as to how there's no case to answer. I guess the kid was not actually 17 at the time? I assume the Sun has the pictures and nobody's actually denied that bit's true so it must just be a question of how old he was when they were taken.
 
There are ethical issues around the use of porn, as I raised earlier in the thread, but those can't be laid solely at the door of one man. So let's park them for now.

But it would seem, from the little information we have, that the relationship between Edwards and this young person was akin to an Only Fans type set up, whether through a platform or not we don't know. If the police have decided there as no criminality, these transactions must presumably have occurred after the person was 18.

One assumes the parents were unhappy with this as a lifestyle choice for their offspring, and took their anger and disapproval out on the young person's most famous client. We don't know if there were others. The way this was initially framed implied he had initiated this transactional relationship, and therefore the career, but I didn't actually read the S*n's coverage (obviously), and at this point we don't know that to be the case, as far as I know.

So, no illegality there. It would therefore seem that the S*n were hoping to use the story to see if it would break a dam and bring forth other allegations.

It has done. And we'll wait and see if they are serious and have substance.

The first two seemed to be that he used a "dating app" in a way that showed little regard for lockdown regulations. He wasn't in government, so that's just a matter of an individual being irresponsible. I'm not particularly interested in that at this point in time. (Although as a long covid sufferer I am affected).

Other allegations are more serious: throwing his weight around; and being a workplace sex pest. If they are true, then that's not just a reflection on him, but also on the ethos within the BBC.

So, as a human being I have compassion for him as an individual, and if at the end of this all we have is basically kink shaming, and a matter for him and his family, then we've been played. But if he has been a sex pest, then he needs to take responsibility for that.

Now I will return to fretting about the cost of living and the climate crisis.
 
danny la rouge said:
There are ethical issues around the use of porn, as I raised earlier in the thread, but those can't be laid solely at the door of one man. So let's park them for now.

But it would seem, from the little information we have, that the relationship between Edwards and this young person was akin to an Only Fans type set up, whether through a platform or not we don't know. If the police have decided there as no criminality, these transactions must presumably have occurred after the person was 18.

One assumes the parents were unhappy with this as a lifestyle choice for their offspring, and took their anger and disapproval out on the young person's most famous client. We don't know if there were others. The way this was initially framed implied he had initiated this transactional relationship, and therefore the career, but I didn't actually read the S*n's coverage (obviously), and at this point we don't know that to be the case, as far as I know.

So, no illegality there. It would therefore seem that the S*n were hoping to use the story to see if it would break a dam and bring forth other allegations.

It has done. And we'll wait and see if they are serious and have substance.

The first two seemed to be that he used a "dating app" in a way that showed little regard for lockdown regulations. He wasn't in government, so that's just a matter of an individual being irresponsible. I'm not particularly interested in that at this point in time. (Although as a long covid sufferer I am affected).

Other allegations are more serious: throwing his weight around; and being a workplace sex pest. If they are true, then that's not just a reflection on him, but also on the ethos within the BBC.

So, as a human being I have compassion for him as an individual, and if at the end of this all we have is basically kink shaming, and a matter for him and his family, then we've been played. But if he has been a sex pest, then he needs to take responsibility for that.

Now I will return to fretting about the cost of living and the climate crisis.
Click to expand...

Decent post except for the silly self-censoring of The Sun! 😖
 
BigMoaner said:
The mythical "sex addiction" is another common roll out. Making sure to check into a clinic a few days after being found out, never before of course. Sex addiction has been debunked. It is not an excuse.
Click to expand...
Can you provide links to the debunking of sex addiction?

Clearly there are links between mental illness and various types of compulsive and/or self-destructive or risky behaviours. It shows a really poor understanding of mental health to not get that.
 
Tanya1982 said:
Venlafaxine withdrawal is horrible to be fair. I thought I was coping OK with just the brain zapping and things, until someone in Sainsbury’s banged into my trolley without apologising. Before I knew it, I was in tears, grabbing things off the shelves and lobbing them at her as she ran from the aisle. Fortunately for my criminal record, it was the biscuit aisle, and there were no tins around which would’ve caused her actual harm. They were actually quite understanding - just added the items to my bill at the checkout.
Click to expand...

I'm on it at the moment and took just one day off last week. By the end of that day I was an absolute mess. Good AD mind you but definitely would need a very sensible taper to come off.
 
elbows said:
The BBC were getting so puffed up about the importance of his role yesterday, including talking about how the public would be reeling around in shattered horror at this turn of events. They were only a step or two away from suggesting that we'll have to dig the queen up and rebury her with a different presenter at the helm, and I'll have to check the Radio Times to see when the recoronation of Charles is pencilled in for ;)
Click to expand...
I can think of at least one poster on here who was claiming to know long before most of us had a clue, and bigging up the whole thing because he thought it would make his special knowledge even more special.
 
danny la rouge said:
There are ethical issues around the use of porn, as I raised earlier in the thread, but those can't be laid solely at the door of one man. So let's park them for now.

But it would seem, from the little information we have, that the relationship between Edwards and this young person was akin to an Only Fans type set up, whether through a platform or not we don't know. If the police have decided there as no criminality, these transactions must presumably have occurred after the person was 18.

One assumes the parents were unhappy with this as a lifestyle choice for their offspring, and took their anger and disapproval out on the young person's most famous client. We don't know if there were others. The way this was initially framed implied he had initiated this transactional relationship, and therefore the career, but I didn't actually read the S*n's coverage (obviously), and at this point we don't know that to be the case, as far as I know.

So, no illegality there. It would therefore seem that the S*n were hoping to use the story to see if it would break a dam and bring forth other allegations.

It has done. And we'll wait and see if they are serious and have substance.

The first two seemed to be that he used a "dating app" in a way that showed little regard for lockdown regulations. He wasn't in government, so that's just a matter of an individual being irresponsible. I'm not particularly interested in that at this point in time. (Although as a long covid sufferer I am affected).

Other allegations are more serious: throwing his weight around; and being a workplace sex pest. If they are true, then that's not just a reflection on him, but also on the ethos within the BBC.

So, as a human being I have compassion for him as an individual, and if at the end of this all we have is basically kink shaming, and a matter for him and his family, then we've been played. But if he has been a sex pest, then he needs to take responsibility for that.

Now I will return to fretting about the cost of living and the climate crisis.
Click to expand...
/thread
 
Tanya1982 said:
Venlafaxine withdrawal is horrible to be fair. I thought I was coping OK with just the brain zapping and things, until someone in Sainsbury’s banged into my trolley without apologising. Before I knew it, I was in tears, grabbing things off the shelves and lobbing them at her as she ran from the aisle. Fortunately for my criminal record, it was the biscuit aisle, and there were no tins around which would’ve caused her actual harm. They were actually quite understanding - just added the items to my bill at the checkout.
Click to expand...
just as well it wasn't the crisp aisle...
 
cupid_stunt said:
Well, not everyone, but I do wonder how the justified hatred of the Sun, as the paper that broke the story, is blurring reactions a bit, and if it had been the Mirror instead some people may be reacting slightly differently, and judging by what Kevin Maguire, associate editor at the Daily Mirror, said on last night's Sky Press Review, it could well have done so if the story had been given to them.

He said he believes the media should be able to hold high profile public figures to account for their behavior, and therefore it was a legitimate for the Sun to run the story, but where they may have erred is in inferring the photos started when the person was 17, I guess as there doesn't seem to be evidence of that. He went on to say, the fact that he's 61, and these people are in their early 20s, you don't have to be a great prude to think that's inappropriate, plus the use of money, and the power relationship being incredibly unequal.

I tend to agree with that, although breaking the story shouldn't have developed into a massively ridiculous media frenzy, with so much time wasted on endless speculation, just mention the allegations and that the police are looking into them, and move on to real news. And, as for the twitter twats, I would like to see some of them end-up in court, but I don't expect that to happen.

There's so many unanswered questions about the first allegations, made by the parents that seem to have legit concerns over the safe-guarding of their 'child', about what photos, if any, was sent at what age, and why was Edwards funding their crack habit, allegedly. Also questions about the 'child' saying it's all false, if they are indeed a crack addict receiving sizeable sums from a cash-cow, how reliable are they?

I also find it odd that a number of reporters have said that the police have confirmed there's no criminality, rather than what the two forces actually said, which is they have no evidence of a crime being committed.



The parents said they never wanted an investigation, just that the BBC should to talk to him and stop him sending money, so if they have actual evidence that dodgy photos were exchanged when the 'child' was only 17, it's likely they wouldn't be forthcoming with it, and clearly it's not in the 'child's' best interest to do so.

As there doesn't seem to be a complainant in respect of any criminality,, and no evidence is forthcoming, the police have no case to question Edwards or examine his electronic devices, and that is rightly the end of the matter as far as the police are concerned, plus on the basis of innocent until proved guilty, everyone needs to accept that, unless, of course, there's further twists and turns at some point further down the line.

But, whilst nothing illegal appears to have happened, there's still the issue of the parents in turmoil, a young person with a possible crack addiction and allegations that Edwards is funding that addiction, even if not criminal, that could add up to gross misconduct.

The breaking of the story does seem to have empowered others to come forward, as is so often the case when such inappropriate behaviour becomes public, including now staff/former staff of the BBC, which creates a whole load of more questions, and problems for Edwards, and indeed, the BBC.

I can't see a come back for him now.
Click to expand...
I can't see a way back either.

However, the new revalations of inappropriate behaviour includes plumbing the depths of signing emails with an X.
 
BigMoaner said:
The mythical "sex addiction" is another common roll out. Making sure to check into a clinic a few days after being found out, never before of course. Sex addiction has been debunked. It is not an excuse.
Click to expand...
Some experts disagree with your 'mythical' claim.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has formally recognised sex addiction as a mental health condition.

According to global health experts at the WHO, people who suffer from sex addiction for at least six months and find that it causes them distress should be able to access medical treatment for the problem.

This means that sex addiction treatment could be available to sufferers on the NHS.

There is disagreement among experts about whether sex addiction should be characterised as a mental illness, and this new decision from the WHO comes swiftly after the international body also controversially classed addiction to video games as a mental health issue.

The World Health Organisation considers sex addiction to be a compulsive disorder where sufferers cannot control intense sexual urges and neglect their health and other parts of their in favour of sexual activity.
Click to expand...

metro.co.uk

Sex addicts may be offered NHS treatment now it's classed as a mental illness

The World Health Organisation now considers compulsive sexual behaviour a mental health disorder.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk

www.nhs.uk

Understanding sex addiction | Relate

Do you or someone you know struggle with sexual behaviour that feels out of control? There are various terms used to describe this, such as compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, hypersexuality, or sex addiction, but the focus should be on the impact it has on relationships and lives. It's...
www.nhs.uk www.nhs.uk
 
savoloysam said:
I'm on it at the moment and took just one day off last week. By the end of that day I was an absolute mess. Good AD mind you but definitely would need a very sensible taper to come off.
Click to expand...
You do need to taper them, and be really responsible about the dose and the timing - if you usually take it in the evening, switching to the morning and forgoing the evening can quickly result in things being haywire.

I resented being reliant on them, and due to the short half life having to take them at broadly the same kind of time each day. There was one night I was on holiday, having a fantastic time, realised I hadn’t taken my dose, and had to leave the party to take them so I wouldn’t have a horrible next day. That’s when I thought ‘as soon as I get home, I’m stopping these’.
 
"And yet, ‘sex addiction’ is not even real. It is not a condition that is recognised by any scientific or medical community, including the World Health Organisation. Indeed, the term was even removed(opens in a new tab) from the DSM-V by the American Psychiatric Association along with the term hypersexuality, in view of a growing body of research showing that 'sex addiction' is actually "no more than high libido coupled with low impulse control." The ASA's DSM-V is considered a definitive resource on mental disorders."

there's alway a counter link i guess...https://mashable.com/article/sex-addiction-isnt-real-condition

can someone provide me with the DSM entry for sexual addiction? How are we definining "addiction", any links to that please? Is addiction characterised by a biological withdrawel process? If so, what are the links to a full and thorough condition called addiction and lets see if sex addiction matches that in regards physical withdrawel.

It is the not in the DSM. Compulsive sexual behaviours is, as far as I know. But that is far different from someone going through active withdrawel because they haven't got laid. You do not see people begging in the streets for more sex, or robbing banks to pay for an escourt. There is no loss of control because of "sex addicition" - and if there is, and that is how we are characterising addiction, can someone provide some links?

People can act compulsively around sex for all sorts of reasons, depression and anxiety and trauma being one of them, but i have yet to see any evidence this is the same as nicotine, herion, or cocaine addiction. prove me otherwise with links. perhaps the problem is the concept and definition of addiction.
 
editor said:
Some experts disagree with your 'mythical' claim.



metro.co.uk

Sex addicts may be offered NHS treatment now it's classed as a mental illness

The World Health Organisation now considers compulsive sexual behaviour a mental health disorder.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk

www.nhs.uk

Understanding sex addiction | Relate

Do you or someone you know struggle with sexual behaviour that feels out of control? There are various terms used to describe this, such as compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, hypersexuality, or sex addiction, but the focus should be on the impact it has on relationships and lives. It's...
www.nhs.uk www.nhs.uk
Click to expand...
1689246152794.png

note first sentance
 
interesting read about the religious movements behind the sex addiction field...https://theweek.com/articles/896994/persistent-myth-sex-addiction
 
Petcha said:
The Sun's defence is, and will be, that they never actually accused him of committing a crime. They just 'put the facts there and left other outlets to join the dots'.

I'm still confused as to how there's no case to answer. I guess the kid was not actually 17 at the time? I assume the Sun has the pictures and nobody's actually denied that bit's true so it must just be a question of how old he was when they were taken.
Click to expand...
Media owner: Legal said we can’t vilify gay people for being gay any more.
Keep a look out for any other ways we can vilify them.

Journo: We can Insinuate they’re paedos on the flimsiest evidence.

Owner: Give that journo a raise.
 
editor said:
Yes, and that exactly backs up my point. Did you somehow miss the WHO reference in my post?
Click to expand...
Compulsive sexual behavior is the same as the medical condition called addiction? Why did they not call it "sex addiction"? It's lazy reporting. there are compulsive sexual behaviours, but that is not the same as addiction. Compulsive sexual behaviours is what WHO recognize.
 
BigMoaner said:
Compulsive sexual behavior is the same as the medical condition called addiction? Why did they not call it "sex addiction"? It's lazy reporting. there are compulsive sexual behaviours, but that is not the same as addiction. Compulsive sexual behaviours is what WHO recognize.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for gambling then. Yet the chaotic lifestyle it brings is much like any other addiction.
 
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
622
JimW
JimW
Wilf
Things you'd like to see over the next 6 weeks
Replies
24
Views
804
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