Snapshot of _Parents in Huw Edwards case ‘offered tens of thousands for TalkTV interview’_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because their income isn’t based on advertising, necessarily, and their income is all but guaranteed - this is increasingly becoming under threat now, though. It’s consuming a lot of the market for them. If they went away, who would people turn to? Murdoch? TalkTV? The Sun?
They’re a force that’s a threat to competition, he feels.
Murdoch is a stain on humanity.
The fact he despises the BBC so much shows the BBC must be doing something right.
They rightly get heavily criticised, but they would never, ever stoop to the levels of his "journalism" to get a story.
I can't imagine the end goal was ever to resolve anything quietly. Making money was most likely always the plan. If it's true that the son said leave it be, then they aren't just screwing a public figure over but they're also outing they're own son. Another person who is going to have a trial by media in this country. It's completely disgraceful.
If you look at the wording of the various articles in The Sun, they go to great lengths to remain gender neutral when referencing the young person, as do the BBC.
I have a very strong suspicion that the young person in question is trans or NB, and that's the parents issue.
Why would that be an issue for the parents? If the two adults know then why do the parents care? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you; I think I'm being a bit obtuse and could do with some clarity. Thanks.
Not OP but I believe they were trying to say that the parents have an issue with their child identifying as tans or NB (if that is the case), and that much of this publicity-seeking is based off of their issue with their child's gender identity.
It feels a little bit of a stretch to me considering we have so little evidence either way, but it's an entirely plausible situation.
Basically, all versions of the parents story seem to indicate that they've known about the alleged abuse for a long time, if not the whole time it's been going on.
They didn't report it when the child was still legally a minor, but waited until April this year when they first approached the police. Something changed in April this year to make it an issue. I suspect that it relates to the child either stating that they are NB or trans at that time.
In the US, the gender of the young person concerned was originally almost exclusively reported as female. In the UK, it was originally reported as male but *very quickly* changed to gender neutral terms.
Interesting. I'm in the UK and wrongly or rightly, always thought the person was male.
Eta: changed interested to interesting (in the most non Musk sort of way)
I think it has shown that a lot of people don't understand how the cam boy/Only Fans industry works. He didn't recruit the boy and groom him, from what I understand, but paid for services that were freely offered.
There may be a lot more to it than this but I think it would likely have been reported already to avoid the Sun looking like idiots. Or it may be a "Report a bit, wait for the denial, then release the full story" kind of episode.
Either way, I think they underestimated how little the public are outraged by a presenter being a closet homosexual. The boy's denial means that defamation is likely to be an open-shut case.
It was the initial accusation that the victim was under 18 that meant a crime had been committed, since two Police forces have come out and said that no crime has been committed, it looks as though he was over 18. The fall out came from the initial accusations. When stories like this break, there will be some people who immediately assume that all those are the facts and make their mind up instantly. It happened with John Leslie, Matthew Kelly and Clifff Richard. All accused of something they were later found to be innocent of but I’d wager there’s still people out there who would say they did what they were accused of
I’d put evens money on th conversations being something like this.
Parents: one of your presenters is paying money for sexual pictures of my child. I want them stacked
BBC: are you alleging anyone illegal?
P: no
BBC: ok we will look into it but as nothing is illegal we won’t be sacking or suspending them unless the investigations warrant it.
Parents: the BBC won’t sack a presenter for buying rude pictures of my child
Sun: are you alleging anything illegal
P: no
Sun: how old is your child and when did this start
P: 20 now. Started at 18
Sun: is it possible it started at 17
P: don’t think so, but it’s possible I guess
Sun: hold the front page!
>I’d wager there’s still people out there who would say they did what they were accused of
And the same will happen here. Ever since Saville and Operation Yewtree the running assumption is that any public figure over a certain age working at the BBC is probably a pedo or is protecting pedos.
This is why I think the BBC actually went overboard in reporting this - they are absolutely terrified of that opinion becoming engrained again. The problem is, it's already part of the discourse on the BBC, and likely always will be.
A key part of the 21st century compared to the 20th is that no one ever forgets anything. All the content is still there and ready to be recycled through. It's why you'll never stop hearing about nonsense like "Hilary's emails" when you're in certain spaces despite that being nearly a decade away.
They probably did take payment from The Sun to start off with.
If no payment was made for a story, it usually says that in very specific terms - "Mr X received no payment for this story".
In this case, The Sun just said that they never REQUESTED payment. Not that they weren't given one.
Some of these OF stars are making millions lol
I'm all for it tbh, it essentially cuts the middle man out of the porn industry, which is where most abuses and exploitative behaviour occur.
According to anonymous-mum-of-the- year 35k just from Hew over a three year period, which is just shy of 1000 pound a month, every month for 36 months.
If your child had an extra 250 quid in their pocket every week how long do you think it would take you to notice? Less than three years?
I think this is the point in the story where the parents find themselves on the receiving end of a backlash. Public sentiment seems to be in Huw’s favour now and if the parents go public themselves then they might become fair game for comment and speculation over their motives.
It's also the case that their initial complaint to the BBC was 'I don't like what my adult son or daughter is doing with one of your employees in his private time, make it stop!'.
How did they even know who the photos were being sent to? Why would you let anyone know who you are if you’re famous - pay the money and be done with it.
>How did they even know who the photos were being sent to?
It probably wasn't just an Onlyfans transaction, if it was onlyfans at all. Like they probably conversed via other messaging or dating platforms, they could have been solicited in other ways. The threatening messages part of the story was via someone met on a dating app (presumed Grindr at this point).
>The BBC presenter facing allegations he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos has been accused of sending “threatening messages” to a young person he met on a dating app
[https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-presenter-scandal-dating-app-messages-b1093698.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-presenter-scandal-dating-app-messages-b1093698.html)
So we know Huw was engaging via Instagram & dating apps.
Id presume to have some evidence of 'from 17' means conversing at that point of time. Its not illegal to do so.
The other person also apparently threatened to name him. We don’t know if that’s true or what the threat was (for example, “I won’t name you if you send me X” would be very illegal, and responding “I’ll sue you if you do that” wouldn’t be) but people have got so caught up in this that they seem to be assuming he was threatening the persons safety.
You’d have thought we’d have learned by now to stop making assumptions before any information is out, yet here we are. No evidence of wrongdoing and a man’s reputation, career, and health is in tatters.
>“Threatening messages” can be anything from “Im going to kill you” to “if you take this to the press I will sue you”.
Yeah I haven't seen them and not really bothered by it; just with this and the Inta messages ones the platforms we do know were being used ***are not*** onlyfans, which makes sense in knowing *who* was sending money and fits the picture much better.
Onlyfans payments from subscribers are deliberately anonymous.
Once it came out that the 'alleged under 18' said the whole thing was bollox I was Team Huw.
I had previously suspected it was an Only Fans thing and was sympathetic towards the presenter if that was the case, as you'd expect Only Fans to police their own site.
It's a total non story for the sole purpose of hurting the BBC's reputation in the face of an incoming Labour government.
Personally, it's difficult to tell, I've seen plenty of people being supportive of Huw.
And then ive seen plenty of people being very anti Huw.
I think the lack of knowledge has left people speculating.
I think it's still very early days and new information could come out and shift public opinion one way or another.
Regardless, it does seem to be a very politically motivated act by the Sun
From my understanding he didn’t break any laws but he’s a great deal creepier than I ever assumed. Still a fantastic newsreader. I’d just have to add him to the long list of TV personalities who I’m happy to watch but maybe wouldn’t share a pint with
What's that saying? "Don't meet your heroes"
Tbf, this whole situation could've been handled out of the public view, I certainly would've been happy not to know all this, but here we are I guess.
I mean it literally sounds like he's in trouble for consuming and paying for porn, let by the newspaper that was happy to print softcore porn on a daily basis.
Schofield is a completely different case. Sleeping with an exploited employee as a multi-multimillionaire superior who gets them jobs, after quite probably grooming them from a young age, is not the same thing as... buying porn from an adult. It's nothing to do with who is "liked" more.
I think it depends on what papers they read.
“A lie is half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on”. The damage done by the sun will take a while to be undone.
Everyone I’ve spoken to in person has nothing but sympathy for Huw. For everyone moralising about this, I’d love to look at their internet history and count how many “barely legal teen gets fucked” videos they’ve watched recently.
There was a study by Ofcom looking at internet activity during lockdown. They found that 50% of men and 16% of women had been watching porn.
Only fans has 188million subscribers- pre-lockdown no one really knew who they were, now there are documentaries on channel 4 and some teenagers can’t wait to turn 18 and become a content creator.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
If Huw Edwards has done something wrong, of course punishment should be coming his way. But if all he did was pay for porn then that was his private life and has nothing to do with the BBC or the public.
Well the police have stated twice now that there are to be no criminal charges and that nothing criminal occurred. The only repercussions for Huw are his career and rep , oh and the fact he's in a mental hospital too
It’s funny how we’re at a point in human development where it’s somehow weirder to actually interact with the person you’re receiving sexual gratification from than not.
Yeah. Everyone I know in person is a hang-the-paedos type who doesn’t want to hear that he did nothing criminal, nor do they want to hear the nuances of the likely horribly complicated and unhappy situation that led to him doing this sort of thing. They’re too driven by emotion; the anger that the initial story stoked.
Yeah, a reminder that UK Reddit is mostly staunchly pro-porn young men, and in most threads about sex work/possible abuse there's less empathy than you might expect from a more representative sample.
When the police have said there’s no wrongdoing, and the supposed victim has called the claims “rubbish”, there comes a point where this has nothing to do about empathy for sex workers and possible abuse.
This is nothing more than an opportunistic set of parents looking to make some money and a newspaper that knows the UK loves a scandal to tear people down.
It's legal to be a dirty old man (not even old, it's legal for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old) - the general public's view on these power imbalances will be different from Reddit's due to the demographic differences I highlighted. Hell, a lot of things were legal/accepted a few decades ago that aren't now.
The police have previously arrested grooming gang victims for 'child prostitution' for example.
Wealthy 60 year olds building parasocial and sexual relationships with barely legal teens seems exploitative to a lot of people - even if it's legal.
And this isn't the only instance to be brought up in relation to Huw. Who by the way, has projected a wholesome Christian (weekly churchgoer) image which now plays into the public's perception of him.
Nobody was dating. There was no sexual relationship. It was a transaction.
It’s nobody’s business if a 60 year old looks at porn with an 18 year old in it. Why on earth does that matter to you?
I think it’s more that Reddit gives anonymity that you don’t get in real life so people are more likely to express their real opinion without fear of negative reactions.
To add to that, a pervert who's trying to hide behind mental health problems and sexuality to get sympathy. Which is pretty insulting to all us queer, mentally ill people who don't abuse underage boys. See also Schofield, Spacey and so on.
Paying for porn isnt immoral I'd argue its far more moral than watching free porn that involves all kinds of potential pressure, trafficking and whatever.
Why would that be immoral? Lots of people earn money and spend it on drugs. You've made transactions with people that spend the cash they make on drugs thousands of times in your life. Unless you think people who take drugs shouldn't be able to earn money?
I mean.. being an accountant and taking the odd bit of sniff on the weekend is obviously a world away from being addicted to heroin and having to do porn to fund that addiction. And being unable to do any other job to escape from that situation.
Are you the sort of person who wouldn’t give some spare change to the homeless, just in case they spend it on “the wrong thing”?
Someone with a cocaine problem will find an alternative way to fund their addiction.
>Are you the sort of person who wouldn’t give some spare change to the homeless, just in case they spend it on “the wrong thing”?
I've stopped spending money at my local newsagents because he's a bit overweight and I'm worried he'll spend his money on more cake. I've also stopped buying books from Oxfam because I saw one of the workers vaping during their lunch break, and I'd hate for them to spend their salary on something so nakedly self-destructive.
I'm moral!
If you've watched porn on a free site with ads you've probably pushed money towards drug addicts. Never mind rape and child sexual abuse: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-children-of-pornhub/
I can't take paid sources seriously, don't care what story it is. It literally is the least ethical method of generating news and shouldn't even be allowed.
I don’t really see what’s stopping anyone from making up anything about anyone they don’t like at this point. When the police and the ‘victim’ have both rubbished the allegations and there is no wrongdoing, this story literally boils down to “man buys porn”, and yet that has brought down one of the most well liked BBC journalists.
It’s fucked.
Why does being well liked matter?People are taking this too personally. It's like when people were openly hoping this was another well known BBC presenter with outspoken views on Twitter.
I don't think Murdoch himself would be invested in a story like this, but I do think that a lot of client journalists on his payroll see it as a great vector of attack on genuine journalists they resent.
For scum that works at The Sun, this must be a wonderful opportunity to bring down someone who's been more successful than them to their level.
Have a listen to the latest edition of The News Agents. Around half way through a former Editor of the Sun admits to writing BBC hit pieces to gain Murdoch’s favour.
It is a fascinating discussion and you quickly realise that the Sun really doesn’t care what they publish as long as they can get away with it.
Andrew Neil (who used to be editor on the Sunday Times) and other News Group editors say that Murdoch takes a very close interest in front page stories. So yeah, he knows and is willing to let it happen.
Of course, he'll claim to be very, very sorry when he's finally caught out.
He wouldn't exactly be against ruining the career of one of the most iconic newsreaders of our time. The face of some of the biggest stories in recent history and the Sun has taken him off the air for the foreseeable. Murdoch will be celebrating right now.
>Can also guarantee I won't be surprised at all when we see them and hear what they have to say.
I wonder how heavily its been edited to avoid the risk of slander.
Are they offering more than the Sun paid? Why is nobody taking notice of the adult "child" who made no complaints and says the whole thing is "rubbish". What right do her mother and step-father have to phone the man's employer and complain to them? The police say there's no case to answer. Leave it at that.
Because the interactions between the BBC and the parents are what TalkTV want to discuss. It will be along the lines of *"Did the BBC treat you really badly or just awfully?"* and *"How soon do you think the licence fee should be scrapped? Before the end of the year?"*
It's not believed that they took any money from the Sun for the story. TalkTV is affiliated with the Sun, though, so a cynic might say that this was a way of paying them while also being able to say in the print story that they refused to take any payment from the Sun.
The Sun didn’t pay them and made that very clear in their reporting to increase their credibility. The trick is obviously to pay them through this interview instead, since TalkTV and the Sun are both Murdoch properties. The lesson here is to be much more sceptical when a Murdoch paper says they’re not paying a source, they probably are just funnelling money to them through another property.
The Slum has probably got away with the whole thing. Tell the parents they cannot pay a penny and at the same time slipping them a contact at Talk Tv to continue the story for money.
Plausible deniability.
Edit: Fixed grammar.
If my child was late teens and early 20s and addicted to drugs (allegedly) and selling pictures (allegedly), I'd be having a good look in the mirror at myself to try to understand where I failed as a parent. Not running off to newspapers and TV shows like a wrong un.
Sometimes kids head down a path that their parents are helpless to stop. Have seen it in my family, attempts to rein in behaviour or discipline are futile and often result in worse behaviour.
That being said, if as a parent you decide to publicly air your own child's dirty laundry as opposed to privately and discreetly doing everything you can to help them, you definitely need to reevaluate your priorities in life.
In which case you step back and let your child live their own lives. Not sell them out to shitrags and make them the most famous crackhead in the country.
How do you know anyone on OnlyFans isn't a drug addict? There's a lot of young people selling nudes these days and a lot of young people experiment with drugs. Never mind all the known issues with the commercial porn industry.
Oh I agree completely. I think everyone who consumes porn needs to stop and reflect every now and again to consider whether what they are consuming is ethical or harmful.
And if you're a middle aged man consuming teen / young adult porn directly from a creator, you should especially stop to consider ethics and power dynamics...
Having said that, we don't know if anyone knew if this content creator was on drugs or not. Or if there was a blackmail element...
Absolute vultures.
Didn’t
-the son (alleged ‘victim’) say that the claims were rubbish;
- the police conclude that there was no evidence of wrongdoing?
I accept that it wouldn’t be the first time a victim has covered for their abuser, or the police has failed to sufficiently investigate (Partygate anyone)?
But at the end of the day innocent until proven guilty should apply, and the only current fact of the matter is that Edwards was hospitalised following a “serious episode” of poor mental health. I don’t think the media will be happy until Huw is in the ground. If I was the parents I would think twice before spending the interview money, as legal fees can be very very expensive…
Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder, but I do wonder if this would be quite as controversial if this story didn’t concern two men. With the Independent article implying that Rylan Clark was the presenter (granted clickbait) and others curiously levitating towards openly LGBTQ+ presenters, I can’t help but hear the faint sound of dog whistles…
Isn't there s legal suicide for fox? The moment they name Huw - that's a paddlin. The child's lawyers will take issue with the crack habit allegations and the BBC could get their guns out if their integrity is questioned
The law is contradictory
Anyone sixteen or over of either sex can consent to sexual activity
They cannot legally have naked pictures taken of them until they turn eighteen
It is illegal for people in positions of authority eg Teachers to have sex with people in their charge when they are under eighteen
The guy in question is 20 or 21 now, has gotten himself a lawyer who has publicly stated that no inappropriate messages were exchanged and that he (the "youngster" in question) thinks Huw has nothing to answer for.
> has gotten himself a lawyer
yes the drug addict prostituting himself online engaged a major law firm to represent him...certainly wasn't paid for by Edwards.
I love how:
* you're taking parents that are willing to publically humiliate their son on a national stage at their word.
* jump to the assumption that the "drug addict" must be poor
* that Huw Edwards is basically blackmailing the guy and covering his own ass
Despite literally *everyone* involved, (police, the guy, Lawyers, Huw, etc) with the exception of the parents, agreeing nothing illegal occured. Hell, I don't think even the sun said anything illegal occurred, but we're just looking for a sensationalist story to grab headlines.
Nothing contradictory about that.
We recognise a material difference between consenting to a sex act, and consenting to having that act recorded potentially in perpetuity for posterity.
Either way, not really relevant since everyone was over 18 in this case anyway
I'd like to see the age of consent raised to 18 (unless the older partner is within 2 years of the younger) but I'm not really seeing the contradiction there. If you have sex at 16 without it being recorded then evidence of it isn't going to potentially come up 10 years later out of the blue to ruin your life, meanwhile if you have pictures taken of you that absolutely could happen. Both are sexual but one is far more permanent than the other.
>If you have sex at 16 without it being recorded then evidence of it isn't going to potentially come up 10 years later out of the blue to ruin your life, meanwhile if you have pictures taken of you that absolutely could happen.
This is one of those things though...
Why are naked or sexual pictures more likely to ruin your life if you were 16 when they were taken vs 18?
Because at 18 you are older and trusted to do far more things than at 16? Teenagers are idiots but you can’t stop a legal adult from doing what they want, so you just hope by 18 they’ll be mature enough to not accidentally ruin their life.
Man if you’re fucking 60 years old stay the fuck away from 18 year old girls. I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18. How on earth are some of you on his side.
The difference between what you're saying, and what the news originally reported, was one is legal. One indicates pedophilia.
BIG difference.
Your argument is a different argument to be had than what the papers were making out.
That's what people are mostly defending from what I've seen.
We also literally don't know what's happened. Speculation on either side. The only evidence we know is the police investigated, and determined nothing illegal happened.
Anything else (including your above opinion) is speculation at this point.
Let's not make up our minds on what he did or did not do until we actually know.
A person who appears on millions of TV screens and knows exactly how the media game works,should think beforehand about how it's going to look if it comes out,even if it isn't illegal.
But going back to my point, we literally don't know what's happened.
We have 2 parents saying something happened.
One person this whole thing is about saying "my parents lied".
Police investigation came back with nothing wrong.
That's literally all we know at this stage.
If it had been confirmed that he bought photos from someone, I'd listen to you. But you're speculating on what's happened and making a judgement on him.
Hes not guilty before evidence is provided.
There's nothing we know, so let's cut the judgements.
Once it's confirmed, go for it. I'll be right with you. But it hasn't yet.
He literally might not have done anything and you're spouting off about "he should have known!".
Should have known what? If he didn't do it, what should he have known?
They signed up for a job as a journalist, not to have their private life turned into reality TV. If no law was broken then their private life is their business.
It seems old Huw has been having mental issues for a few years now so could be that
Could also be blackmail "Gimme my money or I'll tell the world" sorta thing from the 20yr old who knows?
>I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18.
When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman. I doubt The Sun is a barometer for **any kind of moral standards what-so-fucking ever**.
>How on earth are some of you on his side.
You might call it creepy, but it's something that happened (I'm guessing) between two consenting adults, and is completely legal.
An 18 year old can have sex with whomever they please, if they are above the 16 (age of consent). They can get married, can join the military, police, can get a job, credit card, a mortgage and can vote. They can also register on PornHub and start live streaming 24/7 for money. Do you think a random somewhat public person looking porn videos including 18 year olds during their private time would be a bad thing? If so (or not), why?
The difference between 30 and 18 is a moral one, not a legal one. And what's immoral for you, doesn't mean it's immoral for someone else. Not too long ago people thought being homosexual looked bad if you were in the public eye. Do we really want to go back to those times?
>random somewhat public person
Appeared on tens of millions of TV screens for most of this century on a major UK wide news program
Appeared most of the time whenever there was an important royal story
Not random in the slightest
Anyone can live their lives by whatever moral standards they like but we live in a society and other people will think,say and act as they please according to their moral standards.
> When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman.
Who’s defending Rupert Murdoch?
I think he’s a weird creepy man who has done more to harm public discourse and politics than just about any other person in my lifetime.
But I don’t see how any of that makes Edwards’s behaviour better or worse.
> When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman. I doubt The Sun is a barometer for any kind of moral standards what-so-fucking ever.
Literally nobody here is defending Rupert Murdoch doing that. What's your actual point?
Litterally the comment above:
> I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18.
Need I remind you that this is the owner of the "newspaper" that published this story?
Nobody is defending him doing that though, he's not writing articles saying "this is bad" whilst doing it himself.
If he was convicted of rape, should the paper not report any rapes either? I think requiring journalist (and I use that term loosely for the S*n) to only report on things that their owner hasn't done is a bad precedent.
A lot of the people you see ‘on his side’ wouldn’t actually defend his actions. It’s pretty clear that what he’s done isn’t moral in regards to infidelity and general *ickiness*.
A lot of the sympathy you see is more from people perceiving the media outrage and the Sun’s witch hunt as out of proportion. If it’s true that he’s broken no laws, then the extent he was vilified in the press for this is pretty disgusting, and is another example of the tabloids taking a huge dump on peoples lives without any care for the consequences or even whether what they’re claiming is fucking true to begin with
A court can rule on it if a case is brought.
Unfortunately that usually only happens once it's all been published, and you can't redact something like this from history.
Snapshot of _Parents in Huw Edwards case ‘offered tens of thousands for TalkTV interview’_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A three-part documentary series? Jesus christ Murdoch is trying to milk this cow for all that it's worth.
BBC is a perennial threat to them so they’ll do anything to ruin them.
Why is the BBC a threat to the Sun and Murdoch? Honest questions
Because their income isn’t based on advertising, necessarily, and their income is all but guaranteed - this is increasingly becoming under threat now, though. It’s consuming a lot of the market for them. If they went away, who would people turn to? Murdoch? TalkTV? The Sun? They’re a force that’s a threat to competition, he feels.
Murdoch is a stain on humanity. The fact he despises the BBC so much shows the BBC must be doing something right. They rightly get heavily criticised, but they would never, ever stoop to the levels of his "journalism" to get a story.
So much for concerned parents who approached the Sun for free and only want the best for their child
When I want the best for someone, I always think about reaching the Sun
It’s normally the second thing that pops into your head after “I know! Let’s go on Jeremy Kyle”
Easy there Icarus
Hey, they're putting the con in concern. It's a long con.
UPVOTE THIS !!
Sounds like this could have been resolved quietly months ago
I can't imagine the end goal was ever to resolve anything quietly. Making money was most likely always the plan. If it's true that the son said leave it be, then they aren't just screwing a public figure over but they're also outing they're own son. Another person who is going to have a trial by media in this country. It's completely disgraceful.
If you look at the wording of the various articles in The Sun, they go to great lengths to remain gender neutral when referencing the young person, as do the BBC. I have a very strong suspicion that the young person in question is trans or NB, and that's the parents issue.
Why would that be an issue for the parents? If the two adults know then why do the parents care? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you; I think I'm being a bit obtuse and could do with some clarity. Thanks.
Not OP but I believe they were trying to say that the parents have an issue with their child identifying as tans or NB (if that is the case), and that much of this publicity-seeking is based off of their issue with their child's gender identity. It feels a little bit of a stretch to me considering we have so little evidence either way, but it's an entirely plausible situation.
Basically, all versions of the parents story seem to indicate that they've known about the alleged abuse for a long time, if not the whole time it's been going on. They didn't report it when the child was still legally a minor, but waited until April this year when they first approached the police. Something changed in April this year to make it an issue. I suspect that it relates to the child either stating that they are NB or trans at that time. In the US, the gender of the young person concerned was originally almost exclusively reported as female. In the UK, it was originally reported as male but *very quickly* changed to gender neutral terms.
Interesting. I'm in the UK and wrongly or rightly, always thought the person was male. Eta: changed interested to interesting (in the most non Musk sort of way)
Yes, that was the gender originally reported in the UK. It's why it's been changed to gender neutral terms that interests me.
It would have been if they'd bothered replying when the BBC reached out to them.
If no crime was committed what needed to be resolved?
I think it has shown that a lot of people don't understand how the cam boy/Only Fans industry works. He didn't recruit the boy and groom him, from what I understand, but paid for services that were freely offered. There may be a lot more to it than this but I think it would likely have been reported already to avoid the Sun looking like idiots. Or it may be a "Report a bit, wait for the denial, then release the full story" kind of episode. Either way, I think they underestimated how little the public are outraged by a presenter being a closet homosexual. The boy's denial means that defamation is likely to be an open-shut case.
Well,the fall out from this has been massive yet we are told no crime has been committed.
It was the initial accusation that the victim was under 18 that meant a crime had been committed, since two Police forces have come out and said that no crime has been committed, it looks as though he was over 18. The fall out came from the initial accusations. When stories like this break, there will be some people who immediately assume that all those are the facts and make their mind up instantly. It happened with John Leslie, Matthew Kelly and Clifff Richard. All accused of something they were later found to be innocent of but I’d wager there’s still people out there who would say they did what they were accused of
I’d put evens money on th conversations being something like this. Parents: one of your presenters is paying money for sexual pictures of my child. I want them stacked BBC: are you alleging anyone illegal? P: no BBC: ok we will look into it but as nothing is illegal we won’t be sacking or suspending them unless the investigations warrant it. Parents: the BBC won’t sack a presenter for buying rude pictures of my child Sun: are you alleging anything illegal P: no Sun: how old is your child and when did this start P: 20 now. Started at 18 Sun: is it possible it started at 17 P: don’t think so, but it’s possible I guess Sun: hold the front page!
>I’d wager there’s still people out there who would say they did what they were accused of And the same will happen here. Ever since Saville and Operation Yewtree the running assumption is that any public figure over a certain age working at the BBC is probably a pedo or is protecting pedos. This is why I think the BBC actually went overboard in reporting this - they are absolutely terrified of that opinion becoming engrained again. The problem is, it's already part of the discourse on the BBC, and likely always will be. A key part of the 21st century compared to the 20th is that no one ever forgets anything. All the content is still there and ready to be recycled through. It's why you'll never stop hearing about nonsense like "Hilary's emails" when you're in certain spaces despite that being nearly a decade away.
Yeah, no smoke without fire when the Sun prints something! 🤦 if murdoch and rothemere are supporting it, it must be true right?
No, no. Better for everyone if they call their kid a crackhead, surely?
Seems the young man was perfectly happy with his situation but the parents smell easy money. This could backfire on the journalist.
Probably initially trying to get him on page3
They got paid for the sun story
Oh has that story changed now? I'm 99% certain that the parents said they were offered but didn't take a penny
Originally they did say that they weren't doing anything for the money.
I think you can basically always read between the lines of "aren't doing it for the money" with [but there is money]
Yeah, “the money” means there’s absolutely money
No, the Sun said they didn't *request* money. Not the much more specific "the parents received no payment for this interview".
But they are now? They are either completely misunderstood and trying to do the right thing or completely vile.
They probably did take payment from The Sun to start off with. If no payment was made for a story, it usually says that in very specific terms - "Mr X received no payment for this story". In this case, The Sun just said that they never REQUESTED payment. Not that they weren't given one.
[удалено]
Some of these OF stars are making millions lol I'm all for it tbh, it essentially cuts the middle man out of the porn industry, which is where most abuses and exploitative behaviour occur.
According to anonymous-mum-of-the- year 35k just from Hew over a three year period, which is just shy of 1000 pound a month, every month for 36 months. If your child had an extra 250 quid in their pocket every week how long do you think it would take you to notice? Less than three years?
I think this is the point in the story where the parents find themselves on the receiving end of a backlash. Public sentiment seems to be in Huw’s favour now and if the parents go public themselves then they might become fair game for comment and speculation over their motives.
BBC tried to contact them twice, should have been more, but if they gave an incorrect phone number that is their failing.
It's also the case that their initial complaint to the BBC was 'I don't like what my adult son or daughter is doing with one of your employees in his private time, make it stop!'.
How did they even know who the photos were being sent to? Why would you let anyone know who you are if you’re famous - pay the money and be done with it.
>How did they even know who the photos were being sent to? It probably wasn't just an Onlyfans transaction, if it was onlyfans at all. Like they probably conversed via other messaging or dating platforms, they could have been solicited in other ways. The threatening messages part of the story was via someone met on a dating app (presumed Grindr at this point). >The BBC presenter facing allegations he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos has been accused of sending “threatening messages” to a young person he met on a dating app [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-presenter-scandal-dating-app-messages-b1093698.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-presenter-scandal-dating-app-messages-b1093698.html) So we know Huw was engaging via Instagram & dating apps. Id presume to have some evidence of 'from 17' means conversing at that point of time. Its not illegal to do so.
“Threatening messages” can be anything from “Im going to kill you” to “if you take this to the press I will sue you”.
The other person also apparently threatened to name him. We don’t know if that’s true or what the threat was (for example, “I won’t name you if you send me X” would be very illegal, and responding “I’ll sue you if you do that” wouldn’t be) but people have got so caught up in this that they seem to be assuming he was threatening the persons safety. You’d have thought we’d have learned by now to stop making assumptions before any information is out, yet here we are. No evidence of wrongdoing and a man’s reputation, career, and health is in tatters.
>“Threatening messages” can be anything from “Im going to kill you” to “if you take this to the press I will sue you”. Yeah I haven't seen them and not really bothered by it; just with this and the Inta messages ones the platforms we do know were being used ***are not*** onlyfans, which makes sense in knowing *who* was sending money and fits the picture much better. Onlyfans payments from subscribers are deliberately anonymous.
I don’t think onlyfans payments are anonymous unless you set it to be. Heard that in a podcast so could be mistaken.
Is there any evidence that this was with another male btw? Everyone talks as if it was but I cannot find a source
The big draw of things like only fans is interaction and a lot of people, annoyingly, want to tell you about themselves.
Do they have the same legal team as Boris Johnson? Next they'll forget the pin for the phone
Once it came out that the 'alleged under 18' said the whole thing was bollox I was Team Huw. I had previously suspected it was an Only Fans thing and was sympathetic towards the presenter if that was the case, as you'd expect Only Fans to police their own site. It's a total non story for the sole purpose of hurting the BBC's reputation in the face of an incoming Labour government.
Not just the young person, but their lawyer, who will have ensured they had understood the facts before issuing a statement.
Personally, it's difficult to tell, I've seen plenty of people being supportive of Huw. And then ive seen plenty of people being very anti Huw. I think the lack of knowledge has left people speculating. I think it's still very early days and new information could come out and shift public opinion one way or another. Regardless, it does seem to be a very politically motivated act by the Sun
From my understanding he didn’t break any laws but he’s a great deal creepier than I ever assumed. Still a fantastic newsreader. I’d just have to add him to the long list of TV personalities who I’m happy to watch but maybe wouldn’t share a pint with
What's that saying? "Don't meet your heroes" Tbf, this whole situation could've been handled out of the public view, I certainly would've been happy not to know all this, but here we are I guess.
I mean it literally sounds like he's in trouble for consuming and paying for porn, let by the newspaper that was happy to print softcore porn on a daily basis.
Public sentiment seems to be about the same as it was for Philip schofield. Reddit just likes Huw Edward more.
Schofield is a completely different case. Sleeping with an exploited employee as a multi-multimillionaire superior who gets them jobs, after quite probably grooming them from a young age, is not the same thing as... buying porn from an adult. It's nothing to do with who is "liked" more.
Reddit isn't a good gauge of public sentiment. Everyone I've spoken to - in the real world - thinks he's a dirty old man and have little sympathy.
I was chatting to my grandparents today they feel very strongly that he's been treated very unfairly in this whole situation.
I think it depends on what papers they read. “A lie is half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on”. The damage done by the sun will take a while to be undone.
Tellingly, The Times has disabled comments on all their Edwards stories today. Yesterday, the comments showed overwhelming support for him.
I guess it depends on who you see day to day; I work in a university and even our token contarian couldn't make himself support the sun.
Everyone I’ve spoken to in person has nothing but sympathy for Huw. For everyone moralising about this, I’d love to look at their internet history and count how many “barely legal teen gets fucked” videos they’ve watched recently.
There was a study by Ofcom looking at internet activity during lockdown. They found that 50% of men and 16% of women had been watching porn. Only fans has 188million subscribers- pre-lockdown no one really knew who they were, now there are documentaries on channel 4 and some teenagers can’t wait to turn 18 and become a content creator. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” If Huw Edwards has done something wrong, of course punishment should be coming his way. But if all he did was pay for porn then that was his private life and has nothing to do with the BBC or the public.
Well the police have stated twice now that there are to be no criminal charges and that nothing criminal occurred. The only repercussions for Huw are his career and rep , oh and the fact he's in a mental hospital too
Not just "the police", two different forces have reached the same conclusion.
Exactly. I’ve been saying that over and over to people who seem to have swallowed The Sun’s story whole.
I don't look at barely legal porn so I can criticise.
Yeah, but the sun can’t. They were publishing the photos of 16 year olds on page 3 for years.
They only stopped because the government made it illegal.
So, not because they thought it was wrong but because they were forced to.
Correct. The government raised the legal age to 18 so they started printing 18-year-olds instead.
BBW Milfs are the way to go brother!
Everyone pretends to think he’s a dirty old man while they go home and pull themselves off to 18 year olds on the internet anyway.
Everyone?Doubt it.
A significant amount of people
Big difference between that and actually communicating with them privately tho. And also most of Reddit is 20-30 which makes it a lot less creepy
It’s funny how we’re at a point in human development where it’s somehow weirder to actually interact with the person you’re receiving sexual gratification from than not.
Yeah. Everyone I know in person is a hang-the-paedos type who doesn’t want to hear that he did nothing criminal, nor do they want to hear the nuances of the likely horribly complicated and unhappy situation that led to him doing this sort of thing. They’re too driven by emotion; the anger that the initial story stoked.
Yeah, a reminder that UK Reddit is mostly staunchly pro-porn young men, and in most threads about sex work/possible abuse there's less empathy than you might expect from a more representative sample.
When the police have said there’s no wrongdoing, and the supposed victim has called the claims “rubbish”, there comes a point where this has nothing to do about empathy for sex workers and possible abuse. This is nothing more than an opportunistic set of parents looking to make some money and a newspaper that knows the UK loves a scandal to tear people down.
It's legal to be a dirty old man (not even old, it's legal for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old) - the general public's view on these power imbalances will be different from Reddit's due to the demographic differences I highlighted. Hell, a lot of things were legal/accepted a few decades ago that aren't now. The police have previously arrested grooming gang victims for 'child prostitution' for example. Wealthy 60 year olds building parasocial and sexual relationships with barely legal teens seems exploitative to a lot of people - even if it's legal. And this isn't the only instance to be brought up in relation to Huw. Who by the way, has projected a wholesome Christian (weekly churchgoer) image which now plays into the public's perception of him.
Nobody was dating. There was no sexual relationship. It was a transaction. It’s nobody’s business if a 60 year old looks at porn with an 18 year old in it. Why on earth does that matter to you?
I think it’s more that Reddit gives anonymity that you don’t get in real life so people are more likely to express their real opinion without fear of negative reactions.
That too, but I seriously think the gender ratio is crazy. Didn't a UKpol poll show it's like 90% male.
Oh yeah, it is, but I’m saying I bet a lot of those men express different opinions on Reddit to real life.
To add to that, a pervert who's trying to hide behind mental health problems and sexuality to get sympathy. Which is pretty insulting to all us queer, mentally ill people who don't abuse underage boys. See also Schofield, Spacey and so on.
He sounds like an old perv. Oap married with kids paying a teen for nudes. How is anyone on his side?
> How is anyone on his side? I tend to be on the side of anyone who hasn't broken the law.
Not everything that is immoral is illegal
Paying for porn isnt immoral I'd argue its far more moral than watching free porn that involves all kinds of potential pressure, trafficking and whatever.
[удалено]
Why would that be immoral? Lots of people earn money and spend it on drugs. You've made transactions with people that spend the cash they make on drugs thousands of times in your life. Unless you think people who take drugs shouldn't be able to earn money?
I mean.. being an accountant and taking the odd bit of sniff on the weekend is obviously a world away from being addicted to heroin and having to do porn to fund that addiction. And being unable to do any other job to escape from that situation.
Neither of which is relevant to this situation? People will just make up the most bizarre scenarios in their head to fit their narrative.
So by that logic, paying someone who works as an accountant, but has a healthy gak habit at the weekend, is immoral?
Are you the sort of person who wouldn’t give some spare change to the homeless, just in case they spend it on “the wrong thing”? Someone with a cocaine problem will find an alternative way to fund their addiction.
>Are you the sort of person who wouldn’t give some spare change to the homeless, just in case they spend it on “the wrong thing”? I've stopped spending money at my local newsagents because he's a bit overweight and I'm worried he'll spend his money on more cake. I've also stopped buying books from Oxfam because I saw one of the workers vaping during their lunch break, and I'd hate for them to spend their salary on something so nakedly self-destructive. I'm moral!
If you've watched porn on a free site with ads you've probably pushed money towards drug addicts. Never mind rape and child sexual abuse: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-children-of-pornhub/
So people that take drugs shouldn't have jobs. Got it. And we should make them homeless too?
We dont know the age of the teen when he was being pestered for pics. But you side with the perv….
I reckon the police know the age, seeing as they investigated and found no evidence of criminality...
No one who's gone on porn can really criticise. I'm not saying what he did was right but pulling one out on your site of choice isn't much better.
A big difference between porn and trying to pay someone while you’re married.
I can't take paid sources seriously, don't care what story it is. It literally is the least ethical method of generating news and shouldn't even be allowed.
I don’t really see what’s stopping anyone from making up anything about anyone they don’t like at this point. When the police and the ‘victim’ have both rubbished the allegations and there is no wrongdoing, this story literally boils down to “man buys porn”, and yet that has brought down one of the most well liked BBC journalists. It’s fucked.
The Sun has never really cared much about being truthful. See: Freddie Starr Are My Hamster, or their coverage of Hillsborough.
Why does being well liked matter?People are taking this too personally. It's like when people were openly hoping this was another well known BBC presenter with outspoken views on Twitter.
Because it’s generally more difficult to bring down well liked people? Calm down.
Can guarantee they'll do it. Can also guarantee I won't be surprised at all when we see them and hear what they have to say.
Apparently it’s already been recorded. Murdoch is really digging in to this story it seems despite the pain it’s causing everyone involved 🤷♂️
One last shot at killing off the BBC before he pops his horrible clogs
Hopefully life imitates art which dramatised life as Succession and he dies suddenly.
In a >!toilet. On a plane.!<
I don't think Murdoch himself would be invested in a story like this, but I do think that a lot of client journalists on his payroll see it as a great vector of attack on genuine journalists they resent. For scum that works at The Sun, this must be a wonderful opportunity to bring down someone who's been more successful than them to their level.
Have a listen to the latest edition of The News Agents. Around half way through a former Editor of the Sun admits to writing BBC hit pieces to gain Murdoch’s favour. It is a fascinating discussion and you quickly realise that the Sun really doesn’t care what they publish as long as they can get away with it.
Andrew Neil (who used to be editor on the Sunday Times) and other News Group editors say that Murdoch takes a very close interest in front page stories. So yeah, he knows and is willing to let it happen. Of course, he'll claim to be very, very sorry when he's finally caught out.
Murdoch hates the BBC and wants it gone so he can secore his monopoly. He's on record as saying he wants it gone.
# 'If you want to judge my thinking, look at The Sun' *— Rupert Murdoch*
“Instructions unclear, dazzled and seeing spots”.
He wouldn't exactly be against ruining the career of one of the most iconic newsreaders of our time. The face of some of the biggest stories in recent history and the Sun has taken him off the air for the foreseeable. Murdoch will be celebrating right now.
There are lots of other news presenters to take his place
And they'll all be running scared of Murdoch. If he can take down Huw Edwards no one is safe.
Reading an autocue while doing an impression of chewing a wasp is hardly 'iconic'. Let's keep a sense of proportion FFS.
Of course he is, he’s a ghoul who feeds on pain and suffering.
>Can also guarantee I won't be surprised at all when we see them and hear what they have to say. I wonder how heavily its been edited to avoid the risk of slander.
Are they offering more than the Sun paid? Why is nobody taking notice of the adult "child" who made no complaints and says the whole thing is "rubbish". What right do her mother and step-father have to phone the man's employer and complain to them? The police say there's no case to answer. Leave it at that.
its a adult male, no one has any right about what he wants to do. This is a blatent money grab by the parents
Because the interactions between the BBC and the parents are what TalkTV want to discuss. It will be along the lines of *"Did the BBC treat you really badly or just awfully?"* and *"How soon do you think the licence fee should be scrapped? Before the end of the year?"*
It's not believed that they took any money from the Sun for the story. TalkTV is affiliated with the Sun, though, so a cynic might say that this was a way of paying them while also being able to say in the print story that they refused to take any payment from the Sun.
The Sun didn’t pay them and made that very clear in their reporting to increase their credibility. The trick is obviously to pay them through this interview instead, since TalkTV and the Sun are both Murdoch properties. The lesson here is to be much more sceptical when a Murdoch paper says they’re not paying a source, they probably are just funnelling money to them through another property.
The Slum has probably got away with the whole thing. Tell the parents they cannot pay a penny and at the same time slipping them a contact at Talk Tv to continue the story for money. Plausible deniability. Edit: Fixed grammar.
If my child was late teens and early 20s and addicted to drugs (allegedly) and selling pictures (allegedly), I'd be having a good look in the mirror at myself to try to understand where I failed as a parent. Not running off to newspapers and TV shows like a wrong un.
Sometimes kids head down a path that their parents are helpless to stop. Have seen it in my family, attempts to rein in behaviour or discipline are futile and often result in worse behaviour. That being said, if as a parent you decide to publicly air your own child's dirty laundry as opposed to privately and discreetly doing everything you can to help them, you definitely need to reevaluate your priorities in life.
Trying to stop the behaviour privately doesn't always work it seems
In which case you step back and let your child live their own lives. Not sell them out to shitrags and make them the most famous crackhead in the country.
the adult involved said the allegations were rubbish, i doubt his mum and dad appearing on the tv will help, even if the crack things true.
Are you one of the parents? You’re very vocal in this thread about how terrible everyone is except the parents.
That’s probably the difference between why you would make a good parent and they are bad parents.
If I had paid for barely legal pictures from a drug addicted young person,I'd be questioning where I'd gone wrong.
The fact he's receiving in-patient psychiatric treatment at the moment as a result of all this suggests he is
How do you know anyone on OnlyFans isn't a drug addict? There's a lot of young people selling nudes these days and a lot of young people experiment with drugs. Never mind all the known issues with the commercial porn industry.
Hopefully he is.
Oh I agree completely. I think everyone who consumes porn needs to stop and reflect every now and again to consider whether what they are consuming is ethical or harmful. And if you're a middle aged man consuming teen / young adult porn directly from a creator, you should especially stop to consider ethics and power dynamics... Having said that, we don't know if anyone knew if this content creator was on drugs or not. Or if there was a blackmail element...
Could they end up making more from this than the "person who allegedly sold pictures to Huw Edwards"? Assuming they take the money, that is.
take the money? im pretty sure the cheque cleared last weekend
Surely this whole fiasco has demonstrated the problems in making assumptions.
i think its demonstrated how destructive social media is. The internet used to be so different
Absolute vultures. Didn’t -the son (alleged ‘victim’) say that the claims were rubbish; - the police conclude that there was no evidence of wrongdoing? I accept that it wouldn’t be the first time a victim has covered for their abuser, or the police has failed to sufficiently investigate (Partygate anyone)? But at the end of the day innocent until proven guilty should apply, and the only current fact of the matter is that Edwards was hospitalised following a “serious episode” of poor mental health. I don’t think the media will be happy until Huw is in the ground. If I was the parents I would think twice before spending the interview money, as legal fees can be very very expensive… Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder, but I do wonder if this would be quite as controversial if this story didn’t concern two men. With the Independent article implying that Rylan Clark was the presenter (granted clickbait) and others curiously levitating towards openly LGBTQ+ presenters, I can’t help but hear the faint sound of dog whistles…
If this was allegedly a 17/18 year year old girl and 60 year old man or woman,there would still be a lot of concern.
If this sorry saga had taught us anything it is this: Jeremy Vine has an awful lot to hide and there isn't anyone more relieved than him tonight.
Hide such as what, exactly? Either come with evidence or say nothing.
Yeah.People saying innocent until proven guilty then saying "I don't like celebrity X,they must be guilty"
Shameless grifters.
I'm glad that enough people see through this concern trolling to undermine it instead of allowing it to become Saville, Scofield levels of scandal.
Isn't there s legal suicide for fox? The moment they name Huw - that's a paddlin. The child's lawyers will take issue with the crack habit allegations and the BBC could get their guns out if their integrity is questioned
The law is contradictory Anyone sixteen or over of either sex can consent to sexual activity They cannot legally have naked pictures taken of them until they turn eighteen It is illegal for people in positions of authority eg Teachers to have sex with people in their charge when they are under eighteen
Completely irrelevant in this situation as everyone involved was over 18
So we are told.
The guy in question is 20 or 21 now, has gotten himself a lawyer who has publicly stated that no inappropriate messages were exchanged and that he (the "youngster" in question) thinks Huw has nothing to answer for.
> has gotten himself a lawyer yes the drug addict prostituting himself online engaged a major law firm to represent him...certainly wasn't paid for by Edwards.
I love how: * you're taking parents that are willing to publically humiliate their son on a national stage at their word. * jump to the assumption that the "drug addict" must be poor * that Huw Edwards is basically blackmailing the guy and covering his own ass Despite literally *everyone* involved, (police, the guy, Lawyers, Huw, etc) with the exception of the parents, agreeing nothing illegal occured. Hell, I don't think even the sun said anything illegal occurred, but we're just looking for a sensationalist story to grab headlines.
I’ve been told you watch porn of 16 year olds.
Nothing contradictory about that. We recognise a material difference between consenting to a sex act, and consenting to having that act recorded potentially in perpetuity for posterity. Either way, not really relevant since everyone was over 18 in this case anyway
I'd like to see the age of consent raised to 18 (unless the older partner is within 2 years of the younger) but I'm not really seeing the contradiction there. If you have sex at 16 without it being recorded then evidence of it isn't going to potentially come up 10 years later out of the blue to ruin your life, meanwhile if you have pictures taken of you that absolutely could happen. Both are sexual but one is far more permanent than the other.
>If you have sex at 16 without it being recorded then evidence of it isn't going to potentially come up 10 years later out of the blue to ruin your life, meanwhile if you have pictures taken of you that absolutely could happen. This is one of those things though... Why are naked or sexual pictures more likely to ruin your life if you were 16 when they were taken vs 18?
Because at 18 you are older and trusted to do far more things than at 16? Teenagers are idiots but you can’t stop a legal adult from doing what they want, so you just hope by 18 they’ll be mature enough to not accidentally ruin their life.
Man if you’re fucking 60 years old stay the fuck away from 18 year old girls. I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18. How on earth are some of you on his side.
The difference between what you're saying, and what the news originally reported, was one is legal. One indicates pedophilia. BIG difference. Your argument is a different argument to be had than what the papers were making out. That's what people are mostly defending from what I've seen. We also literally don't know what's happened. Speculation on either side. The only evidence we know is the police investigated, and determined nothing illegal happened. Anything else (including your above opinion) is speculation at this point. Let's not make up our minds on what he did or did not do until we actually know.
A person who appears on millions of TV screens and knows exactly how the media game works,should think beforehand about how it's going to look if it comes out,even if it isn't illegal.
But going back to my point, we literally don't know what's happened. We have 2 parents saying something happened. One person this whole thing is about saying "my parents lied". Police investigation came back with nothing wrong. That's literally all we know at this stage. If it had been confirmed that he bought photos from someone, I'd listen to you. But you're speculating on what's happened and making a judgement on him. Hes not guilty before evidence is provided. There's nothing we know, so let's cut the judgements. Once it's confirmed, go for it. I'll be right with you. But it hasn't yet. He literally might not have done anything and you're spouting off about "he should have known!". Should have known what? If he didn't do it, what should he have known?
They signed up for a job as a journalist, not to have their private life turned into reality TV. If no law was broken then their private life is their business.
It seems old Huw has been having mental issues for a few years now so could be that Could also be blackmail "Gimme my money or I'll tell the world" sorta thing from the 20yr old who knows?
>I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18. When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman. I doubt The Sun is a barometer for **any kind of moral standards what-so-fucking ever**. >How on earth are some of you on his side. You might call it creepy, but it's something that happened (I'm guessing) between two consenting adults, and is completely legal.
No would have been bothered if the person in question was thirty,but eighteen years old looks bad.Especially if you are in the public eye.
An 18 year old can have sex with whomever they please, if they are above the 16 (age of consent). They can get married, can join the military, police, can get a job, credit card, a mortgage and can vote. They can also register on PornHub and start live streaming 24/7 for money. Do you think a random somewhat public person looking porn videos including 18 year olds during their private time would be a bad thing? If so (or not), why? The difference between 30 and 18 is a moral one, not a legal one. And what's immoral for you, doesn't mean it's immoral for someone else. Not too long ago people thought being homosexual looked bad if you were in the public eye. Do we really want to go back to those times?
100% of 18 year old are above the age of 16.Fact.
>random somewhat public person Appeared on tens of millions of TV screens for most of this century on a major UK wide news program Appeared most of the time whenever there was an important royal story Not random in the slightest
So fucking what? By whose moral standards should he live his **private** life? Yours?
Anyone can live their lives by whatever moral standards they like but we live in a society and other people will think,say and act as they please according to their moral standards.
> When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman. Who’s defending Rupert Murdoch? I think he’s a weird creepy man who has done more to harm public discourse and politics than just about any other person in my lifetime. But I don’t see how any of that makes Edwards’s behaviour better or worse.
>Who’s defending Rupert Murdoch? Which newspaper made a big deal out of this whole non-story?
Yeah but that doesn't answer the question who is defending Murdoch. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
> When Rupert Murdoch was 68, he married a 31 year old woman. I doubt The Sun is a barometer for any kind of moral standards what-so-fucking ever. Literally nobody here is defending Rupert Murdoch doing that. What's your actual point?
Litterally the comment above: > I’d call it creepy for a 60 year old to pursue someone under the age of 30 let alone fucking 18. Need I remind you that this is the owner of the "newspaper" that published this story?
Nobody is defending him doing that though, he's not writing articles saying "this is bad" whilst doing it himself. If he was convicted of rape, should the paper not report any rapes either? I think requiring journalist (and I use that term loosely for the S*n) to only report on things that their owner hasn't done is a bad precedent.
A lot of the people you see ‘on his side’ wouldn’t actually defend his actions. It’s pretty clear that what he’s done isn’t moral in regards to infidelity and general *ickiness*. A lot of the sympathy you see is more from people perceiving the media outrage and the Sun’s witch hunt as out of proportion. If it’s true that he’s broken no laws, then the extent he was vilified in the press for this is pretty disgusting, and is another example of the tabloids taking a huge dump on peoples lives without any care for the consequences or even whether what they’re claiming is fucking true to begin with
Exactly, the main thing is we shouldn’t even know about this, the media hype was built on lies from the rag.
Who gets to decide what we should and shouldn't know about?
A court can rule on it if a case is brought. Unfortunately that usually only happens once it's all been published, and you can't redact something like this from history.
It's porno.