Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

bimble said:
Just coming back to this..


Nothing personal with you Aladdin but the idea that the legality in your jurisdiction and your personal morality are one and the same thing is weird, and best avoided, imo.

I mean If you want to do that (“he committed a crime by buying pics from an under 18 yr old, and because that’s illegal he’s repugnant etc”) do you also follow through & agree that people deserve to be locked up for weed / non payment of tv licenses?

Cos if not then quoting the law of the land isn’t relevant to whether we feel people’s choices are ethically good or bad. The law pertains to the state-administered consequences only.

Keeping those 2 things separate (what the law says & what you as a person feel is right and wrong) seems kind of important, especially given who makes the laws round here.
Click to expand...
I wasn't equating personal morals at all..with the law. A starving person may well steal a loaf of bread. I wouldn't dream of condemning that.

What I am very conscious of is what is done to minors in the name of "they're nearly an adult " and "they think and feel old enough so...leave them be who they want to.be" "they know their own mind"

My perspective is not from the viewpoint of the minor but from the viewpoint of protecting a minor from someone who has the potential to or is actually using / grooming/ abusing them.

Kids can feel they are old "enough" but sadly very often they are not emotionally mature and some can feel damaged by a situation they got involved in as a child, as they get older.

The laws protecting children are massively important to me. When it comes to a middle aged man grooming a teenager, I will be on the side of the less empowered teenager who more than likely wont have been giving full thought to what was happening to them.
 
Aladdin But if the person was 18 and not 17 when whatever it is happened, would that then be fine because they were not a minor?
I doubt you'd feel that it would? Because nothing changes the day you turn 18, in terms of emotional maturity etc.

I wonder if people feel that there should be laws about age difference in sexual relationships.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
While I don't know the situation clearly - no, it isn't reasonable to assume that. The BBC suspending somebody is not legal proof that they've committed a crime, or done anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is alleging that a crime has been committed. A skin crawlingly deeply revolting act of sleaze on the other hand...
 
bimble said:
Aladdin But if the person was 18 and not 17 when whatever it is happened, would that then be fine because they were not a minor?
I doubt you'd feel that it would? Because nothing changes the day you turn 18, in terms of emotional maturity etc.

I wonder if people feel that there should be laws about age difference in sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

There are in some countries.
 
Aladdin said:
I wasn't equating personal morals at all..with the law. A starving person may well steal a loaf of bread. I wouldn't dream of condemning that.

What I am very conscious of is what is done to minors in the name of "they're nearly an adult " and "they think and feel old enough so...leave them be who they want to.be" "they know their own mind"

My perspective is not from the viewpoint of the minor but from the viewpoint of protecting a minor from someone who has the potential to or is actually using / grooming/ abusing them.

Kids can feel they are old "enough" but sadly very often they are not emotionally mature and some can feel damaged by a situation they got involved in as a child, as they get older.

The laws protecting children are massively important to me. When it comes to a middle aged man grooming a teenager, I will be on the side of the less empowered teenager who more than likely wont have been giving full thought to what was happening to them.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
 
bimble said:
Aladdin But if the person was 18 and not 17 when whatever it is happened, would that then be fine because they were not a minor?
I doubt you'd feel that it would? Because nothing changes the day you turn 18, in terms of emotional maturity etc.
Click to expand...

Yes..you're right there. Nothing changes the day you turn 18 in terms of emotional maturity.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I don't think anyone is alleging that a crime has been committed. A skin crawlingly deeply revolting act of sleaze on the other hand...
Click to expand...
No it is, people are talking about a particular alleged crime:
possesing sexual pictures of anyone under 18 is against the law.
And that is the case legally even if say two 16yr olds who are in a perfectly legal relationship are 'sexting' each other, which, i think, is kind of mad but thats the current legal situation.
 
bimble said:
I wonder if people feel that there should be laws about age difference in sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

i'm not entirely sure that's something that's possible to have a rational conversation about any more. the P word was thrown around enough a few years back around equalising the (UK) age of consent for same-sex relationships, and not sure that's a debate that would be possible now if the law hadn't been changed when it was.

as i said previously, if this alleged 'relationship' had happened in real world rather than online, it would have been legal (so long as older wasn't younger's teacher or whatever), it's the image/s that could make it illegal. which doesn't really make a lot of sense.

i don't know how many 16 / 17 years olds in consenting relationships with someone of similar age get prosecuted for indecent images.

Aladdin said:
Yes..you're right there. Nothing changes the day you turn 18 in terms of emotional maturity.
Click to expand...

ultimately, there isn't a huge change in physical or emotional maturity that happens overnight on anyone's X birthday, but can't see how any legal system could try and assess it on a case by case basis rather than have an age of consent.

personally, wonder if a two tier age of consent might be sensible (i believe such things exist in some countries) - a upper age (for which 16 is almost certainly too low) after which pretty much anything is allowed, and a lower age, and in the bit between the two ages, have limitations around things like images and age difference. although that would have to work so that you don't get a relationship being legal one day then the same couple become illegal the day older partner has a birthday.

not really sure that the law should get involved with age differences between people over an upper age - a 10 year age difference (for example) is a big deal when it's 26 and 16, but maybe not really sure it's anyone else's business let alone something the law should get in to if a 50-something and a 40-something get together.

Sasaferrato said:
I don't think anyone is alleging that a crime has been committed. A skin crawlingly deeply revolting act of sleaze on the other hand...
Click to expand...

what's being alleged is that presenter was in possession of what is legally considered indecent image/s of a person under 18 (and fairly sure that think viewing something online counts as 'being in possession of'), which would be a criminal offence. (subject to the usual disclaimer that i'm not and have never been a lawyer or policeperson)
 
Rylan's had to go on Twitter to clarify that, despite the way the Independent phrased their headline - "Rylan Clark responds to allegations" with a picture of him that VERY much looks like he's the one who's been suspended, this isn't about him. Other places are now using this to publish essentially the same defamatory headline.

I'd actually be pretty surprised if it was him, and obviously it isn't.

There'll be a lot of other BBC presenters who happen not to be doing any work this week because they're on holiday and will be suspected because they aren't on TV for five minutes in July.

The Sun has done very very well in their homophobic shit-stirring.
 
SpookyFrank said:
What part of 'no matter their involvement' do you not understand? There is no mention of combat roles in the statement quoted.
Click to expand...
There doesn't need to be a mention of combat roles.

'no matter their involvement' means they can't be deployed in any capacity wether that is as a mechanic, medic or chef.

There was an episode of warship sometime back where the ship was travelling from the med through the Suez canal and because of the trouble in Yemen the 16 year old (female) sailor had to and was taken off the ship and rejoined when out of the danger zone.
 
I wasn't an adult at 17 but very much did a lot of stuff that my parents wouldn't have been happy with. I didn't get my bits out for money on the internet though. That wasn't really an option. If it was and I wanted easy cash I might have though, and would have pretended to be 18 to facilitate it.
The same as we pretended to be 18 for pretty much everything.
 
weltweit said:
I wonder how it will be revealed?

Perhaps the BBC will make a statement.

Perhaps the individual themselves may make it known, seems unlikely though.
Click to expand...
We will have to watch and listen to every programme broadcast this week and see if the regular presenter, listed in the Radio Times, is not there.

I'm going to read the rest of the thread now.
 
UrbaneFox said:
We will have to watch and listen to every programme broadcast this week and see if the regular presenter, listed in the Radio Times, is not there.

I'm going to read the rest of the thread now.
Click to expand...

He's not a 'presenter', he's a 'host', well as referred to anyway by commentators who actually know who he is. And he's on summer hols anyway if it's who many people think it is so you wouldn't find him scheduled in the RT.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
I wasn't an adult at 17 but very much did a lot of stuff that my parents wouldn't have been happy with. I didn't get my bits out for money on the internet though. That wasn't really an option. If it was and I wanted easy cash I might have though, and would have pretended to be 18 to facilitate it.
The same as we pretended to be 18 for pretty much everything.
Click to expand...
Very true.

I do however, think that at some point between the ages of 20-25, you should have some tasteful nudes taken by someone who knows what they’re doing - not to send out left right and centre, but more for your private collection. Then you’re in your physical prime, and you'll always have them to look back on when you aren’t. That’s what I have always told my son when we’ve discussed pictures. You wait, until you’re older, more confident, maybe worked out a bit, know more how you want to present yourself physically. Aesthetically important stuff - I find approaching it from a vanity angle is more effective than the hectoring lectures I’ve heard other people complain their kids switch off from. And - of course - emphasise that anyone who demands anything is a cunt to always turn down.
 
muscovyduck said:
Plenty of men tried to get me to do this sort of shite when I was 17 and I wish someone had kicked up a fuss about it the way this kid's mum has
Click to expand...
Gross. What could be the appeal of pictures of an unwilling participant? Surely the discomfort would be written all over their face, which you’d think would be a turn off. It’s why I’ve tried to never be prudish about desire. I’ve tried to be open about the fact that you have to really feel it, with someone else who does too. Aside from the moral angle, nobody aspires to sexual mediocrity - which is the most you can offer if you aren’t in the mood.
 
Epona said:
Probably a bit at a tangent here, but I was actually boringly sensible when I was 17.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that’s more dangerous than being slightly more worldly. In that it might attract someone looking to take advantage.

It wasn’t a thing when I was 17, but I really think I’d have confidently said ‘fuck off’ if it had been. Almost entirely because I’m stubborn, and if I don’t want to do something I won’t be doing it. There’s nothing in the world that would make me think ‘oh fine, I’ll get the camera out, here’s what you wanted’.
 
Tanya1982 said:
Very true.

I do however, think that at some point between the ages of 20-25, you should have some tasteful nudes taken by someone who knows what they’re doing - not to send out left right and centre, but more for your private collection. Then you’re in your physical prime, and you'll always have them to look back on when you aren’t. That’s what I have always told my son when we’ve discussed pictures. You wait, until you’re older, more confident, maybe worked out a bit, know more how you want to present yourself physically. Aesthetically important stuff - I find approaching it from a vanity angle is more effective than the hectoring lectures I’ve heard other people complain their kids switch off from. And - of course - emphasise that anyone who demands anything is a cunt to always turn down.
Click to expand...
This all sounds very bohemian. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but I hadn’t considered it to be the kind of advice I’d considered giving to my kid. He’s only ten though so who knows.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
This all sounds very bohemian. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but I hadn’t considered it to be the kind of advice I’d considered giving to my kid. He’s only ten though so who knows.
Click to expand...
Well I haven’t been called that for a while.

I don’t think there is an ‘only’ when it comes to this stuff. If he has internet access he needs to know the basics around being safe, what’s on, what’s not, and all that. If you haven’t brought it up already I suggest a museum or gallery exhibition - somewhere that tits and dicks are everywhere but in a socially acceptable aesthetic context, where discussion isn’t going to forced, and then let the conversation flow from there. Let him laugh, or stare, or mock, or admire, or even express disgust, all helpful reactions you can work with - whatever really, and discuss it.

Although I may not be best placed to give advice, because just this year my son had a thing going with his friends older sister, which I wasn’t thrilled by. He was technically underage - although only by a few months, and she was 17 going on 18, which I think is an enormous gap in terms of experience. Had she been someone he’d met online rather than got to know naturally, I’d have been far more involved in it I think. It seems to have settled down into nothing much - the odd overnight. Not the great life wrecking romance from hell I had feared it might become.
 
Last edited:
Tanya1982 said:
Well I haven’t been called that for a while.

I don’t think there is an ‘only’ when it comes to this stuff. If he has internet access he needs to know the basics around being safe, what’s on, what’s not, and all that. If you haven’t brought it up already I suggest a museum or gallery exhibition - somewhere that tits and dicks are everywhere but in a socially acceptable aesthetic context, where discussion isn’t going to forced, and then let the conversation flow from there. Let him laugh, or stare, or mock, or admire - whatever really, and discuss it.
Click to expand...
At age ten? 😂

You’re Cheesypuff and I claim my five pounds.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
At age ten? 😂

You’re Cheesypuff and I claim my five pounds.
Click to expand...
Who?

Yes, at age 10. Or keep him off the internet. It’s kind of either or. What you don’t want is to be reacting on the back of something that’s been blundered into. Discussing the basics doesn’t mean sitting round as a family watching Pornhub and analyzing it. But yes, knowing yourself, boundaries, acknowledgement of desire (not overtly sexual but just in terms of ‘that’s ugly’, ‘I like how that outfit looks on them’, ‘hideous breasts on that statue’, ‘I’d like arms like that’, etc), personal comfort and respect for self which is therefore reciprocal, safety - definitely. What’s the alternative? An immature high school kid sniggering at naughty words in the dictionary (but with the entire internet at their disposal)? We all remember those kids - they blundered into stuff they couldn’t handle quicker than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Magnus McGinty said:
I should traipse him around modern galleries full of penises when all he wants to do is play on his skateboard?
Click to expand...
He can skateboard to the gallery?

I have a skateboarder - it’s never been a barrier. I don’t know what he takes from it other than fun and transport, but I’ve learned some valuable things from it - like don’t get on it wearing stilettos.

I take your point about letting them get on with being kids, but I hope you take mine about the danger of creating taboo areas (whether that’s their own body, other peoples, or a museum they’ve decided they’ve no interest in without being required to look).
 
Last edited:
Tanya1982 said:
He can skateboard to the gallery?

I have a skateboarder - it’s never been a barrier. I don’t know what he takes from it other than fun and transport, but I’ve learned some valuable things from it - like don’t get on it wearing stilettos.

I take your point about letting them get on with being kids, but I hope you take mine about the danger of creating taboo areas (whether that’s their own body, other peoples, or a museum they’ve decided they’ve no interest in without being required to look).
Click to expand...
No work in the morning then? Just post midnight internet activities. Then maybe sleep for a bit. Someone else pays the bills, yeah?
 
Magnus McGinty said:
No work in the morning then? Just post midnight internet activities. Then maybe sleep for a bit. Someone else pays the bills, yeah?
Click to expand...
No sleeping pills - ran out. PTSD, insomnia, mother having a bit of a breakdown. No, no work tomorrow morning - you?

I’ll probably go to bed in the next hour, and be up about 8am. Whether I sleep all that time is another matter.

What’s my payment of bills got to do with you?
 
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