BEARKING NEWS, DL Sleuths! Who could it be?

PIERS MORGAN.

Gary Lineker.

I don't know why I think that, I just have a feeling.

Interesting that no gender is specified - I feel that makes it more likely the victim is male?

Off-topic (I don't want to make a new thread for niche British gossip) - if anyone wants to read the email sent before Gideon Osborne's wedding, it's here. I had a good laugh at it. I think maybe it's his wife who is a lawyer or Sarah Vine who sent it.

What exactly makes a picture sordid? Do they have to present hole or be erect? I think a harness is sordid.

[quote]Gary Lineker. I don't know why I think that, I just have a feeling.

I would give him my sexual pictures free of charge.

I think sordid in this context is saying 'sexually explicit' and 'morally wrong' (given that the victim is a crack addict who may be being taken advantage of).

[quote]Samantha Simmonds recently made orgasmic noises off-camera, when she forgot to turn off her mic during the weather forecast. Maybe she was flicking her bean to the nudie pix?

^^ Disregard the quote tags!

The article makes it clear that the 'star' is a man. I wouldn't call Simmonds a 'top star' either although who knows how they define that.

Please let it be Piers Morgan! Hate that douche

[quote]Please let it be Piers Morgan!

He isn't a BBC star.

Brit DLers, can you name some BBC stars?

Oh well, it can’t be Morgan then. He’s one of those blustering, holier-than-thou fools who seems to be suppressing something, though. That guy must have a catacomb in his closet!

Lineker hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Dan O’Neill.

Graham Norton, obviously

R13 Some who come to mind: Nick Robinson, Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross, Jeremy Vine, Ian Hislop, Lineker, Tony Hancock, Mr Blobby, Mr Tumble.

R17 The complaint was made last May, but Norton’s show was already cancelled. Has he been on air since then?

Wait, there's someone named Mr. Blobby?!

That poison pen letter was STUNNING, R4. Whomever wrote it is the cuntiest cunt whoever cunted!

Jonathan Ross left the BBC in 2018. It’s not him.

R4, damn, British people know how to hate!

Ian Hislop is also not with the BBC.

R24 Hislop is team captain on the BBC quiz show Have I Got News for You as well as some other BBC shows and radio. What other channel has he even been on?

R18 Mr. Blobby is the groomer. You win!

Highest paid BBC presenters BBC Salary List 2022 Gary Lineker - £1,350,000-£1,354,999. ... Zoe Ball - £980,000-£984,999. ... Alan Shearer - £450,000-£454,999. ... Stephen Nolan - £415,000-£419,999. ... Huw Edwards - £410,000-£414,999. ... Vanessa Feltz - £400,000-£404,999. ... Greg James - £390,000-£394,999. ... Ken Bruce - £385,000-£389,999.

It's Phillip Schofield.

R28 He's ITV.

More clicks for Murdoch. Great.

It feels like gay men in the media try to protect their own in cases like this by keeping the young person's sex a secret - even though it's clearly a male. This actually hurts gay people because I guarantee you that outsiders are picking up on the concerted efforts to suppress the fact that it's a young male who is making the complaint.

It's him. Savile 2.0:

Sky News' attempt at gender-neutral language is very amateurish:

[quote][The mother] claimed the presenter requested "performances" and that her [bold]offspring[/bold] had used the cash to fund an addiction to crack cocaine

[quote] The man is said to have paid the youth more than £35,000 since 2020.

No fool like an old fool!

Well Lineker is trending on Twitter, but isn’t he a known womaniser so why would the article go to the trouble of not naming the sex if it wasn’t a male.

Out of curiosity I looked up what the law says and it's illegal which surprised me.

"What does the law say?

In the UK the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16. However, it is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. The law is contained in Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978. "

Mrs. Bucket... The old cougar 😏

Rylan says it's not him

Bruno Antonioni?

Greg Davies

OF COURSE! It has to be one of those chummy panel show comedian types. Could be Angus Deayton 2.0.

[quote]why would the article go to the trouble of not naming the sex if it wasn’t a male.

We may be reading too much into that, since we're us.

I hope it's not Alexander Armstrong.

Complaint was made May 19. Eurovision final was 6 days before that on 16 May. What else was on TV then? Will be shocked if its Norton, as being so entertainingly asexually effete is such a big part of his schtick.

What about Ant? Or Dec?

They're with ITV, R44. Too déclassé for the BBC.

13th May, not 16th for Eurovision

Obviously, you shouldn't be flirting with anyone underage, but I don't consider 16/17 year olds to be "kids". Yes, they're minors and you shouldn't date them, but if you do "have a crush" on one, it's not pedo territory like it would be with an actual small child, like a five year old. Being attracted to very young children is far worse.

Some teenagers are sex mad and attention starved. Not innocent or confused at all. At 17, you know what you're doing, so why act appalled now?

I hope it's not Graham Norton. Not because I have any particular love for him, just because he is one of our flagship gays.

R47 Doesn't matter, if it's true he paid for nudes from someone under 18, that's illegal so the BBC has to take him off air.

A middle-aged (or older) person being attracted to a seventeen-year-old doesn't them a paedophile, but the power dynamics are still icky, especially if said seventeen-year-old is a drug addict.

Have you the contact details for said seventeen-year-old drug addict, r58?

Jeremy Vine might have them, R51

One of the complaints about the Schofield coverage was that it was homophobic to mention that the teenage he had a relationship with was male.

I wonder if that’s influenced the reporting on this, as well as avoiding a witch hunt of BBC gays.

It’s all a misunderstanding.

Why was Graham Norton’s show canceled. I thought it was very popular.

To all those saying Graham Norton, he's hosting an Irish show at the moment as well as doing a reboot of Wheel Of Fortune for ITV. He's been doing his talk show for decades, he's probably due a change.

According to other gossip it is a young man.

[quote]Allegations have surfaced that a male BBC presenter has been paying a lad a total of more than £35,000 over 3 years since he was 17 years old for explicit pictures.

The lads parents complained to the BBC after he ignored their pleas to stop sending the money as it had led the lad to start buying drugs.

Graham Norton's BBC show hasn't been cancelled, it runs Autumn to Spring.

35,000 pounds sounds like a lot of money for pictures. And decades ago it would have been. But today I think that 35,000 pounds will get you $2498 if you convert your money,

I know many won’t believe this but at one time the UK was a major world power.

I just saw a theory on Twitter that this is BS made up to distract from George Osborne's problems.

r59 I think someone robbed you. £35000 converts to $44938.25.

Anyway the nonce was Jeremy Vine BBC are quietly deleting his catalogue.

[quote]I just saw a theory on Twitter that this is BS made up to distract from George Osborne's problems.

Everything is a conspiracy to some people.

Apparently it’s somebody who works for the BBC regions - not a mainstream London figure.

r63 Are regional presenters paid enough to throw away £35k on this? I'd have thought that would be about an entire years wage.

Well, if you're sure — better be LINEKER!

R61

I realized I was being taken advantage of. Saw it was a terrible exchange rate, So I instead took my money in guilders. And in 2023 you can get a shit load of guilders in an exchange for dollars. Way better than a pound.

Today I am off to find a place to take my guilders . I made one hell of a deal.

I doubt it is Graham. Rich gay old men have zero problems getting less than half their age.

Right-wing Twitter desperately wants it to be Gary Lineker.

Lineker probably asked some poor refugee kid to show him her pussy.

Jeremy Vine also says it's not him. By the end of the day we may have worked it out via process of elimination.

Damn. And there was me hoping I'd be able to turn onto Radio2 at lunch time without having to listen to 70 year old Mick from Nottingham's views on immigration, homosexuality and the colour of his benefit scrounging neighbours house for once.

I’m surprised more rich and powerful people haven’t fought to challenge the UK’s draconian press/privacy laws. Whenever a situation like this happens with a public figure whose identity is kept hidden, so many innocent people have their names dragged through the mud…based on mere speculation.

I don't understand your thinking R72.

Are you saying rich and powerful people should fight to make it easier for the media to name those accused of wrongdoing to avoid innocent people being named as part of the speculation process when the person is anonymous?

Or are you saying that rich and powerful people should make it harder for people to speculate about the identify of "a tv presenter accused of...." or "a premiership footballer arrested on suspicion of...."?

I still think it could be Rylan. I hope it’s Rylan. A repulisive looking, talent-free piece of shit who’s a prime example of the UK’s provincial tradition of elevating reality TV contestants to celebrity status.

What a sad little life R74.

Rylan is an amazing broadcaster. He's talented and sincere and interested in whoever he's interviewing. And he's made it clear it's not him.

R31, why does it matter if the victim is male or female? It's wrong either way

It’s clearly Clare Balding.

It's Carol the weather lady.

R75 Hiiii Rylan!

[quote]And he's made it clear it's not him.

Well he would say that, wouldn't he?

I quite agree that it's wrong either way, R76, but that's neither here nor there. It still doesn't explain why the young person is being referred to as "they".

He must be rich if he can drop tens of thousands of pounds just on pictures....

The press issue is irrelevant. UK press leak to the US eventually.

R80 No, he would say nothing.

R83 Please let us know when the US press name this person. The thing is, likely nobody cares or knows who he is in the US, so...?

Dame Edna

Everybody mentioned is denying.

BBC male presenters are tweeting that it’s not them. Gary Lineker, Nicky Campbell, Jeremy Vine, Rylan…

From experience, the tabloids like to exaggerate to get clicks/reads, so I wouldn't be shocked if it's someone half of us haven't heard of.

So it's somebody already gone? Why are they playing coy with identifying them?

Bloody knew there was something shifty about that Anneka Rice.

its LOrraine! oCH me sides

[quote]Graham Norton's BBC show hasn't been cancelled, it runs Autumn to Spring.

Not this time, if this news report is accurate. Why didn’t the BBC report that his series is being replaced by Chris and Rosie Ramsey? Weird.

[quote]To all those saying Graham Norton, he's hosting an Irish show at the moment as well as doing a reboot of Wheel Of Fortune for ITV. He's been doing his talk show for decades, he's probably due a change.

From talk show host of A-list celebrities to moderator on a dumb game show yet to air? Uh oh…..

The Graham Norton Show runs from Autumn to Spring. Pre Covid there break of a month and it returned for 2 months. The last 3 years it ran from Sept/Oct to Mar/Apr. The new series will start in a few months time.

I guess that story is important depending on your interpretation of the world "replaced".

[quote]Why is The Graham Norton Show being replaced by The Chris and Rosie Ramsey Show?

[quote]The show is being replaced in the BBC schedule because the Graham Norton Show usually takes a break over the summer months before returning later in the year.

Just like Phil and Holly were "replaced" by Dermot and Alison on a Friday because they do a 4 day week.

I've seen Ian Hislops name mentioned a few times but I think that's more Tories wanting to whack a journalist. I hope its not him as he's one of the only media personalities whose views I still respect

Osman?

[quote][R13] Some who come to mind: Nick Robinson, Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross, Jeremy Vine, Ian Hislop, Lineker, Tony Hancock, Mr Blobby, Mr Tumble

Vine and Lineker made statements denying involvement; Ross is not BBC; Hancock is dead, and Robinson does not have to pay for nudes. Yet to issue statements: Mr. Blobby, Mr. Tumble, Mr. Hislop and Mr. Norton.

I hope not, R97. That would be really sad for his recent bride, Ingrid Oliver.

Osman's been off Pointless for a while now. Does he have another show?

Yes, House of Games.

Well, Osman would have the budget to pay someone off.

Can anyone tell me who this is from the Mr. Blobby pic at R26? I must know!

David Attenborough's silence is deafening.

R103 I believe he’s Jason Orange of “Take That.”

James Corden?

Lorraine

🎶 who can it be now?

R106 if it was the girl should have charged a lot more

Mr. Blobby did it!

Who would solicit their nude pics to a weird blobby pink thing that looks like a diseased penis? Corden is definitely innocent.

Andi Peters?

BEARKING!

Phillip Schofield

Paddy McGuiness

Now everyone's saying Huw Edwards.

Here's an older but potentially useful list

The way Twitter is lit up over this it seems that everyone has something on everyone else and they're all pointing fingers at each other. The whole sleazy tabloid press/TV news is about to blow up in their collective faces

I hope

If only the kid had been 1 year older when this happened. ONE YEAR. There must be a thrill in breaking taboos or in risking of having charges filed. Maybe both? It’s fun to see them all deleting their hard drives in panic!

Just found this in the BBC archive from 1999. Aged like fine wine, etc.

If this guy is legit, then it's a newsreader.

Ahem

Yikes. Didn't see that coming.

r122 He has a new show coming up so probably not

Amateur

Will the "More clicks for Murdoch" troll PLEASE FUCK OFF?

It’s Huw Edwards then? He looks like a dirty old man, so it would be no surprise.

Bump

Because the two who’ve recently created posts about this are worse than Hitler

Another reason Edwards is a contender is that he’d have to pay (a lot) for the images. The younger, more attractive guys mentioned here (even Norton is a cute daddy for his age) could get them for free.

David Attenborough

Tomasz Shafernaker???

R120 if you think that hasn't aged well...

I want it to be someone I know - but now little Graham!

Everybody keeps saying it's a 'household name' and will blow up the Beeb when it's revealed yada yada.

What does this Huw guy do?

* NOT little Graham

My British frends in the show biz are telling me it really is Jeremy Vine despite his Twitter denial.

Interesting. Vine has been married twice to women going by his wiki. IF it is him, I am guessing that he is hoping that a police complaint/investigation won't be made.

R133,

Huw Edwards is a senior news presenter on the BBC. He has been there for many years, and is seen as authoritative and reassuring. He is the obvious choice for announcing major stories like the late Queen’s death.

The silence around this will break soon. UK media is itching to expose the person responsible.

R124, that’s not a new show btw. BBC Wales repeat the same old shit over and over again. That particular programme first aired last year.

No idea if it is him, a churchgoing father of 5, but I’m wondering if the Welsh for nonce is nwns.

[quote]No idea if it is him, a churchgoing father of 5,

That’s exactly the type of guy who’d pay £35,000 for an underage teen, not only for the photos and whatever else may have gone on, but to keep it all under wraps.

What if it's Laura Kuenssberg?!

what if it's YOU!

This being Wimbledon Time, I’d be on the lookout for Tim Henman or John Lloyd. If it’s a sick mom type?—that sneak Tracy Austin Holt (there’s a reason her son has dropped in the rankings!).

While they were discussing it on the BBC someone said "a news reader" and then looked awkward and they quickly covered. If it is Huw it will be a massive scandal as he is the top British news anchor, so much so that he was called in to cover the Queen's death. If it's not him I'm surprised there hasn't been a denial of it as his name is all over social media here.

Looks like it might be one of these guys...

If you didn't pay for the television licence, you wouldn't have this to bitch about on a newsless weekend.

So you're welcome!

According to the FT, the teen was a girl, not a boy, although that could just be an assumption on their part.

[quote]The young woman was allegedly 17 years old when the payments started.

I get the feeling the family is trying to get a payout from the BBC and this presenter and is trying to find someone else to blame for the fact that their kid is a crackhead.

@r144, Two of those guys could probably get it without paying 35K, so it must be Jeremy Vine 🤔

R 144 All of "those guys" have publicly stated it's not them. They might be lying, but I doubt it. They're saying the kid is a "he" and they have photos of the celebrity in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", according to the mother. I'm really surprised if it's all true that nobody has called in the police yet. Having photos of someone underage is a really serious offence here. People "in the know" have been saying that people will be seriously shocked when it comes out so from that it has to be someone who would be considered very vanilla. I feel really sorry for all the other presenters who are being dragged over this.

The teen was NOT underage, r148. I also haven't seen any clear reference to it being a "he". Or "people in the know" saying anything.

R18 it’s either Mr. Wint or Mr. Kidd.

r1 Piers Morgan is not a BBC star.

According to DL's favourite newspaper, the presenter partied with BBC bosses at an award ceremony weeks after the crackhead's family complained to the BBC on 19 May. So, work out who was at an awards ceremony with a 3-course meal after in around June and who wasn't on TV last night when he was regularly scheduled to be.

[quote]BBC presenter 'who paid teenager £35k for sexually explicit pictures partied with bosses at an awards ceremony AFTER mother made complaint - as corporation comes under mounting pressure from MPs over its handling of scandal

[...]

[quote]The alleged victim's mother says that the family complained to the BBC on May 19, asking for the presenter to be told to stop sending their child money.

[quote]It is claimed that even after the family complained, the star continued to send money and remained on air - before attending an awards even and partying with BBC bosses.

[quote]Weeks after the allegations were made against him, he rubbed shoulders with other celebrities at an elite venue, where he enjoyed a three-course dinner before the celebrations began, according to the Mirror.

I will link to the DM article below.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

A BBC host partied with bosses at an awards do AFTER sex allegations were made against him.

The bash came weeks after a mum claimed the man had paid her teen for explicit pics, as a string of big names deny it’s them.

Meanwhile, the star in the sex pictures scandal should be named, says the ex-cop who revealed Jimmy Savile was a pervert.

The call came as we can reveal the presenter was allowed to attend a swanky do after allegations against him had been made.

He has been accused of paying £35,000 to a young person in return for sexual images. The teen’s mum says her child blew the money on drugs and had gone from a “happy-go-lucky youngster to a ghost-like crack addict”.

It was reported today that the mum made an official complaint about the man to BBC chiefs on May 19. But weeks later he rubbed shoulders with fellow celebrities at an elite venue, enjoying a three-course meal and wine.

The star attended the event with senior BBC executives and was seen alongside them as they enjoyed the champagne reception before taking their seats for the ceremony.

One guest told us: “If this man was aware of what was hanging over him, he certainly didn’t show it.”

r89 David Dickinson is a name that has been thrown into the mix by some now.

The child was 17. "Taking, making, sharing and possessing indecent images and pseudo-photographs of people under 18 is illegal" in the UK. I used to work in probation with sex offenders. It is 100% not legal. I can't understand why the police haven't been brought in yet.

Child Sexual Abuse Material is taken VERY seriously in the UK.

This BBC guy is TOAST

It is legal to have sex at 16. It is NOT legal to have sexually explicit photographs of someone under 18 even if they took them themselves and shared them with you for free. Still illegal.

The family should have gone to the police first, so they clearly wanted a pay-off before 'justice'. Having said which, the guy involved is a moron and is toast..

Whoever it is, they’re being.an absolute shit by not putting their hands up publicly and therefore clearing the pitch for all manner of speculation to take place. It’s as if, not content with destroying their victims’ lives, they now want to screw over every other BBC presenter.

If the BBC were shown evidence and they didn't take the matter straight to the police it's going to look really bad.

@r148, "All of "those guys" have publicly stated it's not them. They might be lying, but I doubt it"

Right, because no one in the British media would ever think to lie to save their ass 😂

^ Nope, never happened... 😂

[quote]Tomasz Shafernaker???

Lucky boy

We already know it's a he, r160.

Considering only one man is involved, r162, they can't all be lying.

Tory ministers and MPs, who hate the BBC, have been piling on the pressure, but interestingly, the Culture Secretary, who initially demanded instant info, after a conversation with the head of the BBC is now suddenly dialling back and saying the BBC needs space to investigate properly. It sounds like there's some sort of additional factor involved.

[quote]Child Sexual Abuse Material is taken VERY seriously in the UK.

Not really.

[quote]It sounds like there's some sort of additional factor involved.

He's a Tory.

We don't know how old this young person was at the time photos were exchanged, r161. Given that the police are not involved, then whatever happened may not have been illegal. The only illegal activity may be the drug-taking by the young person.

The additional factor, r166, could be that the story the mother sold to The Sun is wildly exaggerated.

I thought we did know that they were 17, R169, which would make it illegal under UK law.

More not taking CSA material seriously.

Twitter is ablaze with it right now

We don't know exactly what happened when the youth was 17, r171. There were allegedly "sleazy messages" from when he/she was 17, but they could also have been legal ("hey, you're cute!"). I'd also like to know how this 17 year old met the BBC presenter.

Rylan has asked news outlets to stop using his photo in ‘promo’ links to stories. The promo links don’t mention his denial.

The people who run social media for news sites clearly don’t have ethics training.

R89, I agree that it's more likely not to be a huge name and more likely someone who is on a low-key popular show that has been on for years.

The Sun describes him as "a familiar face who is known to millions", which sounds more like a face many people would recognise but not a major name.

Why would some be making spurious allegations about someone who hasn't worked regularly for the BBC for about 20 years, r155?

Following on from r152, the only recent awards show I've found that could be the one is the Television and Radio Industries Club, held in London on 27 June, with several BBC and more luminaries present!

Well whoever it is has now been officially suspended from work and the police have been contacted.

The presenter has now been suspended and the BBC are in contact with the police. Also, "new allegations of a different nature" were put to the BBC on Thursday.

Well, this probably explains the politicians backing quickly away.

Please tell me adorable Gethin Jones had no part in this!

It's a shame that it's ended up like this, everybody seemed to be having a good time. The young man got to strip off and show his young firm body, get paid well, and shoot his wad as a bonus. The TV presenter was happy to pay well and watch the little minx exhibitionist do his stuff.

The internet was made for this kind of set up. I reckon it's the mother whose became greedy and is looking for a payout.

Are the bookmakers taking bets on who the presenter is?

R183 Honestly surprised that you think that the kid was having a good time when he wasn't doing it for free but to fund a crack habit.

A genuinely good time? You likely don't require money for it and aren't taking drugs to distract or numb whatever issues you have.

R184 It was a lighthearted joke. Though not sure why I bothered actually because the snark and sarcasm has certainly disappeared from this site lately.

R185 Really? It read as serious to me. Don't quit your job to become a comedian then, will you - just a little bit of advice.

R186 you wouldn’t know a joke, humour or sarcasm if it slapped you across the face. What are you even doing here?

R187 You suck at being a comedian. There are lots of genuinely funny people on DL but that just fell flat.

Those crazy Brits—they can publish any bits they want except the name…so, all it takes is one U.S. news outlet to “publish” the name.

R189 That's what's really interesting about the modern era - just one US publication can legally do that. But the problem is that there just isn't the interest there to do it?

What about a sports presenter or maybe a presenter from Top Gear?

[quote]Tory ministers and MPs, who hate the BBC, have been piling on the pressure, but interestingly, the Culture Secretary, who initially demanded instant info, after a conversation with the head of the BBC is now suddenly dialling back and saying the BBC needs space to investigate properly. It sounds like there's some sort of additional factor involved.

You're a bit confused.

The Culture Secretary (part of the government cabinet) is Lucy Frazer. She's only commented this afternoon/

The chair of the Culture select committee (a mix of MPs from different parties) is Caroline Dinenage who was one of the first to give quotes and did the usual "questions to answer".

And then there's Priti Patel, the disgraced former Home Secretary, who has also commented.

R191, it would be delicious if it was the disgusting Clarkson.

Clarkson left the BBC years ago.

R193 It would be, but he's not been on the BBC for years now.

Murdoch's team are all over this. It really is becoming big news.

The FT has now edited its original article to avoid mention of the young person's sex.

[quote]The young person was allegedly 17 years old when the payments started.

Fresh allegations, published by the Sun, say the star was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him"

R196 The *BBC* themselves are all over this! Honestly, I don't normally watch tv but was watching Wimbledon and that ended; switched to BBC News obsessing about this. It's kind of fascinating - their charter for neutrality makes them do this whereas if they were privately owned, they probably wouldn't talk about it.

Some discussion about Stephen Nolan.

God, you Brits love newspapers full of tits and scandal, don't you?

R194, R195, thank you, I'd forgotten. But it was fun for a few moments.

R199, they are all over it, because Murdoch has forced them to be all over it. Before, they weren't reporting on it.

Nolan isn’t all that well-known for those who don’t listen to radio.

R201 Matt Lauer

Charlie Rose

lol

^ How many years ago were they? Who's "Charlie Rose"

That brought Charlie Stayt to mind.

Charlie Rose is a famous American broadcaster who sexually assaulted and harassed women.

^ I thought he was a baseball player who like to gamble

That would be Pete, who the media also covered endlessly.

R200 Please God we don’t get to see any pics of that beached whale in his underwear…

So Charlie Stayt appears to have vanished from social media. I really hope it's not him but would explain odd things that have gone on lately with him suddenly being pulled from breakfast etc.

If they've suspended him, then he hasn't appeared on a program lately and any one who has can be eliminated. Isn't there someone whose absence has been noticed?

Ok, I'm kind of lost, 213 posts, but do we know who the guy is yet?

I think the Tabloids are trying to replace Harry & Meghan with the "Pedo of the Week"

I was wondering about Charlie...

Oh, Charlie... I would have given it to you for free!

Can’t the police ask The Sun who the person is? Not the source but the person?

My first thought was Graham Norton.

I saw Charlie earlier this year walking down the street, I was surprised how short he was.

R217 I don’t think Graham Norton would ever do something like this. He has often spoken about how you can easily be cancelled these days just for saying the wrong thing. He wouldn’t be daft enough to put his sterling career on the line by hooking up via a webcam with a teenager.

So they have suspended the person but are not releasing his name?

[quote]Murdoch's team are all over this. It really is becoming big news.

Top notch analysis!

Other stories ‘Murdoch’s team’ were ‘all over’ included the Chris Pincher groping story (The Sun) that led to Boris Johnson quitting and the Richard Sharpe Boris Johnson loan (The Sunday Times) which led to the resignation of Sharpe as BBC Chair.

It’s almost as if journalists working at The Sun and The Times are free to cover news worthy stories!

There's a famous saying on avoiding scandal...

"Never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy" 😉

[quote]Can’t the police ask The Sun who the person is? Not the source but the person?

Journalists have a sort of code to protect their sources. If their source doesn't want to be identified, they nearly always won't give up who it is.

However, in this case, the family claim to want the BBC employee to stop so it doesn't sound as if that applies here.

I am surprised no one has leaked the name of the broadcaster.

It's very likely above.

When was Charlie taken off air? He was on the sofa Friday and Saturday morning with Nagga as usual.

There are no "pedo" accusations, r214.

Ephebophilia!

Not even that, r228. This teen was of age, regardless of apparent specific laws about sexual imagery (and we still don't really know what allegedly happened).

R229 Erm, the definition of ephebophilia is "the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19."

The kid was 17+ so that meets the definition.

Also, you are wrong that he/she was 'of age' when it comes to paying for nude pictures of them - that's not legal if they were under 18 as is claimed by their mother.

Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK?

[quote]Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK?

See R36. The claim is not that they had sex but that the man paid a 17-year-old for explicit pictures which is what is illegal.

R232, that's still not pedophilia or ebophilia.

R232 Thank you. So what is the legal age when one could take explicit pics of a person?

The mother's complaints, as made to The Sun, are intriguing. She doesn't seem to think that the BBC presenter had done anything criminal and never considered going to the police. She also wanted the BBC to tell the man to stop, as though his employer is responsible for or can control what he does in his private life.

Strangely, it never occurred to her to tell her own child - whom she should have had some control over - to stop having dirty video calls or whatever was going on with this person, to stop taking money from him, and to stop taking drugs.

[quote]ebophilia

Given that you can't even spell it, it's not surprising you can't understand the difference. Pedophilia is pre-pubescent. Hebephilia is early adolescence, typically ages 11-14. Ephebophilia is mid to late adolescents, typically ages 15 to 19.

[quote]Thank you. So what is the legal age when one could take explicit pics of a person?

Are you thick? It was already explained to you that the law says that 18+ is legal for consensual nude pictures.

What about video calls, r236?

According to the mother:

[quote]“We never wanted an investigation.

[quote]“We just wanted the BBC to tell him to stop.

R237 Oh god, you really are thick. Video counts as images as far as the law is concerned.

From the Sun interview, it sounds like the mother saw a screenshot ("a picture from some kind of video call"). How interesting that the vulnerable little thing had the presence of mind to take a screenshot.

R235 and R240 Sounds like victim blaming. Or you think that the law should be changed, which is fair enough - but good luck lobbying for that.

The mother also said:

[quote]“All I want is for this man to stop paying my child for sexual pictures and stop him funding my child’s drug habit.”

But her child is now over 18, so if her child wants to send sleazy pics to this BBC man, then that's up to her child. If she has a problem with her child being a druggie, then she needs to talk that through with her child.

She’s holding power accountable. Good for mom.

Is it just me or are there some miserable po-faced bastards on this thread.

Yep, R241. You got me. Having said that, I can see where the young person got his/her tendency to blame others.

R245 Just hope that you're lobbying to change the law. But I know that you're not.

The fact that the accused isn’t coming forward speaks to guilt. He has the opportunity to take the heat off all the other presenters but is choosing to let them stew instead. Whoever it is clearly enjoys power in a psychologically sadistic way. I think we can safely assume the accusations have merit.

It could be the victim is a much older woman.

I knew that Victoria Derbyshire was a minx!

Why didn't she go to the police or to her local MP then, r243, or even name this person herself? Instead, she asks the BBC to tell their employee what to do in his private life but says she wants no investigation. Her main aim is to get this TV presenter to stop sending her 20-year-old child money so her child can't buy drugs. None of that sounds like "holding power accountable".

I'm sure the accusations have some merit, but the full circumstances of the accusations aren't 100% clear. What if this kid is a druggie who started an OnlyFans when he (I'm assuming it's a he) was 17 to pay for his drug habit but said he was 19? He could also have only been 17 for a month and turned 18 very soon after coming into contact with the BBC guy.

R250 Why aren't you blaming the law if you think it's dumb?

Which law, r252? No violation of any law has been cited in this story so far. No illegal activity has been pointed to, beyond the crack habit of the "child".

R250, you are wrong. The mother attempted to stop this and gave the BBC a chance to help. They chose to circle the wagons. And now a shit storm is raining down on them.

The hubris is almost unbelievable - to know and do nothing is unconscionable.

[quote]No violation of any law has been cited in this story so far. No illegal activity has been pointed to, beyond the crack habit of the "child".

The allegation that it has. Which is why the BBC themselves say that the police have been contacted.

R254, the mother asked the BBC to tell their employee to stop doing something in his private life that is not illegal. Why is an employer responsible for what its employees do? Why didn't she tell her child to stop?

#BrumHour is trending on British Twitter right now. I just pray it's not him.

It’s the People’s newsreader Huw Edwards.

R242 thinks you can talk someone out of addiction

You clearly have never met an addict

My speculation is that the presenter is a trusted and well-like public figure regardless of politics. The BBC issued a preemptive statement to soften the blow by allowing his name to leak out among other suspected presenters. He’s also a highly closeted gay man, married with children like Schofield was, and has probably shown signs of a midlife or late-life crises (plastic surgery, weight-loss, etc.), He probably has had an emotional lapse or breakdown on camera recently as well, — a Mary! moment, if you will.

The BBC is in touch with the police because a huge hue and cry has been raised, r255, and they need to make sure that everything is above board so they can say to the public everything is above board. The mother herself saw absolutely no reason to contact the police.

My general feeling is that it isn't a huge BBC name, but the BBC presenter was apparently at an awards show with BBC execs in June and Huw Edwards was at the Television and Radio Industries Club awards in June...

Good investigative work R251 That has opened up a whole other possible scenario.

I'm just about ready for bed but thinking of staying up a while longer in case the story breaks.

Who has been taken off the air recently?

R263 That isn't investigative work, that's a theory. Investigation means that you've found some new information.

Charlie Stayt has such frigging gorgeous hair. I’d be bummed if he’s the one but I guess he could be.

Yes, it's a theory, r265, based on what the mother is quoted as actually saying rather than the scandal spin.

Has Charlie Stayt denied its him?

Also at the TRIC awards in June was Rob Rinder, who has been on various BBC things and is currently filming a BBC show with his boyfriend Rylan Clark, who has already stated that it's not him (Rylan that is, not Rob). Rob sounds more like he'd "party" with BBC execs and drink champagne, as it is claimed that the BBC presenter in question did. Although, as always, we should be careful when casting aspersions.

R269 Rob Rinder is Channel 4 and ITV though. I don't think he's been employed by the BBC.

I hope it's not Huw Edwards, but I have to say he has always pinged to me.

I had never even thought of Rob Rinder. But would Rylan tweet about this if he is filming with Rob right now?

Rob Rinder filmed a documentary where he visited Israel and Palestine and it was shown on the BBC in May, but there is no way he could be accurately described as a BBC presenter.

I can confirm it’s Huw Edwards

How, R273?

R270, he's done various things for the BBC and is filming something for the BBC right now.

Rylan might tweet about it if his name is being bandied about, r271.

Actually, I'm not sure that they're boyfriends, they just appear close on Instagram. I'm also not sure it's Rob, just looking through who was at the TRIC awards.

If it is Huw there will be a period of national mourning in Wales.

The Welsh language may even cease to exist.

When Huw turned 60 he had a special documentary to mark the momentous occasion. Jeremy Paxman and Kirsty Wark don't get that kind of treatment.

Media source r274

Oh god I've just seen a photo which I hope to god is photoshopped but oh my fucking god

R276 Nah, am Welsh and we don't really give that much of a shit.

Huw did a thesis in church chapels. Always be on the lookout for the church types.

Assuming you saw it on your own device and not someone else's, is it possible to show it, R278?

The mother said:

[quote]"I loved watching him on TV. I was shocked to see a picture of him sitting on a sofa in his house in his underwear.

[quote]"I immediately recognised him. He was leaning forward getting ready for my child to perform for him."

Huw Edwards is a news presenter. Would anyone say they love watching a news presenter? Edwards lives with his wife and has five kids. The presenter the mother talks about sounds like he has more privacy to entertain himself on his sofa than someone with a large family (even if the kids are all grown up).

It was on Twitter R281. I'm sure it's still there despite people replying telling the poster to take it down.

BBC Breakfast's Jon Kay has said he is on holiday for the next 2 weeks.

Suddenly this is filling up as fast as a common Heartstopper thread!

Being paid something like £400k p/a for decades probably means that you have more than one home but people here are claiming they have sources in the media yet naming different people so I'm not going to take any of it seriously yet.

People in marriages tend to share their multiple homes, if they have more than one. For it to be Huw, he would have to be leading some kind of double life unknown to his wife and many children, whereas it's been stated that the BBC person in question was quite open about who he is and never tried to hide anything.

I don't believe anyone who says they have a source who's given them the inside information either, though.

I've seen the Twitter pic too, but, meh, it could very well be fake.

For those interested it's at jenhopkins88 on Twitter.

I saw a pic on Twitter of Huw Edwards with his pants down. Could easily be shopped, though. Regardless, I'm somewhat traumatised.

Huw lives between London and west Wales

It looks shopped to me. I've linked to it.

John Barrowman should have been banned from the BBC for whipping it out at regular intervals on BBC sets.

[quote] What about Ant?

Bugger off, not me, you cunt.

Huw's legs are hairier and with a different contour than those in the Twitter pic, which has now been deleted.

More of Huw's actual legs.

Good spot, plus the ass looked suspiciously big - like someone took that from some porn model and photoshopped Huw onto it.

Huw and his family will be well aware that his name is in the centre of this scandal. If he was innocent wouldn't he make some kind of statement on social media or whatever?

Not necessarily, r297. If he's innocent then he knows the truth will be revealed probably very soon. Not everyone's into rushing to social media or wants to encourage this kind of lynch mob behaviour by feeding it.

[quote]Daily Mail enthusiast

The clicks for Murdoch cunt can fuck right off, but the DM enthusiast can fuck off six times.

Ok what’s with the Brits and the name “Huw?”

Huw?

How’s that pronounced? Is it like Hugh or like how?

WHY?

[quote]Huw did a thesis in church chapels. Always be on the lookout for the church types.

I’m a gay agnostic obsessed with old church/cathedral architecture and Christian art from the middle ages through the renaissance. I think Huw is more into the aesthetics of Christianity than the dogma. And yes — he pings to high heaven.

Yes that ass looks way too perky to be Huw's.

“Huw Edwards has been open about his experience with depression which includes periods of anxiety. He has described how the condition hits him in waves, affecting his ability to make decisions and enjoy activities. Edwards has faced bouts of depression that have left him bedridden since 2002. Despite these challenges, he has maintained his professional commitments, but acknowledges the toll it can take on his well being.”

Didn't keep the link but it looked like an official BBC site. Interesting about "his ability to make decisions" being affected by his depression.

It's Welsh, r300.

Thanks r304. How’s it pronounced?

Huw was supposed to present something about "proms" but was ditched at the last minute.

Poor Jeremy.

Maybe Huw is not saying anything because he is guilty.

[quote]How’s it pronounced?

Cum-rag

Boy chew Huw.

Peekaboo Huw

He was already an LGBT icon!

Tonight the Sun has a new story that has recently been published on its website and will be on its front page tomorrow.

It claims the un-named BBC presenter made what it says were two “panicked calls” to the young person after the Sun’s revelations, allegedly saying "what have you done?" and asking them to ring their mum and get her to "stop the investigation”.

Huw’s favorite dish is Cream of Sum Yung Guy

R306, that was before The Sun story, and Huw had covered the King's Coronation in Scotland the day before. Perhaps he had a day off.

Only a few nuts thought she was dead. Good to see her up and at 'em. Now, will she/can she actually turn her life around and sober up?

R316 who?

Interestingly, Huw's Wiki page was edited several times but the entries were marked as vandalism and reverted AND, unusually, you can't see what was posted and then removed.....

R316: “Only a few nuts thought she was dead. Good to see her up and at 'em. Now, will she/can she actually turn her life around and sober up?”

R317: “who?”

Me: Queen Elizabeth, of course.

R319 do you realize what thread you are on?

Me: King Arthur, unfortunately no.

I do!

I just don’t see Huw Edwards risking his career and his legacy over sex photos.

R319The Queen obviously faked her death because she wasn’t ready for her Royal Confessions tour. Too much cooking sherry again!

They have never said if the youth is a boy or girl?

They said girl earlier.

Funniest tweet today on this: “ Huw Edwards bare arse on the timeline on the lords day”

And having seen it, not bad for a 60 year old

R321 there I go trying to make everything about me, again.

Oh dear. I’ve seen the photo and it really does seem to be Huw Edwards.

How incredibly sad. I think he’s likely to attempt suicide.

It’s not dignified, bare ass with pants around the ankles.

But like a gentleman, he kept his wedding band on.

link to the photo, please.

Yes, link to the photo, STAT!

Yes — link us to the fake, obviously photoshopped pic posted by some rando on Twitter. I want to believe!

You're Agent Mulder and you don't know how to find it for yourself?

Ah, there ain't no gentlemen

That's fit for any use

And any girl'd touch your privates...

For a deuce

Even if the pic is a genuine photo of Huw Edwards, so what? There's nothing that says it was sent to this junkie kid. And even if it was, so what? He could have been 18, 19, 20 at the time he received it.

It's disgusting to see everyone back The Sun in this attempt to destroy a man's life, simply because some woman who can't control her junkie offspring thinks she can demand of an employer that it sack its employee just because she doesn't like to see him on TV.

I’m surprised to hear that Huw Edwards is only 61; he looks like he’s pushing 80.

Isn’t it because he allegedly committed a crime by having a minor send him lewd pictures? There may be other things that went on but he’s definitely got some explaining to do.

Those allegations are for the whole, three-year period, r338. It's not specified exactly what happened when the young person was 17, beyond "sleazy messages", which could mean various things. Even if it was for a brief period when this person was 17, this trial-by-tabloid is disgusting.

The mother has never wanted a BBC investigation or police involvement, she just wants an employer to sack an employee for things she alleges he's done in his private life with her child when her child was 18, 19, 20, no actual checking of the facts required.

Where are the pictures, please?

Pathetic pedo perv panicked

This will end in tears and suicide.

Law enforcement can’t release images of the perp right now, but here’s a dramatic re-enactment:

R306,

The Proms are a series of mostly classical music concerts held annually at the Royal Albert Hall.

There are no pics, if there were someone here would surely have taken a screenshot. Why would whoever it is commit suicide? It was a stupid and wrong thing to do but jacking off on webcam with a 17 year old is not the worst crime in the world.

Losing his job, all this publicity, the list goes on and on…

Somewhere you can bet Phillip Schofield is rubbing his hands with glee.

I'd rather not consider what Phillip Schofield might be rubbing.

This story made the Canadian news last night on the CBC.

Is Huw Edwards on leave from the BBC at the moment?

The presenter is not being named on UK media due to defamation and privacy laws. I’ve heard the name from a friend who works in the media.

Well Datalounge is U.S. media…so don’t be a bitch and share a clue. Be Ted Casablanca for a day and help us out here.

This on Sky News website…

BBC receiving more phone calls from public about presenter's behaviour' - report The Sun is reporting the BBC has received more phone calls from the public about the behaviour of the "household name" at the centre of the allegations. The outlet quotes a source from the corporation as saying: "The BBC has started to receive calls from the public about the behaviour of the person at the centre of the investigation." The Sun broke the story on Saturday and has continued to lead the coverage of the scandal. It is reporting that the presenter allegedly rang the youth and asked "what have you done?" after the newspaper revealed the star had allegedly paid for sexually explicit images. It was also claimed the presenter asked the young person to ring their mother to get her to "stop the investigation" into him.

Here’s a clue: Toothy Tile

So, three days later and we still don't know who the perv is? You're slipping Britain

R354 We don’t want a clue we want a name, so either name names or piss off out of here.

I was joking! I’m the one who had already asked for a leaked name. Chill out.

Can’t help but think this is a huge non-story. The only reason people are interested is because of the guessing game. Often when stories like this break I check the other headlines to see if it’s a smokescreen to divert attention from some terrible thing the government has or is doing.

If he hasn't done anything illegal, r354, then it's nothing to do with us what he does in his private life. If he has done something illegal, then that's a matter for the police and they should be able to investigate first. There is no official police investigation at present, however, and no allegations have been formally made (which it is for the youth and his family to make, not the employer, which is totally unrelated to these events), which suggests no illegal activity.

Seems like the last people who want the law involved are the drug-taking youth and his mother.

"Often when stories like this break I check the other headlines to see if it’s a smokescreen to divert attention from some terrible thing the government has or is doing." - And what did you discover, r358.

No one’s taking issue with the criminal legal process. We are focused on the overly restrictive UK rules on the press reporting a suspect’s name…you can write any other fact but you can’t call him by his name. 🫤

[quote]Well Datalounge is U.S. media…so don’t be a bitch and share a clue. Be Ted Casablanca for a day and help us out here.

His blind item name is Churchy Chew.

I disagree that it's a non-story. Other members of the public have started contacting the BBC about this guy's behaviour.

[quote] Can’t help but think this is a huge non-story. The only reason people are interested is because of the guessing game. Often when stories like this break I check the other headlines to see if it’s a smokescreen to divert attention from some terrible thing the government has or is doing.

I love this conspiracy theory, usually peddled by Scottish nationalists, Jeremy Corbyn believers, true Brexit faithfuls and. Putin sympathisers.

Can the poster give any examples of salacious celebrity stories being unleashed by tabloids to distract attention away from the government?

As I posted up thread, the Chris Pincher story that lead to Boris Johnson’s resignation was reported by The Sun. The Richard Sharpe story was The Sunday Times.

If this carries on much longer, someone's going to pull a Matthew Wright.

Well, it broke the same day as Gideon Osborne's wedding so we heard a bit less about his serial cheating. (No, I don't buy the conspiracy theory either.)

What if the George Osborne email was sent to distract attention away from the BBC?

Makes you think!!!!!

"Man" paying a "youth" = Adult Man and Minor-Age Male.

In the vernacular, "youth" is always male.

I'm thinking that this has the potential of a hot story. Let's see how it develops...

[quote]link to the photo, STAT!

I don't want to link it and risk getting this thread nuked but if you look at harrisonwilk11 on Twitter, you'll see it in his replies.

That picture is obviously fake though. See upthread pictures of his actual legs.

And people are too chicken to link why? I've linked to it.

huw is that?

This?

🤮

Mmm, not a bad arse for his age...I will reserve judgement until I've seen cock pics.

a bottom never shows what is useless to her

Ok so some facts.

The person is not being named because last year there was a law put in place to stop Media giving names that proved false. Cliff Richard for one was nearly destroyed by the media over false allegations he was about to be arrested. This is the reason people are hesitant to name the person because of the Law.

The presenter , if guilty of this, is not guilty because the person was 17. It is because you cannot distribute or view adult material of a person below the age of 18 in the UK. That is the law from 1978. If it was sex that would be different but if it is viewing this material or paying for it that is the issue.

If the person had an Only Fans site and lied about their age that might be different. But if the celebrity knew the person was 17 but paid to view them in an Adult situation that is where everything goes South.

Apparently if you are in a relationship with a 17 year old, then you can share intimate images with them.

It's also not clear just what was shared when this person was still 17.

can he be taken seriously now that he looks like grandpa about to pick the kids up from school but instead drops trou and stands bare arsed to the camera while turned in a sad attempt at a come hither look?

R376 we know all of that, already. We want a U.S. outlet to name him. THANK YOU.

Video at link

Didn't you hear, R378? That picture is "obviously photoshopped"

And to think that the BBC entrusted him to guide us through that awful day last year when her gracious majesty sadly passed away. He has brought shame on the entire nation. How will we ever get over this?

What a shambles Britain is right now.

R383 A tad dramatic don’t you think? Some horny old guy shows his arse on cam, big fucking deal.

If it isn’t Huw Edwards and this pic is fake, surely he would say outright it is not me. I think that’s what most people would do.

The media's in meltdown over this trifle whole kids aren't eating. Over course it's a shambles.

That’s not all this is about, R384, and you know it.

I agree, R385. The pic may well be fake, but I think Edwards would have made a public denial by now if he wasn't the presenter in question.

It's scary how many people on twitter and on this thread think that picture is real. No critical thinking.

R389 Do you have another picture of Huw displaying his arse so that we can compare them?

R390 We have pictures of his legs. See R294 and R295. It just looks fake anyway.

There are pics of Huw's legs, r390, some linked above. The ones in the twitter pic are a little pale and hairless in comparison. There's also nothing to link that pic with the current case.

[quote]What a shambles Britain is right now.

You WISH.

Life is fine here.

But the way every time something like this happens it takes over everything, is absurd.

Lol life is so not fine here, but I guess you have yours,.jack.

This is overshadowing Biden's visit to the UK.

Huw Jarse.

Is this scandal so .*huwge* that it could bring down senior BBC folks? They’ve know about this for two months now. Are they trying to tamp down the huw and cry?

Not really, r397, although The Sun's intent is to damage the BBC.

So there’s no “formal investigation” by the London Metropolitan Police yet. I’m guessing they’re shitting bricks along with the BBC because it’s Huw Edwards. If it was even Graham Norton it would be a totally different situation. It being Edwards (and if there was a cover-up) would be truly devastating for an institution like the BBC.

There's no formal investigation, r399, because it's not clear that any kind of crime has been committed. What exactly are the police meant to investigate? Aside from the youth's drug habit.

[quote]Ok so some facts.

OMG I love facts!

[quote]The person is not being named because last year there was a law put in place to stop Media giving names that proved false. Cliff Richard for one was nearly destroyed by the media over false allegations he was about to be arrested. This is the reason people are hesitant to name the person because of the Law.

What law is this? The Cliff Richard issue was that the BBC went totally over the top after a tip off from the police and aired the police raid live on its 24 hour channel despite no arrest. Cliff Richard sued on *privacy* and won.

There is now a standard procedure that the police won't initially name someone who is *just* arrested but the media may. Nicola Sturgeon was named by the media when arrested but the premier league footballer who has been arrested and interviewed by police on suspicion of rapes has still not been named.

A reality show contestant was arrested a year and and the media reported it instantly, despite this "law" that was passed. Does this "law" go to another school?

Didn’t Edwards himself choke up on air over the Queen’s death? His grief was so profound, viewers asked the BBC to give him time off to recover. The whole island is “Mary!”

There haven't been any arrests in this case, r401. The reason no name has been given is because all that exists at present are accusations and hearsay with perhaps some images and some proofs of payment, but it still needs to be established whether any actual crime was committed, as opposed to simply unwise behaviour.

R403. That’s not a reason for leaving out a name. They could simply report that X [insert actual name] was temporarily removed from the air pending an internal review of a complaint. That would all be factually correct and not inconsistent with any law or practice.

When do we get to see a version of the pic where he’s spreading ‘em for the camera?

Huw Edwards presenting his hole is not something I’d be up for looking at, R405.

Hopefully never, r405! 😱

Why should someone who may not have done anything wrong be besmirched by being named, r404?

Anyway, Huw Edwards has deleted/deactivated his Instagram account.

Is he scheduled to present the news at 10PM tonight?

Who said besmirched? I didn’t —you ignored the very point I made in that post.

[quote] This is overshadowing Biden's visit to the UK.

For which the White House is happy. Saint Diana persuaded the UK media that cluster bombs are war crimes.

r301 He's openly gay so pinging doesn't come into it in that sense.

The teenager has backed down now and said nothing illegal happened, a statement via their layer.

Huw Edwards isn't openly gay, SA.

‘Nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place’ - lawyer

The letter from the young person's lawyer continues: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are 'rubbish'.”

BBC News does not know the identity of the young person and has not spoken directly to them.

BBC News has not seen any of the Sun’s evidence, or the dossier the paper reported was handed to the corporation by the family over the weekend.

The Sun has been approached for comment.

r336 New development just broadcast on BBC NEWS, boy says through his lawyer that the sun report is rubbish and nothing illegal took place.

Which then leaves us with the Murdoch arse wiping rag The Sun trying to out a closeted gay man to sell copy?

The 20-year-old hasn't "backed down", r414, because he/she never made any accusations in the first place. It was the mother who went to The Sun with her allegations, because the BBC wouldn't sack a top presenter just because she demanded it do so.

His/her lawyer's letter quotes him/her describing The Sun's claims as "rubbish".

R417, that proves the advice Huw Edwards gives here:

Totally disingenuous statement R408, anyone with half a brain knows that even an allegation of wrong doing leaves a stain, it's how people with low critical thinking operate, nudging each other in a conspiratorial way whilst hissing "no smoke without fire eh?"

r401 Huw hasn't been arrested. If he is he will be named for sure.

[quote] ‘Nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place’ - lawyer

Apparently Mr X, and/or the BBC paid out a lot more than the original £35,000 and the transfer just cleared.

"The young person sent a denial to the Sun on Friday evening saying there was “no truth to it”. However, the “inappropriate article” was still published, the lawyer said."

The Sun hungry for them sales...

The Sun's response to the young person, via his/her lawyer, rubbishing the claims and saying nothing illegal happened:

[quote]"We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.

[quote]"Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate."

Note The Sun doesn't ask for the police to investigate, i.e. The Sun knows full well that nothing illegal happened. As for The Sun's apparent concern for the "two very concerned parents", perhaps The Sun should have made more of an effort to find out what actually happened, before gleefully spinning some scandal and not caring whose lives they destroyed in the process, just to get clicks and attack the "liberal lefty" BBC.

[quote] It's scary how many people on twitter and on this thread think that picture is real.

Mary, try not to clutch your pearls so hard they get stuffed back into an oyster.

Most of us didn't know this wrinkled old coot's name before two days ago. As if we would be able to determine what was or was not a real photo.......

r415 OMG my apologies you are right. I was sure I rembered him coming out as gay?? Who could I be confusing him with?

So the mother was lying and her son/daughter isn't a drug addict porn star?

R421, “Semper aliquid haeret”, you can read it Plutarch and Bacon.

R421, considering today's developments - when the young person themself is denying and rubbishing the story and even denied it to The Sun yet they still published it - do you still think this BBC presenter should have been named?

It's ridiculous the way people don't wait to get all the facts and instead demand the "juicy gossip".

Well, this just got complicated.

We all know what The Sun's concern is for, coming from the paper that had a count down for when they could print a picture of a 16 year old's breasts on page 3, so that might have been 40 years ago, but they haven't changed in their outlook, they know what sells copy, and outing a famous "straight" person with a "youth" is prime red meat for them.

Homophobic parents?! Surely not?

r428 Porn star??

Evan Davis, r427?

Absolutely not R430, that's my point, no good comes from naming people when just allegations are made, guilty in the court of social media is not the road to go down here.

r435 Very possibly yes. Good shout.

R428 - No. It sounds like her crackhead kid wants to continue the relationship with sugar daddy, and never intended to out him, but mom caught on to what was going on, intervened, and is now trying to get her kid sober and/or receive a payout from the BBC.

I'd bet good money on it being a grift.

[quote]In their letter, the lawyer writes: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish."

This is so vague it could mean anything.

That the relationship is appropriate and lawful, i.e. at no point were they under 18 when photos were sent, and the OnlyFans transactions and "webcam" chats with a man 40 years older than him/her were all perfectly legal.

Or it could be a total denial of the BBC man paying the 20 year old £35k over several years.

Either way, I doubt The Sun would have run this without evidence of an Only Fans account, a drug addiction and the £35k payments.

What a tangled web.

Sounds about right, R438. Why should anyone believe a crack addict depending on a sugar daddy/daddies for further “investment.”? Damn, this story is getting juicier and juicier.

That the guy is a closeted presenter that sought gay porn off OF is quite plausible, but I was hoping that the media had moved on from outing gays for being gay in 2023, the only angle that got the twitter flag shagging gammons riled up was "Peado gay grooming 17 year old lad", which is no doubt why the Sun went down that road. Still think the mother wants a piece of the pie for herself though, maybe I'm just too old and cynical.

And as a friend just pointed out to me, Phillip Schofield's teenage "friend" repeatedly lied about having an affair with him when questioned about it.

As my old grandmother used to say, it will all come out in the wash.

This seems to be a huge big non-story. This wasn’t rape, it’s not clear they ever even met and there’s no evidence that He-Who-Shall-Not-be-Named has known the teen since he was a child, ala Phillip Schofield. It is still strange, mind you. In a world filled with Grindr whores, Onlyfans and video chat rooms why would somebody need to spent thousands of £ on nudes?

I also think it’s hilarious The Fucking SUN of all things is campaigning on “moral justice”. They’ve been paying teenage girls to bare their tits for page 3 for decades and didn’t they have countdowns to certain female stars becoming of “legal age”?

I wonder if most of the payouts this presenter made was to KEEP the photos from being released. Blackmail. And I wouldn’t put it past the mom and her child colluding in a grift together. How they lured the presenter in is another matter.

Let's not forget that the first names that 'emerged' as likely were a prominent gay man (Rylan), an ex-footballer who embarrassed the government (Lineker) and an abuse victim and anti-abuse campaigner (Nicky Campbell). I wonder who started those hares?

R442 I agree with you, sounds like the trashy mother wants a piece of the pie herself.

So just as I said upthread a couple of hours ago, some horny old guy shows his arse on cam, big fucking deal. It seems that almost everybody gets their bits out these days with naked selfies, only fans, filming themselves having sex or wanking.

Do you mean this R445? "Sam 16, quits A-Levels for Oh-Levels" only in your Super Soaraway Sun.

[QUOTE]Let's not forget that the first names that 'emerged' as likely were a prominent gay man (Rylan), an ex-footballer who embarrassed the government (Lineker) and an abuse victim and anti-abuse campaigner (Nicky Campbell). I wonder who started those hares?

TIN HAT TIN HAT!

When this story started people were clutching at straws and looking at anyone who hadn't been on TV recently.

Rylan? Filming in Italy. Gary Lineker? Football season on summer break. Charlie Stayt? Had been working Friday.

See the discussion on here about Graham Norton and how his chat show had been "replaced", i.e. its run had come to an end and the BBC had a new chat show starting.

Unless you think "the hares" are part of a wider conspiracy theory and not just a load of gossips salivating over a scandal.

Lol, Dolomite Spirit is linking to a 40 year old article.

I'm sure this has been pointed out upthread, but "The Sun" pays for stories.

I suspect R438 has it right.

Maybe so but if she can provide proof that she contacted the BBC first asking why that presenter hadn’t been taken off air following her initial allegation then it makes her look like less of a grifter.

Why should the BBC take its presenters off air because of flaky accusations by random individuals, r455?

Posted for R445 benefit R452, but side point, do you reckon The Sun has changed since them days and no longer chases titillating juicy gossip stories for it's hordes of thick as mince readers?

David Letterman was extorted for having sex with young interns, but he boldly came out and admitted his misdeeds on national TV and the extorter (not one of the interns) was arrested. That was back in 2009 and he still has a career. Granted, the women were in their 20s and nothing illegal happened, but he was married and the affairs were with his subordinates, so it was sordid enough to be career-ending.

What makes you think her allegations were “flaky,” R456.? I assumr they were backed up by some sort of paper trail including payment records.

I think it’s amusing that The Sun (which is admittedly a pile of dung) is getting attacked when it appears it’s the BBC which is doing everything it can to protect its premiere newsreader. And that’s all that he is. A newsreader.

[quote]Posted for [R445] benefit [R452], but side point, do you reckon The Sun has changed since them days and no longer chases titillating juicy gossip stories for it's hordes of thick as mince readers?

The Sun can be vile but the left leaning Daily Mirror is equally as bad. Their front cover on Rylan last year was a disgrace, suggesting a friend was worried he was on drugs.

So yes there's a lot of trash but The Sun have published some important stories over the years.

R460 Freddie Starr ate my hamster springs immediately to mind…

I guess the fact that her child has described the allegations as rubbish, r459. What evidence has she actually presented? Any bank statements or images would belong to her child, not her, so she cannot present that material as "evidence".

The fact that there is no police investigation into The Sun's allegations - and that even The Sun itself is pointedly not asking for an investigation - makes it clear that nothing illegal took place (as the "child" also states).

I wonder why the BBC announced the investigation instead of keeping it under wraps until the name could be released. Is this some sort of legal/procedural requirement? An ulterior motive? There are presenters threatening to sue for libel because of the rampant speculation.

Because they were being exhorted to "do something" by various politicians, talking heads and the Twitterati, r463.

Huw Edwards' Twitter account liked these Tweets.

Another tweet liked by Huw Edward's Twitter account. At least he still has his sense of humour.

Two hours before show time. Has the countdown begun?

Someone just sent me a picture of HE showing his ass off. Now it could be a Photoshop and I ain't posting it but if it is accurate then boy oh boy.

I saw the bare-ass photo with the “come hither” look. His expression reminds me of Bugs Bunny in drag trying to seduce Elmer Fudd.

The Huw ass photo is very fake

Do the British people realize that between your extremist Tory Government, your petty and vindictive Royal family and your garbage media that covers for the both that the whole world is beginning to side-eye you?

Just sayin' 😏

Our royal family is fine and our shitty government is a lot less extremist than the average "moderate" American politician in your polarised system. It was funny seeing Charles subtly try to guide a confused Joe Biden in the right direction at Windsor though.

We're assuming that the young person is male, but I've seen some "in the know" types (perhaps only in their own imagination) say it's a young woman. There's also the possibility that they identify as nonbinary, since they are constantly referred to by The Sun and the mother as they/them (although they would still be male or female).

[quote]Do the British people realize that between your extremist Tory Government, your petty and vindictive Royal family and your garbage media that covers for the both that the whole world is beginning to side-eye you?

Oh fuck off.

The UK media is in a different league to the US media.

Just recently we've had:

The Sun reporting on the Chris Pincher groping scandal which led to the resignation of Boris Johnson

The Sunday Times reporting on Richard Sharpe organising a loan for Boris Johnson which led to RS's resignation as Chair of BBC

The Guardian and Mirror covering the Covid lockdown parties

The BBC aired the Prince Andrew interview

It was the Telegraph which ran the MPs expenses scandal, the Times which reported on the Asian grooming gangs scandals.

Yes there have been appalling scandals with phone hacking and the fake sheik and Piers Morgan printing fake torture pics allegedly showing UK troops abusing Iraqis.

But overall the press holds the powerful to account just fine in the UK.

The Sun is written vile people and read by vile people who never achieved full adult reading age. I hope this damages them.

R474 is an absolute nutcase. Press failure caused a great deal of the Brexit and Boris mess.

People who hate the BBC want to believe every word in The Sun and are desperate that this story will be The Sun's downfall.

People who hate The Sun want to believe everything they've printed is a lie and are desperate that this story will be The Sun's downfall.

Maybe at 10 pm UK time Huw will pull a Howard Beale (out iof Network) and yell “I want you to all get off your arses, walk over to your windows and shout out ‘I’M HORNY AS HELL AND I DON’T CARE WHO KNOWS IT!’”

[quote][R474] is an absolute nutcase. Press failure caused a great deal of the Brexit and Boris mess.

Incredible that after all these years you still just don't get it.

R479, take your tactics elsewhere. It's all qualitative blather.

So, broadly speaking, these are the possible explanations:

1) the mum and stepdad have fabricated (or at least exaggerated) the story, throwing their son/daughter and an innocent man under the bus for a bit of cash

or

2) the mum and stepdad are telling the truth, but their son/daughter just wants this all to go away and has told the police it never happened

[quote]I'm sure this has been pointed out upthread, but "The Sun" pays for stories.

The Sun said from the start that the mother did not accept payment for the story.

They have a new story up on their site about the parents asking how can their kid afford an expensive lawyer. The implication is that the presenter is paying the kid for this to go away.

[quote]Maybe at 10 pm UK time Huw will pull a Howard Beale (out iof Network) and yell “I want you to all get off your arses, walk over to your windows and shout out ‘I’M HORNY AS HELL AND I DON’T CARE WHO KNOWS IT!’”

And he’ll strip down to his bikini briefs with the flag of Wales emblazoned on them! I’m here for it.

Ar474, "But overall the press holds the powerful to account just fine in the UK"

Do they ever hold the living to accountability?

FYI, it's understood the lawyers retained by the alleged victim are Harbottle & Lewis - the Queen's former lawyers. One of the most expensive law firms you can get.

There was a story 3 years ago when a Scottish politician resigned after the family of a 16 year old he was trying to groom went to The Sun with the messages.

The government tried to stop the story being reported, citing privacy grounds and then demanding they be told what the messages said before being published and wanting assurance the messages were obtained legally.

Even then people tried to blame The Sun for an invasion of privacy arguing the age of consent is 16.

How the hell can a crack-addicted 20-year-old afford that, R485?

On Sarurday there was a report that the BBC presenter had called the son/daughter and asked “Why did you do this?” It’s entirely possible the presenter and “victim” are totally in collusion.

[quote]"@AdamBienkov The lawyer for the young person in the Sun story about the BBC presenter says they sent a denial to the paper on Friday evening saying there was "no truth to it" but the paper still went ahead with the story"

Lots of people seem to think this means the story isn't true but I think it's actually more indicative of that the Sun (unless they fucked up) ran what they had by their lawyers but still thought they had enough to go with the story. What do you think?

Yes R484.

Jimmy Savile got away with it because people didn't believe nice men like him diddled kiddies. See also all the priests, vicars, social workers, teachers, sports coaches etc. It wasn't just that victims weren't believed it was that organisations deliberately covered up scandals to avoid the consequences.

When I was at school in he late 80s early 90s there was a teacher everyone talked about and was constantly moved around schools.

In the last 2 years he faced 2 criminal trials for historic sexual abuse of children, was found not guilty at the first, and guilty at the second. Aged 75 he went to prison for 8 years.

In collusion over what, r488? The "child" is legally an adult and it's up to them what they do with their life. The fact that the police are not getting involved indicates that whatever happened when this person was 17 was not illegal.

I think that there is no story, r489. Whatever happened was between two consenting adults and nothing to do with anyone else.

I don't believe that photo of Huw upthread is fake.

R491 Respectfully, how do you know either of those things? It's still pretty early and we don't know enough.

R491, disrespectfully, you’re an ignoramus.

Questions that still need to be answered.

1. Is the BBC presenter DEFINATELY Huw Edwards?

2. Was there *any* relationship between the the BBC man and the OnlyFans person, dismissed as rubbish by the OnlyFans person?

3. Who is paying for the lawyer?

4. If BBC presenter was paying one OnlyFans person, were there others who might come forward?

R493, the police say they are not investigating and The Sun isn't even requesting the police investigate (only the BBC). which would certainly not be the case if there was any indication of illegal behaviour. The young person involved says the whole story is rubbish.

BBC News at Ten has started and Reeta Chakrabarti, not Huw Edwards, is presenting it. Not a regular viewer, so I don't know if this is standard for a Monday.

R495, Huw Edwards is not on the BBC News tonight so it's very likely that he is the presenter who has been suspended. That doesn't mean he did anything illegal or wrong, however, simply that he is suspended until the BBC investigation is over.

True, r497. Edwards might not even be scheduled for tonight. He could even be on holiday!

Why was he scheduled to be on The One Show on Friday night and then ended up not appearing? Was he plugging something? I doubt he’s off on holiday.

I never miss a Reeta Chakrabarti musical.

The whole thing has been bizarre and kind of comical. i think people just love the guessing part of it. They’ve been lapping it up. It’s been quite funny seeing all these suspected celebrities having to issue statements.

“It wasn’t me.” “It wasn’t me!” “It wasn’t me either!”

Well he's not doing the 10 o'clock news tonight on the BBC, they opened with the story though.

[quote]We want a U.S. outlet to name him. THANK YOU.

Another option (I don't think US media are interested enough to do it since Americans don't know who he is) is that MPs are allowed to speak freely in Commons debates, giving them a legal immunity. It's being reported that one or two MPs are considering doing that.

Wait this person has An OnlyFans?

Insert a comma after "wait.". ^^^^

I don't recall OnlyFans being mentioned in any of the media reports.

Looks like another Queen is about to die - or her career at anyway.

MARY!

No, it hasn’t been officially reported but do the math, Rose. It’s the most likely way this high and mighty BBC presenter made contact with a 17 year old druggie willing to show off his bits and bobs for money.

Neither do I, r506. A previous poster mentioned OnlyFans, that's why I asked.

[quote] It’s the most likely way this high and mighty BBC presenter made contact with a 17 year old druggie willing to show off his bits and bobs for money.

Big assumption. He may have connected with the teen on instagram (I know that hookups get arranged there) or somewhere else.

At this point, I'd be very sceptical of anything claimed by the mother and stepfather, especially as it does not appear that they presented The Sun with any "evidence". Read the articles in The Sun carefully - they never say "The Sun has seen images and bank statements. They simply quote the mother saying "I saw an image of this man sitting on his sofa" or "my child showed me a bank statement". She doesn't even have the material in her possession, she simply saw it at some point - or so she alleges.

The Sun even admits that all it has are sworn affidavits from the parents - it has never seen any actual evidence.

[quote]It also called our initial story – based on interviews and sworn statements from their worried parents – “rubbish”.

[quote]The 20-year-old’s mother and step-father have both given The Sun detailed sworn affidavits, outlining their claims.

It’s the Guido Fawkes site who have mentioned Only Fans. They’ve broken some big stories over the years

R511, Instagram is probably a hell of a lot less safe than OnlyFans to arrange hook-ups.

The stepfather did go to the police with the claims - but was told by the police that nothing illegal had happened.

[quote]"I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn't do anything as they said it wasn't illegal. They knew all of this."

If the police were uninterested, it makes me wonder if the "child" actually is on crack or whether that's something the mother made up.

My experience with the police is that they're not interested in most reports - it's too much work for them. A good amount of low level crime has effectively been decriminalised - I know of people who were burgled or attacked, got all the evidence the police needed to get the perp but the police were still not interested.

The police said that whatever was going on wasn't illegal, r516. Are you suggesting that the police lied when presented with evidence of illegal activity and said it wasn't illegal?

R517 No, not lied. That it's likely they didn't even bother to investigate. Don't take my word for it - an official report has concluded the same about the police and a lot of low level crime.

So my point is that just because the cops dismissed it doesn't necessarily mean that what the parents claim didn't happen.

Some interesting snippets on Newsnight just now. The stepfather's claim that he spoke to the BBC for an hour and showed them screenshots seems to get the cautious 'recollections may vary' treatment, the BBC basically hinting this isn't actually true. They also had an agent on who put things into a perspective I hadn't considered, that the BBC gets literally hundreds of accusations and claims against its big names every year, which are pretty much all of them 'rubbish' (to quote the 'victim' here). There is a small army out there of grifter, stalkers, fantasists, bigots and loons deluging the BBC (and ITV, C4 etc) with obsessive or semi-blackmailing claims about onscreen talent. It simply isn't realistic to take them seriously.

Yeah, I am not going to fault the Beeb here necessarily. We all need to know why the Sun thinks they can run this story. They have either fucked up and will be sued or they have something real.

The police wouldn't need to investigate, r518, if, on the basis of what the parents told them it was obvious that nothing illegal had happened.

R521 Well, their claim is that something illegal did happen (the law says that nudes of under 18s is not legal) but cops probably just didn't want to deal with it or weren't aware so waved it off.

The Sun has what it has, statement from the parents, and it's positioned itself as presenting their story. This is how tabloids (indeed all newspapers) cover themselves when they print bollocks, as I know from personal experience in my job. This approach means they don't have to do that much checking - 'it's x's perception of how they were treated' after printing some factually inaccurate tripe (or, you know, lies).

The more time passes, the more it seems like Huw. Otherwise he would say that he is not the subject of the investigation.

Regardless of whether or not he’s found guilty or liable, the accused will never be able to shake off the dirty old man reputation The Sun has given him. Things like this stick forever.

When was Huw last on BBC live?

Look I get that we need to be cautious but this idea the BBC never does anything wrong is what has to this bullshit in the first place. Both Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris had complaints made about them for years and nothing was done. For years and years nothing, which is where so much of the fury comes from. The other reason for a lot of the hate is the Licence Fee which everyone has to pay and if you don’t you can be sent to jail. It creates alot of resentment

I remember first visiting the UK in 1986, turning on the TV and saw the creepiest looking/behaving man I’d ever seen. And he was a “children’s TV presenter”? He looked like a total perv. It was Jimmy Savile.

The Sun said earlier today that the BBC had started to receive calls from other members of the public about the behaviour of the man in question. Were they bullshitting about that as well?

Eww Huw.

530 what’s a chocolate soft drink, Rose?

Huw’s the culprit

Awkward.

LMAO! Freudian slip!

r528 but what’s that got to do with this? This is NOTHING like Jimmy Saville.

No it is not like Jimmy Saville, but the public distrust of the BBC is huge, people hate paying the Licence Fee. They hate the BBC constantly preaching and they hate the idea of a cover up. The fact someone would pay 35,000 pounds of basically money paid by Taxpayers to a drug addicted person to watch them jerk off. That reeks of corruption.

Not saying it is. Just that to many it seems like it.

^ And yet all those easily offended people probably still watch the BBC anyway

R536 Hu is a top earner because he is excellent at what he does. How he spends his salary is nobody else’s business, including BBC license payers. Fuck these idiots who are offended by everything, if it wasn’t this it would be something else.

Smell YOU, R538. We all bow down to your fucking exemplary morals.

Asswipe.

R539 Why, do you think it is their business how he spends his salary?

Now that all is settled, he can return to his duties as the trustworthy and somber presenter of news and historical events he’s always been. As for that no-pants image of him preening like a tween girl who just discovered instagram, I’ve erased that image from my mind. I think.

The Sun is bullshitting about everything, r529.

R536, only stupid rightwing twerps think that, and even then it's just a tiny group of them. They have the choice not to watch the BBC.

Jon Kay announces break from BBC Breakfast to spend time with family

The dad-of-three is enjoying some well-deserved time off

BBC Breakfast star Jon Kay will be absent from the iconic red sofa for the next two weeks as he enjoys some well-deserved time off.

Viewers of the show tuned in on Monday morning to see stand-in presenter Ben Thompson hosting the programme alongside Sally Nugent, who usually fronts the show with Jon from Monday to Wednesday.

Taking to social media on Sunday night, Jon revealed that he would be enjoying some "long-planned" leave from the programme to spend some time with his family.

It would be fantastic if it wasn't Hu after all and he suddenly started presenting tonight's news.

Of course they have to make an announcement just now if someone is taking a holiday otherwise the speculation will be on them.

License!

R543 Yes they do have the choice not to watch the man they pay for but frankly they have no choice not to pay the fee to keep him on which is why for many poor pensioners it sucks !! And frankly your whole wingnut bullshit is incredibly American and not at all English so why the fuck does this bother u in the first place ?

R547 I know quite a few people these days who no longer buy a TV license. They only TV they watch is through streaming services like Netflix, they tend to binge watch a whole series over a few days. Of course these are mostly younger people and not pensioners.

I see we have a 'Licenced Fee' loon on board (the capitalisation is one of the giveaways), their heart bleeding for the poor pensioners! It was of course this government that withdrew the established support that gave older people a free license.

I think it may actually be Jon Kay - seeing foreign new sites openly report it as Jon Kay. I've linked to one example (an Indian newspaper). And British new sites are hinting it's him by reporting that he isn't on air.

Why did Huw Edwards deactivate his Instagram account? (See R409).

Also, Jon Kay pings to me - that smelling cookies look. Huw doesn't ping to me.

But does he need to ‘ping’? Because we still don’t know if the victim is male or female do we?

R551 I reckon he got sick of trolls

Jon Kay has been on social media to state that he is on a planned family holiday. Lots of BBC presenters are distancing themselves from the story.

Note no direct denial from Jon while 'long-planned' can mean anything as opposed to a fixed date. Was he at that TV bash?

^ He will be back at work in two weeks.

John Kay was on social media on Sunday to say he's taking a break to spend more time with his family, r555.

The story broke on Saturday and the the BBC suspended the presenter on Sunday according to Reuters. Hm, the timing is ahem, interesting.

Huw’s Wiki entry is locked down right now, and can’t be edited, while Jon Kay’s page is open for editing as usual.

R549 Who is the licensed fee loon?

If it wasn’t Huw he would have spoke up by now. He will be well aware that his name is all over the internet.

Perhaps he hasn't spoken up, r562, because the allegations are indeed rubbish, as the actual person involved called them, and by speaking up, even if only to say "it's not me", he's only giving them credibility.

I was thinking the exact same thing, R562.

The poster who capitalises 'Licence Fee', R561. They always do that. The type is also typically opposed to any sort of arts subsidies (despite the demonstrable enormous economic benefits the creative arts bring to the UK) or basically state/public support for anything they, personally, don't do or enjoy. They will also be knee-jerk London and 'metropolitan elite' bashers and almost certainly Brexiteers. The Venn diagram of all these opinions will have the anti-BBC position right in the middle.

R563 Huw is married with 5 adult children. If it isn’t him of course he would speak out, why put his family through this. He wouldn’t even have to speak out, just turn up for work and read the news, that would tell people that he is not suspended from his job.

New updates.

BBC said to have only made two attempts to contact the complainers (i.e. the parents). This doesn't necessarily seem a big deal to me, given (as noted above) the constant stream of complaints./claims they get about presenters and actors, most of which are bogus. They obviously have to spend time assessing things. And the BBC has also said that it was a different category of claim made last week that changed the issue for them which, again on the face of it is reasonable - -sifferent evidence, different reaction. One of the main issues seems to be that no-one (apart from the mother and step-father - where's the father, by the way?) has really seen the evidence. The Sun just has affidavits from the parents, not any actual bank statements or screenshots and the BBC have suggested claims they were shown such evidence via online contact aren't accurate.

Met police has asked the BBC to stop its internal investigation for the time being. Not sure what this means yet.

At this point, I suspect it probably was Huw Edwards, and that the situation was - as with Schofield - "unwise, but not illegal".

R566, what if he is the BBC presenter who had contact with this young person but the accusations the parents are making are indeed "rubbish"? People need to learn patience and wait to see how things evolve and what version of events actually emerges, before demanding names right now to feed their salacious demand for gossip.

[quote]The fact someone would pay 35,000 pounds of basically money paid by Taxpayers to a drug addicted person to watch them jerk off. That reeks of corruption.

I see nothing wrong with that!

[quote] The stepfather did go to the police with the claims - but was told by the police that nothing illegal had happened.

That sounds like what you might expect from the British police

No, it doesn't, r571.

I know it’s his own doing but I really feel for Huw, I can’t imagine how this must be tearing him up. Imagine your family, friends and colleagues, never mind millions of others, all knowing your private intimate business.

I’m really not sure how well I would cope with something like this.

A guy saw Huw at Gatwick Airport in March and tweeted this

[quote]Hey @thehuwedwards I was the star struck bloke looking at you in M&S food Hall at Gatwick. Probably my favourite news anchor. Keep doing you, huw

Huw DMd the guy with

[quote]Bad boy and you should have said a proper hello X

Apparently he's known to DM younger guys with an emoji.

The Guardian has an informative timeline. It does seem the concerned parents might be overselling their 'The BBC ignored us so we had to go to the Sun' line.

R539 Hey shit for brains, for the second time, why do you think it’s anybody else’s business but his own what he spends his salary on?

R576, Hey asswipe/douchenozzle, you obviously aren’t grasping the fundamentals of this particular situation and I’m not interested in educating you about them.

The BBC today revealed that it did not confront the star at the centre of the sex pictures scandal until almost two months after they first received a complaint about him from the teenager's family.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Director General Tim Davie also admitted he has still not spoken to the household name at all despite the scandal gripping the corporation.

The family made an in-person (seems unusual) complaint on May 18th.

July 6th The Sun contacted the BBC about the story and the same day a BBC manager held their first conversation with the presenter about the allegations.

Why should the BBC have confronted him about vague allegations for which no evidence was provided and which the actual person involved describes as rubbish, r578?

[quote]The Guardian has an informative timeline. It does seem the concerned parents might be overselling their 'The BBC ignored us so we had to go to the Sun' line.

Jim Waterson, the Guardian's media editor, is the partner of Jess Brammar, the BBC executive news editor.

In 2021 a bunch of Jewish kids celebrating Hanukkah were attacked in London by a gang spitting at them and trying to smash the windows on the bus. The attack was filmed and shared but when it was reported the BBC inserted a totally unfounded claim that the kids could be heard saying anti Muslim slurs.

The regulator Ofcom investigated and found significant editorial failings, quite a significant criticism of the BBC. The Guardian covered it but Jim Waterson didn't get involved with it.

R577 I will take that as confirmation that you haven’t got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

I have a thing for gray haired daddies with British accents so none of this is offensive to me

Part 2 coming soon, right?

My 4th question at R495 has been answered!

I've started a part 2

bye.

Huw, are you

Huw huw

huw huw

Somewhere, Graham Norton's no no hole is clutched with worry

Thanks, r586!

touch me in the morning.....

THEN just walk .....AWAY

No, I can come back and touch you in the evening, too, r592!

R593 = Grabby Grandpa Huw

Five

Four

Three

Two.

One...

Bajour!