You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes over the years a greater percentage, via good causes as many others do...
Not random tho i must add, although i did pay the remainder of a young persons shopping a month back as they where 4 quid short and started returning items to the shelves...probably not unusual there was a thread on here about things like that a while back...acts of kindness are proven to help all involved in many ways...bit off topic now so that will do
From what I have read this is not news, in any meaningful use of the word, just tawdry clickbait put out by vermin with the aim of harming a competitor organisation while ruining someone’s life.
I'm having fun pointing this out to FB "friends" who have decided this is a good thing to have a laugh about
Tom , if true do you think its a good use of money.
I hope its not true for balance
Harvey Procter gave a very good interview on newsnight. He basically said if the person has done nothing illegal, then they should own it, call a press conference and state the facts. Seems Mr Edwards may have been watching. Procter was previously convicted of sex with an under age man when the homosexual age of consent was 21. Something that would not now be a crime.
and Lee Anderson using it as a pretext to call the Beeb “a safe haven for perverts”
they’ve given Chris Pincher a job?
What people do with their own money is no one’s business but their own. I certainly wouldn’t be telling others what to spend theirs on.
Meh, it all seems like a circus, no crimes committed, but lots of people crawling out the woodwork to get their claims in, as others say, it's all very much the norm for the sun.
As for Huw, don't know anything about him, but have read some of the issues with depression he's had, and currently in hospital i believe for it, i remember my uncle was manic depressive, he managed to cash in his pension and spend it all on new 'friends' during his manic phase, so seeing someone transfer 35k for 'photos' isn't much of a surprise, i dare say there's a lot more to it than that, but the headline wouldn't read as good.
Anyway, his career is over now, there may be more to come out of the woodwork still, but it's getting the full press treatment so won't die down anytime soon, the relentless march to destroy the BBC is going well for them.
True indeed Tom, and as said not illegal so fair enough, do as one pleases, but again i stand by my post if true if thats ok.
I simply gave an opinion on what i feel is a better situation to use the alleged 35k
Others clearly disagree.... no wonder our world is the way it is sadly, for clarity in my opinion
I’m sure, that if the management at the beeb had had the slightest sniff of this sort of thing being rumoured about their top news reader, that he wouldn’t have been nailed on to present news of the queen’s death etc.
That alone makes me think they haven’t covered anything up which makes it a story about a tragic ‘relationship’ and a rag of a paper run by utter ****s.
Can’t see what the bbc have done wrong here 🤷♀️
I simply gave an opinion on what i feel is a better situation to use the alleged 35k
No you didn’t.
I tell ya what hows about you find a random struggling person doing there best but getting hammered day in day out from every angle, its not hard theres millions of them…
Give them 35k, no return no questions just an act of kindness from a person to a person…that will do his own well being and mental health no end of good and possibly change a human life to boot….
You were telling him what to do with his money, telling him it would make him feel better with no knowledge of his, or the other party’s situation. You were having a dig, which is hardly what an inpatient with mental health issues needs from you or any other rubbernecker.
As for Huw, don’t know anything about him
He gives his work colleagues the Evil Eye.
I do love it when people who’ve clearly been lucky enough never to suffer from mental illness start dishing out advice from their elevated equines to people suffering from mental illness
Fingers crossed the scum gets sued into oblivion over this, hateful waste of paper and ink.
I've not read the reports in that paper but I bet they are just on the legal side of getting away with it by being vague accusations and bulls#it.
No laws broken according to the met so until that changes its of no interest to anyone but the people involved.
The spin on it that it’s a BBC cover up, and Lee Anderson using it as a pretext to call the Beeb “a safe haven for perverts”
Given the number of tory mps who are either under investigation or have been found guilty of various sexual offences its pretty rich for him to try that.
Typical though.
Oh dear me..
"Hows about" is not telling it is "suggesting"
But if it helps, ok your right..my opinion is not valid,
do you feel better now you have won....
I will of course seek your approval before i post again.
Binners, i love it when people assume its clear others have not suffered mental health issues...well done sir very very well done
Hows your elevated equine...
The death of a mate at 39 from cancer, the death of both parents in a year from cancer both terminal for 18 months at the same time followed by redundancy the month after dad died then redundacy again a year later nearly broke me...thanks again very very classy.
While I'm of course sympathetic to anyone with mental health issues, the beeb are also reporting that while these original allegations are apparently not illegal and between consenting adults, there are also allegations surfacing of inappropriate behaviour / abuse of power
"BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards..........One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers"
That is no longer 'only of interest to the people involved' - I think there may be more to come.
Given the number of tory mps who are either under investigation or have been found guilty of various sexual offences its pretty rich for him to try that.
Typical though.
Similar to the 'balance' that the Beeb had to go through on the economics of Brexit debate - that was correctly vilified by Maitlis. They had to ring around about a hundred economists until they found one who could present a vaguely positive speculation about Brexit, then gave them equal airtime with one of the other 99 and present it as 'balance'.
The Home Counties Himmlers will be saying "they're all as bad as each other - the BBC, parliament, all of them".
Fingers crossed the scum gets sued into oblivion over this, hateful waste of paper and ink
Indeed, maybe they're banking on not actually printing a name as their way to wriggle out of any culpability? No doubt a few solicitors are polishing up their invoicing pens...
Given the number of tory mps who are either under investigation or have been found guilty of various sexual offences its pretty rich for him to
Precisely my point, whether deliberately coordinated or simply served up ready for Lee to apply his unique brand of 'commentary' I suppose we'll never know. But he's an odious **** supposedly in a position of authority over a party full of similarly odious ****s, aiming for culture war soundbites instead of delivering a credible version of government...
@EhWhoMe - whatever, we get it. Your a contrarian, RW snowflake as entitled to your opinions as the rest of us are to disagree with them... Time to move along and stop trolling.
Dear god! After repeatedly giving airtime to odious gobshite Kelvin McKenzie, Newsnight have now scraped the bottom of the barrel and got Rod Liddle on to unsurprisingly defend the Sun
He works for the Sun and has just stated , with a straight face ‘the Sun has behaved impeccably’ and is now shouting down anyone who disagrees
What a pair of ****s him and McKenzie are!
Brexit, then gave them equal airtime with one of the other 99 and present it as ‘balance’.
The Home Counties Himmlers ....
Personal attacks, brexit, southern voters, Tory scum, and Godwin's, the Huw Edwards thread descends into just another political thread!
I do love it when people who’ve clearly been lucky enough never to suffer from mental illness start dishing out advice from their elevated equines to people suffering from mental illness
Quite.
Tom , if true do you think its a good use of money.
And how do you know that he doesn’t give twice that to charity every year? Unless of course you are his bank manager as well as his psychiatrist?
how he spends his own money is irrelevant. If he has spunked his cash on getting his jollys from only fans is neither my concern nor yours
if however he’s proven to be abusing his position then that’s another matter, but I’ll refrain from judgement until there are some actual facts
In all of this, I can't trust any of the parties involved
- completely believe some Tory scum MPs would use it as a diversion from their current corruption, illegality and the basket case economy.
<p style="text-align: left;">- got to remember a lot of fhookwhits and scum buy The Scum, and the HateMail, and other Murdoch bilge. Every day. Year after year. Large swathes of the population are so dumb (or racist or bigotted or all 3) not to see those publications for what they are (or actually want to see all the hateful shiiite they print). There's a big part of the problem. If nobody gave Murdoch their ££ and ignored them, this garbage sectiom of the press would be irrelevant. (Everyone needs to think of that, every time they buy these arse wipe papers , or have paid Sky for Internet or sports coverage etc. All those fuel it.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">- can't trust the Met to do even a half arsed investigation- the same organisation that brought you the institutional racism and anti-women attitude for the past fheckknows how many decades. Couzens. Port. Carrick. Even Stephen Lawrence's murderers not being prosecuted properly even 20 year after. The same outfit that can't be arsed investigating the law breaking of the then PM (fheck me, of course there's no evidence if you don't get off your arses and go investigate)</p>
- the young person may well deny it, because their drugs income stream has just been taken away ! Hardly a reliable objective witness !
i wonder whether anyone bothered to take a good hard look at the phones and laptops of those 'involved' ?.inc the elements previously deleted ? No mention of the Met getting off their arse and doing any actual investigation!
If nobody gave Murdoch their ££ and ignored them, this garbage sectiom of the press would be irrelevant. (Everyone needs to think of that, every time they buy these arse wipe papers , or have paid Sky for Internet or sports coverage etc.
FWIW Murdoch hasn't owned Sky for almost 5 years now.
It really does feel like a massive manhunt and a chance to destroy the BBC is being taken by the media this morning. Every paper is leading with a variation of "It's Huw!" front page despite the police and the alleged victim both saying nothing wrong or criminal has been done. Meanwhile the govt has had the stories of Sunak missing another PMQ, Johnson still not managing to remember his passcode for his old phone, the cost of living crisis predicted to get worse very soon and whatever other story they can sneak out not appearing anywhere unless you go looking for them deep in the political sections.
This smacks of another Caroline Flack situation in the making, if it hasn't got that far already. All lead by The Sun, absolute scum.
An issue for Huw and his family only. Not sure what it has got to do with anyone else, including the BBC. If he has done nothing illegal then his only 'crime' may be reputational damage to BBC which I guess they would have a case for but otherwise nothing to do with them what Huw gets up to or spends his money on.
Scans thread, sees pointless bickering. Again. Leaves thread.
can’t trust the Met to do even a half arsed investigation
The offences occurred outside the Mets area and were investigated by the local force.
So many facts lost in the pountless noise.
An issue for Huw and his family only. Not sure what it has got to do with anyone else, including the BBC. If he has done nothing illegal then his only ‘crime’ may be reputational damage to BBC which I guess they would have a case for but otherwise nothing to do with them what Huw gets up to or spends his money on.
Broadly I'd agree - but reputational damage for a public institution that everyone has heard about (the organisation and the presenter), particularly on the back of having not covered themselves in glory over 'cursory glance similar' issues like Saville probably has a pretty low bar for them to get worried and involved in.
However, as reported last night when it turns into accusations of abuse of power to gain or elicit favours from junior staff in the newsroom, etc., then that most definitely is a situation that the employer has to get involved in. "You're all adults what he does to you when you're at work is for you to sort out" doesn't wash at all, even if it doesn't cross any criminal threshold.
The issue is the public reporting, creating the witchhunt, accusing innocent parties, etc. So much is/was bad here. IDK if I believe the parents having to go public to protect their child..... as someone else said IDK if you can consider a drug addicted young adult who's just had their substantial funding stream stopped a reliable witness when they say nothing untoward happened. In the end I guess it cycles back to the issues around Saville and co again, if they keep it private, leave it to the police and internal HR to sort out, and if the story doesn't leak anyway - IF (big IF in this case still) something untoward has happened then the accusation is of cover up and lack of transparency. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And how MP's can with one breath be shouting disgrace and then in the next not taking action on the gropers and bullies in their own ranks - I would say beggars belief but then I remember who we're talking about.
Its a matter for the Police if its a criminal allegation.
It's internal HR if it's workplace harassment.
None of it is anybody else's business.
Tone on here is quite rightly its no one’s business if nothing illegal has happened yet here we are over 100 comments and counting.
Newsnight have now scraped the bottom of the barrel and got Rod Liddle on to unsurprisingly defend the Sun
Rod Liddle was cautioned for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.
Rod Liddle was cautioned for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.
Your average Tory voter thinks it was probably her fault in some way.
Traditional Values and all that.
Seem to remember Rod Liddle writing a piece many years ago where he said he wouldn't trust himself to be a high school teacher due to temptation...
I'm a bit surprised at the level of support on here for Huw. He was in a prominent position and appears to have behaved below the standard expected of someone in the position, he was a well known news anchor, real world rules are different for some who makes their living from their persona. I agree it's down to the police to sort illegality and for internal HR to sort out allegations of inappropriate behaviour but has everyone forgotten the Me Too movement that blew the lid off behaviour exactly like this in Hollywood? If it had all been dealt with behind closed does by the relavent people how many additional people wouldn't have come forward.
Mental health is a major issue but either suffering with it at the time of the alleged incidents or as a result of the outcry does not nullify the alleged incidents. Caroline Flack was charged with a fairly serious offence and it was intended to prosecute, I think that got forgotten as a result of her tragic death. As Binners pointed out many, many people suffer from mental health issues, been there myself due to bullying at work but that didn't result in me doing anything illegal or bullying the people who worked for me.
And yes the Sun can rot in hell, the hypocrisy and toxic affect that rag has on society needs to stop immediately.
It's all very weird. I'm struggling a bit with having sympathy for HE. He's clearly done some questionable but not illegal stuff, but they could be very morally wrong.
We don't know all the facts yet, but if he has paid thousands for sexually explicit photos of a 17 year old* kid then that's plain wrong. The other stories being reported don't make him out to be any kind of angel either.
All this while married....
He obviously has his issues, but I'm not sure I can attribute all of this with that yet. He sounds a bit of a wrongun.
Loads of other celebs have been called out for sexting, or sending dick pics or having affairs and are called wronguns. Can't see the difference with HE really.
* This maybe have been bullshit but how old was that person and what was he paying them for....obvs the police say nothing illegal atm so must not have been 17. I assume that would be illegal?
I’m a bit surprised at the level of support on here for Huw.
What surprises me more is how the allegations against Huw Edwards has turned into a vilification of voters, even comparing them with Nazis.
Although it probably shouldn't surprise me.
Got to say, even as a very proud remain voter and Tory hater, I do get a bit sick of every thread becoming about Brexit or politics.
Surely this should be about the moral/legal actions of a highly paid news reader potentially abusing his position with young impressionable people.
Can someone explain what sort of power he's alleged to have abused? He's just a person. I haven't really followed the story, but what's the presumed source of his authority here to make any relationship inappropriate? Was the "victim" an intern or employee?
Edit:
<Deleted>
Not playing with trolls.
I’m sure, that if the management at the beeb had had the slightest sniff of this sort of thing being rumoured about their top news reader, that he wouldn’t have been nailed on to present news of the queen’s death etc.
Oh I don’t know, I think Her Majesty would have had some respect for brazenly ignoring allegations of middle aged men behaving inappropriately with teenagers and hoping money and status could buy you out of trouble 😉
Can someone explain what sort of power he’s alleged to have abused?
Thats a follow up story about apparent misconduct with regards to bbc employees.
* This maybe have been bullshit but how old was that person and what was he paying them for….obvs the police say nothing illegal atm so must not have been 17. I assume that would be illegal?
It is not out of the bounds of possibility that the only illegal activity might have been on the part of the person providing the photos. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21
I imagine investigations are still ongoing to rule out all possibilities. As stated above if nothing illegal, and not relevant for HR (no other BBC employees involved), then there will be no case to answer and it’s not in the public interest.previous cases have focussed on revelations of illegality, and I am sure the Sun believes this to be the case before backpedaling.
Employees is a different matter, but not relevant to the original story is it? So what is the abuse/power/misconduct angle here? I just don't get it. (Assuming not under age.)
I would have had him down as a bully rather than a sleaze, but you never can tell eh.
He was clearly a miserable sod anyway.
the Sun believes this to be the case before backpedaling
Quite. But the damage is done.
Awaits to see the shoot storm develop before making an opinion. Does appear he wasn't a very nice person given what's coming out.
It sounds as if the only people to have done anything wrong in this story might be the BBC!
I haven’t read the original sun article because I won’t add to their profits directly or indirectly…
but my understanding is that the original article said “paid for pictures when 17” but that their most recent wording is “paid for pictures” and “first met when 17”. Legally the two are rather different.
so,
- Huw, may have done some things which were poorly judged but not illegal. How much of the original allegations is true will remain to be seen (eg I would not be surprised if “crack cocaine addict” turns out to be sniffs a bit too much cocaine), nor would I be surprised if £35k is not all from HE (eg an only fans account - which the Sun/parents have not understood or chosen not to understand). It not being illegal doesn’t mean he did nothing wrong (if proven).
- the young person may have done nothing wrong with regard their involvement with HE but if they were an adult in law and we are to view the “transaction with HE” as purely professional then they’ve done something to breach his trust by sharing that with their parents. Of course if there is something sinister about the relationship that is likely justified but they are now denying any wrong doing.
- the parents have acted oddly. Their child’s denial makes their version all the more bizzare. Why that route to escalate things (first step might be to follow up with complaints, then the DG or another director, then an MP).
- the sun have sensationalised a story by implying things which were not quite right - as is their way. If they genuinely wanted the BBC to deal with it properly and ensure a due process was followed they would have given them time to do it after telling them they had a story
- the suns owners have hyped up the story on all its other channels.
- the BBC may have a case to answer around it’s investigation process BUT if we take at face value their response of replying to an email by email and phoning once to follow up, what level of response should be pursued for isolated, allegations from a person who is not actually claiming to be the victim and which don’t amount to illegality? How much of your license fee do you want spent chasing round after people who don’t reply to email or answer the phone?
- the police seem to have done a good job of quickly investigating, but it seems the matter was previously reported to them and they said then there was nothing they could do. Did they do enough then to help a worried relative who believes their young adult child was being exploited and led to a world of drug use?
- various MPs seem to have done a good job of stoking the fire without actually knowing any detail
- everyone here (including me) and on social media fanning the flames means this story carries on whilst far worse allegations against George Osborn go ignored, the government ****s up running the country and our Defence Minister says Ukraine should be more grateful!
so, I’m not sure how you get to the conclusion that the BBC are the only people who did anything wrong. Actually they seem to have mostly behaved reasonably if perhaps a bit slowly. (Of course we don’t know what more substantiated complaints they have from other people on other matters that took priority).
Employees is a different matter, but not relevant to the original story is it? So what is the abuse/power/misconduct angle here? I just don’t get it. (Assuming not under age.)
Public figure/celebrity and impressionable young people? IDK, it just doesn't sit right with me though. Maybe I'm wrong though, we'll see I suppose but If this was a footballer, I'm not sure there would be the same support.
the parents have acted oddly. Their child’s denial makes their version all the more bizzare.
If they were paid by the Sun not so bizarre, but so far I've not heard that they were.
far worse allegations against George Osborn go ignored
FYI - Private Eye have analysed the Osbourne allegations as misleading and the most-shocking bits as without evidence. They are usually happy to stick the boot into him, so I trust their judgement that it's a smear.
He's also engaged Harbottle and Lewis to point this out to media outlets. And the email was reported to some extent.
Public figure/celebrity and impressionable young people? IDK, it just doesn’t sit right with me though.
What, like Charles and Diana, celebrated joyously up and down the country? Even famous people are allowed to have sex lives, and age of consent is defined for a reason.
The Sun have now completely changed tack and issued a statement saying that they 'at no point alleged any criminality'
Erm.... I think you'd have to be stretching semantics to the absolute limit, and beyond, to make that claim
I know they carefully word everything so that they can weasel out of it should anyone have the huge amount of both time and funds to litigate. - the correct assumption usually being that they won't - but I can't see that assertion standing up to any reasonable legal examination in court.
The Sun are being very careful to now say they never said anything illegal had occurred (this is a lie, they did)
Sounds like the Sun's legal team are getting twitchy
IF the parents were paid for their stories then it could change things
but my understanding is that the original article said “paid for pictures when 17” but that their most recent wording is “paid for pictures” and “first met when 17”. Legally the two are rather different.
Guardian quotes it as “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” .
The sun are claiming that it doesnt mean the former but I think they will have a certain amount of difficulty if it goes to court of finding a jury who agrees with that.
this is a lie
The Scum's readers don't care if the rag lies. But, funnily enough, they will be up in arms if someone from the Beeb is caught telling a fib.
A civil case for libel is based on the balance of probability. I bet the Sun’s lawyers are having an interesting day at the office. On the balance of probability, does the ordinary person in the street believe that the Sun has alleged HW engaged in illegal activity with a minor?
I imagine they’re already formulating a not very grovelling apology to the effect that they were only reporting based on the parents’ concerns, etc. but I think they will issue one. Probably page 32 below the racing tips 😉
The Sun have paid out vast sums of money in out-of-court settlements to phone hacking victims, all to avoid having to explain their activities in an actual court, under oath
If this went legal, then I'm sure they'd attempt to do the same.
Unfortunately the laws in this country around this are absolutely insane and seriously skewed in favour of the likes of the Sun, which is exactly why they keep doing this kind of thing and getting away with it
If you want to see how completely dysfunctional our legal system is in this area then its well worth watching this on iplayer..
Scandalous: Phone Hacking on Trial
I really don't think he'll sue for libel. He won't want more headlines.
But there's no question The Sun went in harder than it would have for any non-BBC affiliated celebrity, for obvious reasons.
Remember, you don't have to pick a side on this. He can be a sleazy arsehole who may have done something illegal and The Sun can be a disgusting POS at the same time.
The original story and subsequent denial by the younger person involved reads to me like it was a parent unhappy that their son was making decent bunse running an onlyfans page.
I bet the Sun’s lawyers are having an interesting day at the office.
I have no doubt that the Sun's lawyers will have read the articles concerning this story and given their approval before publication.
They will have advised on the wording and the legal implications before publication. The Sun can't afford to seek legal advice after publication - they would be sued into extinction.
outed in 2005 in 'the thick of it' comedy :0)
If true though i stand by my point, let me know if thats ok..
And if it's false made up claptrap you'll be back with a full redaction and apology?
and age of consent is defined for a reason.
Although barking mad that the age of consent is 16, but you can't send a sexy picture till you're 17!
We don’t know all the facts yet, but if he has paid thousands for sexually explicit photos of a 17 year old*
Well, if the Police are saying theres no crime to investigate, the 17 year old did not supply any explicit photos.
you can’t send a sexy picture till you’re 17!
18 even. Agree that detail is a bit mad but it seems that the law wasn't broken anyway. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what was so wrong. Strange, sure, but if anyone's arguing either that over-18s can't validly consent to this stuff in general, or that the particular person in question wasn't able to in this situation, then I've yet to hear it.
Guardian quotes it as “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” .
If there wasn't meant to be an implication they were underage why say 17? It could be just badly worded, but equally that's what editors and lawyers are supposed to sort out and so doesn't form an excuse in my opinion.
I mean, why not say “more than £35,000 since they were 12 in return for sordid images” if it's that easy to weasel out of - that would really have sold papers / covered up Boris' missing phone / whatever else the purpose of this was.
Although barking mad that the age of consent is 16, but you can’t send a sexy picture till you’re 17!
Wait until you find out that someone can only withhold their consent for something their parents want done until they're 18....
it seems that the law wasn’t broken anyway. I’m still waiting for an explanation of what was so wrong.
It is not only illegal behaviour which is deemed "wrong". No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves. In whether or not this did actually happen.
Just the idea of a married man engaging in morally questionable activities behind his wife's back, whether or not legal, could be considered "wrong" by some people. I would certainly take a dim view if any mate of mine did that.
The BBC probably believes that the moral behaviour of its very high profile employees should be a matter of concern for them. Many employers would, law breaking doesn't necessarily come into it.
Here is the fullest details I have found on the story
https://news.sky.com/story/everything-we-know-about-huw-edwards-scandal-12917471
“Since they were 17” can only mean starting at that age, it’s nonsense to suggest otherwise. If that’s their best defence they are stuffed.
Oh yes, to the extent that affairs are wrong, it’s wrong. Someone with that lack of moral fibre has no place reading an autocue, they ought to be PM.
I’m sure that anyone posting on this thread who has ever cheated on a partner will immediately out themselves and resign from their jobs.
Or just possibly they might gain a sense of perspective over all this.
The BBC probably believes that the moral behaviour of its very high profile employees should be a matter of concern for them. Many employers would, law breaking doesn’t necessarily come into it.
Agreed, rightly or wrongly it's a publicly funded org / 'National Institution' and also one with a reputation of having not dealt with this sort of thing well in the past. I undrstand a desire to get it right this time and that includes avoiding insinuations of cover ups.
Oh yes, to the extent that affairs are wrong, it’s wrong. Someone with that lack of moral fibre has no place reading an autocue, they ought to be PM.
Or Leader of the Opposition.
I’m sure that anyone posting on this thread who has ever cheated on a partner will immediately out themselves and resign from their jobs.
It's not that simple though, there is still the question of vulnerable people and/or abuse of power. That's different to having a bit of extra marital.
The sky news link that ernie posted is enough for me to think he's a wrongun. He seems to have targeted young people, paid for photos and threatened them when he thought his name might get out.
May not be illegal, but it's well ****ing dodgy!
No one knows the accuracy of the allegations but a lot of people would consider it wrong for a wealthy man to exploit a vulnerable person several decades younger than themselves, who is desperate for cash to feed a drug addiction, into providing revealing photographs of themselves. In whether or not this did actually happen.
im going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Huw may not have known the person was spending all the money on coke. I mean given it appears he never met them in person I doubt they were sending over pics and videos of themselves smashing lines
Id also speculate that a fair few only fans creators spend a proportion of their earnings on ‘vices’. If I used only fans (I don’t) then it’s not my responsibility to check what they are spending their profits on. It’s none of my business.
Timing of the story was quite fortuitous for the tories too.
We could have been talking about a minibus full of tories bringing the house into disrepute (including my MP) or the migrant bill battles. But instead the BBC becomes the story. Must just have been a coincidence.
Always is for those ****. Classic distraction technique that's now so easy to see through its laughable. The crying shame is that many still lap it up and allow it to happen.
Its barely even a story. Police say he hasn't broken any laws. So its just bollocks. Who cares?
Had a good laugh at this absolute belter from the OP regarding the BBC; the best (roughly) impartial news source in the UK
Dear god. Jaw dropping naivety. They've been found guilty of harbouring and protecting paedophiles for decades, faced no real punishment, its still going on and they still exist s an organisation. And people think they're impartial?! What will it take?
its still going on
Oh. Presumably you'll be submitting a specific complaint that we can all read about in The Sun soon, then?
And people think they’re impartial?!
You can have a few wronguns in an organisation the size of the Beeb without affecting its impartiality...?
OK, so perhaps C4 news might give the Beeb a run for its money on impartiality - hence the attacks from Dorries. But, pray tell, can you please let us know of a mainstream UK media outlet that is widely viewed that is better than the Beeb with regard to impartiality?
Congratulations on the most number on non-sequiturs and conflated points per word count in a post, though. Quite an achievement. 👏
given the clear law about posession of photos of under 18s (which surprised me, I figured it would be 16 like the age of concent) - I'd be amazed if only fans weren't all over verifying the ages of people who produce/appear in content - it'd absolutely destroy the company if they were found in violation of kiddyporn laws.
So the likelyhood is (and given the police has given the all clear) that maybe some adult paid some other adult for some naughty pictures.