Huw Edwards named as BBC presenter!

[Amuseaboosh]

I'm actually shocked.

I think a lot of people only know half of the story as overnight there has been new revelations, which didn't have time to truly come out or discussed in detail. There have been other young people ( 2 or 3 ) contacted the papers.
The police investigation was finished, that case was referred to them by the BBC. That included 1 young person, the person who's parents complained to the BBC originally and went to the Sun afterwards.

One of the other young people has been threatened by Hew not to release information about him, he also visited one of them during lockdown and crossed the Welsh border for.
Then again we could expect the PR just like a couple of days ago, huge burst of support for him and the BBC telling us he did nothing wrong.

He may have not commited a crime at this point( beside breaking lockdown rules, which if I remember correctly seemed to equal to a murder of an elderly person - currently not investigated by police), but his predatory behaviour makes me feel uneasy and hard for me to feel sorry for him especially as he did not take any responsibility for anything. No further action by the police does not mean he did not commit a crime, then again it is not in the public interest to know more it seems.

Ah yes, The Daily Mail, reliable news source! I have no interest in protecting or excusing Huw Edwards at all, but The Daily Mail exists for one thing, to shovel shit, whatever the truth or the consequences ( and consequences on ANYONE, on any story, whether the people involved are guilty of something or not, just whatever brings the money in). Same with The Sun.

Agree, that’s statement of the OPs is pretty vile. But it’s people like her who gossiped about Caroline Flack then started hollering #bekind after she died.

Huw Edwards has had mental health issues for years and he has been open about it. Rather than gossiping like a fish wife maybe you should hang on to see what is actually true and what isn’t. Believing the Sun isn’t a good look.

If the investigation finds that he behaved improperly then he will lose his job. I imagine he has already lost his job as there is no return, but quit with the salacious gossiping, it ruins lives.

I get you but it's hard seeing the phrase 'the mental health card' flung about willy nilly. But it's not always undeserved.

No criminal charges, therefore it naturally follows they were not under 18.
All other reports are from the Sun, enough said.
If he met up with someone during lockdown then he should be fined, police not looking into this…therefore no proof it happened, just the Sun again.
Is he pretending to be a decent human being?…how?….when. Proof! …he’s just living his life and doing his job.
He’s allowed to go to church and have a family. It’s not against the law.
What proof is there that he lied to his wife.

Unfounded rumours and speculation

Because you don’t hav3 to always have broken the law to make front page news? There are stories on front pages every day in respect of famous people doing immoral stuff. Not necessarily illegal. People are interested sometimes in the life’s of the famous and what they get up to. I’m guessing many would be interested to read what Huw gets up to in private. That’s what sells papers.

‘Give your head a wobble and stop making out that every young person is a vulnerable scared child for Christ sake.’

total normal for a famous man in his 60s to pay large amount of sums of money to someone still in high school for nudie pics
Sure - you know what kids are like these days… safeguarding gone mad treating the under 18s like they’re still children

Hell why don’t we just have full blown red light districts and be done with it, right on the high street? Pop to Primark, run to the card shop, get a teen to wank behind a shop window for you, grab a Greggs for the way home. All just paying for a service isn’t it

Yeah. 😎

If I had to place a bet I'd guess she had an Only Fans page and he was a subscriber. Not behaviour I'd like from my partner but not illegal, as she wouldn't be under 18.

Well, i didn’t. And I don’t know how you did.

This.

Was the 17 year old male or female ?

You’re not the only one @Amuseaboosh I don’t have twitter and very rarely log onto Facebook. I didn’t know who it was until I logged onto Mumsnet just now. I’m really shocked too!

You choose to ignore how much trafficking raises when sex-for-money is legitimised. Stock has to come from somewhere doesn’t it, and if it’s not willing then it will be made to order.

All young people are vulnerable. All of them. They may not see it at the time, hell so much internalised misogyny makes many a young woman believe that they knew what they were doing with men when young. Of course they were the young vixen who could get a man to do what they wanted. Certainly not conditioned from a young age to give men sex and believe they were getting something back out of it (no they weren’t, the men were the only one profiting from it). You’ve convinced yourself that there isn’t a problem because you don’t want to see one. You’ll be one of these people like the older generation are these days when the young of these days eventually break and say how they were abused. ‘Oh but they were happy to take the money/attention at the time. A bit of sex never hurt anyone. When you behave like that you’re asking for it’.

All young people are vulnerable. All of them

Yes exactly.

I feel sad for the child and mum and hope they are getting the support they need. The mum has been very brave. It takes a lot to go public.

The Sun did a fab job getting this story out there. Men like this should not be protected. I have a lot of time for The Sun and contrary to opinion on here, they can’t just make stuff up whenever they feel like it.

It’s threads like this and outpourings of sympathy for violent abusive men that always remind me how little society has progressed really. Strangely, many women seek to maintain the status quo by defending men, even powerful ones that abuse their position. Women and children deserve so much better.

Nooo, my favourite news presenter!

Both above legal consent age. Perhaps morally wrong but not criminal. Could have been dealt with a lot better. I don’t know why this had to be news. Surely a private matter

I agree!

It's only an allegation at this stage...this quote sums it up for me.... "Facts take a back seat to opinion" The need to say what we think, even if we don’t know all the facts, takes precedence over the willingness to wait to find out the truth"

The police have stated a crime hasn't been committed....surely if it was true then they would be, as sharing photos of those under 18 years is a criminal act.

Innocent until proven otherwise and at this point all we have is the word of the Sun (HA) and some anonymous adults. The Sun hasn't even printed what the proof is!!

Was the young person being sent the texts/explicit material male or female? The texts sound as if its a female. It seemed to be implied initially it was a young male.

No, it's a vile working mans Tory spin paper.

If they could get away with publishing tits these days, they still would.

The Sun paper does not, it hasn't always. It supported Labour during the Blair years and also during the 60s/70s.

It basically looks after its own interests

You don’t have to be young to be vulnerable, nor are all young people vulnerable.
These are huge sweeping inaccurate statements.

Yes, it appears The Sun is returning to its old ways.

Post-Leveson, it became hard for The Sun to do its usual kiss and tell, which was usually a means of getting soft-core pornography into its publication. Along with jettisoning Page 3, it made the paper a tad more respectable so its journalists are guests on the Press Preview, along with those of the Mirror, whereas before I'm not at all sure it would have been acceptable.

But The Sun without its tittle tattle exposes is like a dog that can't bark.

The Covid lockdown allowed them to resume their old ways because they could hang illicit sexual activity on a public interest issue, that it was illegal. Hence the Matt Hancock thing, it allowed them to control the narrative and exert power - namely bring about a resignation.
Another benefit, as was surely the case with Caroline Flack, was/is the corrupt association between The Sun and the corrupt Met Police. Quite simply, they would go after a celebrity because they could ensure front-page scoops, in return either the Met or the CPS would most likely get furnished with shedloads of cash to pay off a few mortgages. It's a massive racket.
In the case of Caroline Flack, it seems it led to her suicide, so it's on them.
Might still do, with their latest conquest. But nobody will be held to account, it's too big.

Corrupt links between the Met and the press would have been covered in Leveson 2 but that has been successfully shut down, even Private Eye were against it. Any politician who advances that will be gone after, either them or their associates.

But this is exactly it! People do shop in Primark, even though they know (at the back of their minds) how the clothes are made. People choose to ignore stuff when it suits them. It's a lot easier to ignore things when you can afford to. (Hope that makes some modicum of sense)