The ever so tawdry tale of a BBC star, a drug addicted OnlyFans teenager and a nation of gossips. PART TWO

Poor Uncle Huw.

OnlyFans hasn't been mentioned in any of the reports, why are you assuming that? It could be a dating app or via social media.

Because of the alleged financial transactions, r2.

R3 You can pay someone outside of OnlyFans. I don't understand the assumption.

OnlyFans has been mentioned by the Guido Fawkes website who have links to The Sun.

The BBC are reporting that there's now a complaint from someone else about conduct on a dating site and then social media. with threatening messages coming from the presenter.

Great title, OP.

Hey asswipe/douchenozzle/utter moron contrarian from the first thread,-you hear the latest? Have ya, huh? Good god, I’d love to see that smug grin wiped off your face. Off to Nandi’s with you for a sulk. Ta ra, cock!

Oh, dear-that’s NANDO’S. No doubt your go-to for spouting bullshit to anybody who will listen.

Obviously other copycat stories will emerge and most will be untrue or wildly exaggerated (as this one sounds), though obviously not necessarily. During the Schofield affair, there were other alleged boyfriends and stories about his private flat in London that were supposed to emerge, but nothing solid ever actually came out. The BBC has now to be seen to take such stories seriously, regardless of their nature.

How would anyone know the second case involves the exact same person, since that brief summary of the second incident is disimilar to the original accusation?

Probably another one the BBC presenter met on OnlyFans, r6, who thought he could get a bit of extra money by blackmailing the presenter.

[quote]Probably another one the BBC presenter met on OnlyFans, r6, who thought he could get a bit of extra money by blackmailing the presenter.

If you'd read the fucking story AS LINKED you'd see that's not the case at all!

The first thread isn't done yet...?

[quote]Obviously other copycat stories will emerge and most will be untrue or wildly exaggerated (as this one sounds), though obviously not necessarily

OBVIOUSLY!

Because a guy alleging he chatted to the guy on a hook up act and was then threatened is literally a copy cat of the guy who received £35k for naked pics and camera sessions.

The BBC have seen the threats and verified they came from the number of the presenter.

Hmm…how would the second complainer know who’s name to report, unless it was true and it was the same person.

The timeline in the article at r6 is weird.

[quote] The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.

[quote] They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.

[quote] When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.

...

[quote] After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms.

[quote] At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone.

[quote] Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.

So they moved the conversation off the dating app. Then the young person alluded online somewhere (?) that he was in communication with the presenter. Then the presenter freaked out and threatened him.

Maybe it's wrong of me, but I am Team Pervert Presenter at this point.

Just wish they'd get on with this. Saw something saying MPs may use parliamentary privilege to reveal who it is. Does being an MP shield one from legal action, like diplomatic immunity?

[quote]blackmailing the presenter.

Blackmail is a crime - in which case the presenter ought to go to the police. I remember that there was a case of a gay/bi member of the Royal Family being blackmailed and it went to court. The men trying to blackmail him were convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison. The royal's name was kept out of the press.

Is that cookies I smell?!

R17 Only if they do it as "part of their legislative duties". So if they name him in Parliament because they think there's a public interest to doing so, that gives them immunity.

Somewhere Philip Schofield is fapping to the idea of some chav topping Huw.

R7 You sound like a deranged homeless person on meth. How do you manage to get onto the internet? I’m guessing the drug drop in centre has Wi-Fi, or maybe you are allowed into the library to use the Windows XP computer.

Either way well done for managing to have some normality in your life before the inevitable happens. Now you can let it all out by screaming about Hitler or god knows whatever randomly enters your tiny brain.

I did read it r12, and I even read it before it was updated to mention a dating app, when it was just an "app". Regardless, it's still a similar scenario. They met apparently on a dating app. On dating apps you can block people, hence the young person (who is over 20) consented to receiving messages from the presenter. Then the "young person" threatened to reveal the presenter's identity, so the presenter got angry and sent angry messages.

The only thing the presenter is guilty of is being an idiot.

Exactly r16, this is another story that doesn't make sense if you try to put it into some order. The young person apparently didn't want any interaction with the presenter at all when the presenter apparently first contacted him on a dating app, yet was happy to move onto other platforms and continue interacting with the presenter there. The presenter asked the young person not to reveal his identity. Instead, the young person went online and threatened publicly to reveal the presenter's identity for no specific reason, unless he/she was trying to gain something from this revelation.

[quote]After the two had first connected on the dating app, the conversation moved to other platforms.

[quote]At this stage, the presenter revealed his identity and told the young person not to tell anyone.

[quote]Later, the young person alluded online to having contact with a BBC presenter, and implied they would name him at some point.

Do they cancel people in England, or is it a US thing?

South Wales Police have apparently put out a statement saying they have met with representatives of the BBC and the Met. They had received information in April about the welfare of an adult. No criminality was found.

So sordid

are all the queens adamant that the trousers around ankles pic was a bad photoshop still of the same opinion now that a "dating app" has been added to the story?

I wonder if Huw has the paparazzi hanging around outside of his property, hoping to get a glimpse of him taking out the garbage or going to a local shop. This must be like a bomb going off for his family.

"The BBC has just revealed further details of the story everyone is talking about – BBC presenter salaries. It’s been a good year for Huw Edwards, who’s clocked in a bumper £25,000 pay rise. That should cover any unexpected costs…

As record wage growth contributes to inflationary pressures, the BBC has been doing their best to make the situation worse. Gary Lineker remains the corporation’s highest earner, on £1,354,999."

That’s not much money for the highest paid news/sport talent on national tv… hell, second level local affiliate anchors make more than that in the U.S.

R31 No, they don't. You'd be surprised how little money local/regional anchors make in the U.S. Below average salary (I am not kidding).

No, second level local affiliate anchors aren't making 1.7 million USD.

A few of the major market anchors might be making close to that or a bit more, the LA/Chicago/NYC ones maybe, but most salaries at every level have been slashed from the highest points in the 90s.

They make far less and are expected to do far more, including maintaining an active, visible social media presence.

Ok—I’ll take that back.

Let’s say that PBS is comparable to the BBC…is that fair? Judy Woodruff, as their main evening editor/anchor, earned the equivalent of ~2.2 million £

The South Wales Police statement at r26 must refer to the visit of the stepfather to the police. Note: an adult, no criminality.

R34 Meh, of course US salaries will be on average higher since it's a much richer country but even so for an anchor that seems in line with the natural salary differences.

Remember that these people just... read the news out! They don't really do anything that special. You mentioned that Woodruff is an editor? Does that mean she has to actually engage her intellectual and managerial powers? Because all Huw Edwards does is read the fucking news out.

I don't think anyone denied that something naughty had been going on online between the male presenter and the original young person, r28. That still doesn't mean that the screenshot was not photoshopped or that it was from a video sent to the original young person or even that the male presenter in question is indeed Huw Edwards.

The dirty secret about the UK is salaries are a LOT lower than in the US across-the-board.

"Ta ra"???

From Jeremy Vine:

[quote] I’m starting to think the BBC Presenter involved in the scandal should now come forward publicly. These new allegations will result in yet more vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues of his. And the BBC, which I’m sure he loves, is on its knees with this.

R38 It's not a secret to me. It's just plainly obvious. I know Brits who go to work in the U.S. to make money. The U.S. is just far richer a country than the U.K.

r39, "Ta-ra" is an alternative to "goodbye" used by common people who shop at Aldi and Lidl.

Who cares what Jeremy Vine says, r40?

Jeremy Vine is right. Whoever the accused is, he's kind of throwing everyone under the bus by keeping mum.

I think he has a point, R44. This is all going to come out sooner or later. Why keep dragging it out?

Jeremy Vine is a fucking cunt btw. A posh privileged twat who cycles around London and uploads videos of minor irritations to Twitter, including people's car registrations. In one video he filmed a woman stuck in traffic who had her dog on her lap, which is apparently an offence. And his phone in show is a crime against humanity.

[quote][R39], "Ta-ra" is an alternative to "goodbye" used by common people who shop at Aldi and Lidl.

I thought it was toodle loo?

I thought it was "ta-ta," not "ta-ra."

[quote]I thought it was toodle loo?

That's people who shop at Waitrose.

[quote]I thought it was "ta-ta," not "ta-ra."

Asda.

R49 It's 'ta-ra' - Northern slang for 'goodbye'.

Those Tattle cunts are just horrible.

R43 Nobody in the UK says Ta-ra these days, it was originally a northern saying.

You really are trying too hard to come across as snobby and superior with your references to Nando's, Aldi and Lidl. It's not working, we can all see you for what you are. A rude and argumentative cunt who is scraping along by the bones of his arse without a pot to piss in.

We come to Datalounge for the pointless bitching, not to have to engage with low level idiots like yourself. See yourself out of the door.

Mary!!! I started this thread and posted about the supermarkets, I'm not the Nandi/Nando/Lisa Nandy person.

Have to admit, I didn't have "Huw Edwards becomes the subject of a DL thread" on my 2023 bingo card.

Thanks, r50! I'm still learning my British!

The supermarket snob is full of shit though - I remember seeing expensive cars in the carpark of my local KwikSave decades ago. Rich people often know the value of money. Snobs don't necessarily.

R57 Exactly, spot on.

R57 is confusing class with wealth.

Anyway, back to Huw, is he an Ocado aficionado?

R59 Yes, poor as church mice upper middle class will still shop at Waitrose because they're snobs and idiots.

FFS, who gives a fuck about supermarkets?

R55 Neither did I. I know you can't tell but he always came across as so nice and wholesome. Kind of like Terry Wogan maybe. It is a genuine shock

[quote] "Ta-ra" is an alternative to "goodbye"

Excuse me but Ta ra is "Hello, as in Hello to the the poor girl who had to replace Emma Peel.

OH NO! Huw is now accused of hooking up with a guy DURING COVID LOCKDOWN

Considering Rishi Sunak was fined for attending a meeting where a birthday cake was shared then this might be IT.

Straight female homophobia is alive and well on Tattle. I've just read some of it and now I need a shower.

Where did you read that, R64?

R66 it's The Sun's new exclusive

It's a very sad situation.

Not sure if Huw is giving people cash in the hope they'll be discreet or to try to exert control over them.

Thank you, R67.

If he’s gay, but married to a woman, I predict the confession will be something along the lines of “I became a sex addict due to the anxiety and depression brought on by living a lie. I engaged with teens and young men because that was a time in life I missed out on by being in the closet, which stunted my emotional growth, and, in a way, I was trying to recapture my lost youth.”

^ Not defending this kind of behavior but you wonder how the closet shapes some of these guys. Like Schofield, Kevin Spacey, John Travolta...

You seem well acquainted with that scenario r69.

Sigh. Sad to see how the closet warps people into doing such reckless shit.

No R71, I’m basing this on the admissions of Spacey, Scofield, et al. Spacey actually came out as gay and played the victim card right before allegations against him were made public.

* Schofield, I mean.

It's been a banner year for gay men in the UK. Schofield, Edwards and the Spacey case.

[quote]Sigh. Sad to see how the closet warps people into doing such reckless shit.

George Michael was another case. Maybe he was tired of being in the closet and started hooking up with strangers in public bathrooms rather than in more discreet places in hopes of getting “caught.” Subconsciously or consciously.

[quote]If he’s gay, but married to a woman, I predict the confession will be something along the lines of “I became a sex addict due to the anxiety and depression brought on by living a lie. I engaged with teens and young men because that was a time in life I missed out on by being in the closet, which stunted my emotional growth, and, in a way, I was trying to recapture my lost youth.”

That's why some (not all) of the homophobia accusations are a bit off for me.

If a 60 year old man was behaving like this with 18 year old girls he would be judged far more severely, but like Schofield there's the "living a lie" and "accepting my truth" defence.

And on a serious note, why the fuck is this headline news above the NATO summit in Lithuania?

[quote]Not defending this kind of behavior but you wonder how the closet shapes some of these guys. Like Schofield, Kevin Spacey, John Travolta...

Travolta is a great example. He’s uber-closeted because of Scientology, yet he’s a rampant sex pest (allegedly) with many stories floating around… pretty much another Spacey, although he hasn’t been publicly outed yet.

[quote]If a 60 year old man was behaving like this with 18 year old girls he would be judged far more severely, but like Schofield there's the "living a lie" and "accepting my truth" defence.

Also, males are seen as less vulnerable females, and are more likely to be seen as consenting partners in abusive relationships than females are (this is especially true when the groomer is an adult woman and the victim is a boy.)

R78 Remember that guy who had that spa book published a few years ago? It was about John Travolta's jaunts around the bathhouses of the US in search of cock. How come that didn't cause more of a stir I wonder.

^^ “Also, males are seen as less vulnerable THAN females…”

Oh dear!

R80, because a lot of chickenshit media outlets won't "out" people....so these sad guys who cling to the closet well into middle age or even old age get away with shit. Spacey got away with shit for eons until the chickens finally came home to roost (so to speak)

Stories about Travolta do get published sometimes, but they then somehow get contained and no-one pulls them together or talks about a pattern. Not sure why - Scientology can't be that powerful.

Whoever this is (and we all know who it is), bet he wishes he had just had a wank over some PornHub.

This second person who said the bad guy, Huw or whoever, harrassed him on social media, why didn't he just block him?

LPSG is very quiet but this nugget of information was shared in May 2020 by "SurprisinglyHung2020"

[quote]I was on an EasyJet flight next to Huw Edwards and he should have had to pay excess baggage for his bulge. It was colossal!

MadWelshy replied

[quote]He has 5 kids! No wonder!!

SurprisinglyHung2020 replied

[quote]I’m surprised she can walk

The thread went quiet until September 2021 when Funguy123456 posted

[quote]I’ve seen his cock and he’s hung

In another thread called Guilty Pleasures on the same day Funguy123456 replied to a post saying "Huw Edwards, BBC news reader."

[quote]He’s gay. Horny fucker

Funguy123456 also claims to have chatted to Welsh actor Luke Evans' then boyfriend about his coprophilia fetish.

Why are the police investigating? Is it illegal to pay someone for nude photos? Seems to be such a wave of prudishness with these stories recently lol.

[quote]This second person who said the bad guy, Huw or whoever, harrassed him on social media, why didn't he just block him?

Huw seems to have a Grindr method of chatting to people and getting them interested without showing his (own?) face and then building up trust.

It sounds like he's put pressure on much younger men to meet which could be viewed as coercive control.

[quote] It sounds like he's put pressure on much younger men to meet which could be viewed as coercive control.

Is ‘coercive control’ here an established legal term or just your way of phrasing ‘wanted them to meet up’ R88? Idk if any of you have used dating apps but people do this shit all the time and it’s firstly non-authorative in that you can block, ignore, or say no, and secondly it’s just interpretative. Someone messaging me and saying ‘come fuck me right now’ isn’t threatening, or an order, or in anyway would make me fearful. This just seems like a lot of reaching?

R89, read the account of the man in The Sun. *if* this is true then it's manipulative and bullying.

R90 isn’t the whole thing in the Sun in dispute based in what the lawyer said? Also so what? Someone’s mean to you on a dating app so the police should get involved? Also someone being ‘mean’ or not is always subjective.

R36. It’s a courtesy title because she is the most senior journalist on staff—dhes been there forever.

FYI:

PBS is a nonprofit corporation created by the U.S. government; it gets federal funding and viewer/foundation support. It is not a commercial network.

Where’s that Little Britain(?) sketch about the politician who gets caught in increasingly absurd gay sex incidents!

Look who got caught eating the croissant!

Huw is hung?

NOT GUILTY!

This guy is scum. He deserves everything coming to him. It’s time to name him.

“The unnamed presenter allegedly rang the teenager, who is now 20, and asked 'what have you done'? The corporation has suspended the star, who reportedly also asked the 20-year-old to get their mum to "stop the investigation".”

r53 I stlll say tarra as do many people in Liverpool of all ages

r86 = "Huw, Huw, Huw, Huw, Huw, Luke Evans eats shit"

Do you pronounce the “H” as in “Cool Whip?”

I’m the “ta ra” guy. I blocked the asshole at R22, R23 and R24 because he’s defending Edwards to such an extent that I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s his PA. Or something. And yes, I do believe he goes to Nando’s chicken shop in his local high street and shouts out his unsolicited “opinions” to the counter boys, hoping for a wink and a smile.

Buckle up, fuckleheads. Wednesday, July 12th ain’t just Emmy Nominations Day (GO Succession) it’s also Huw Edwards’ Big Bad Exposure Day. And The Sun headline Thursday will read something like BBC PRESENTER HUW: “IT WAS JUST A BIT OF C**K”

Toorah loorah loorah

And where the fuck is part 1? You're a failure OP.

It doesn’t even follow the title structure of part 1.

OP is dumber than a rough huwn dildo.

R101 Trust me, nobody cares what you believe, nobody. Everybody else is in this thread is managing to get along just fine as we speculate on this case. You are the only one screaming hysterically like a deranged idiot.

Going out of your way to try and insult everyone is really not a good idea, it’s not how a conversation works, and it’s why nobody likes you. Now go check out the rubbish bins near to Nando’s and try to salvage some old chicken bones for your breakfast before the bin men arrive.

Toddle pips hun, and remember, medication is always an option.

[quote][R86] = "Huw, Huw, Huw, Huw, Huw, Luke Evans eats shit"

No, it's Luke Evans ex boyfriend who was into brown.

Huw is toast now, clearly, though it seems unlikely he did anything illegal (it's more of a Schofield rerun). The BBC will get over it and I don't think they have really done anything wrong, as it looks like they were only given an accusation but not the actual evidence to begin with and it's still not clear that anyone other than the family involved has actually seen the alleged evidence, unless this is what the BBC got last Thursday. Anti-BBC types in the Tory Party, the right-wing press and the 'Licence Fee!' brigade will try to make a meal of it, but it will pass and the former are on the way out as an effective government. Edwards is easily replaceable - he's been a reliable big occasion presenter, with a solid presence and likeable, unthreatening regional accent, but he doesn't have talent in the way, say Graham Norton or Gary Lineker do as spontaneous, interactive hosts of live shows. Someone will slot into his place, as has happened many times before. Anyone remember Frankl Bough? He was arguably a bigger BBC presence than Edwards, presenting both news and flagship sports programmes, before he went down in a flurry of tabloid stories about hookers and cocaine.

Where can I see the video that’s apparently going around?

Interesting:

[quote] but he doesn't have talent in the way, say Graham Norton or Gary Lineker do as spontaneous, interactive hosts of live shows.

?!?!!!

He’s a fucking news anchor not a game show host. He’s done plenty of spontaneous and interactive live news coverage, and is very good at it.

Btw, the guy speaking at R109 implying that the guilty party is Huw is Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun.

Here's the video of Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun, (now a sports radio host) suggesting who the culprit is . . .

The culprit is fully known, as his bare ass has been flashed all over the UK.

Was he editor of the Sun when they used to publish pictures of topless 16 year girls?

Well, yes, R110, but it's all quite generic and scripted. He works mostly from an autocue and most questions he asks other reporters and guests are scripted beforehand. He doesn't regularly do extended serious interviews and he doesn't do things equivalent to Fiona Bruce on Question Time or the Newsnight presenters. He's a basic anchor of the solid, middle-aged white male type, but he doesn't have range. It's a skill and he's become good at it over the decades, but tv channels are full of people who can do this. People like Norton and Lineker (who are not games show presenters either, at least mainly) operate is a different way and are much harder to replace (though everyone is replaceable ultimately, again obviously).

[quote] In January 1987, MacKenzie published a completely unfounded front-page story alleging that pop singer Elton John had engaged in sex with underage rentboys.

Hmmmmm.

Yeah, MacKenzie is no angel. Not a fan of his, but it's still interesting.

R117 is it?

He’s lied about this stuff before why would you listen to a word that comes out of his mouth? Especially as a gay person, you should know better.

Kelvin McKenzie is the scum of the earth. I think he did that on purpose.

Anyway, it would be a massive shock if it DIDN'T turn out to be Huw. I don't understand why he doesn't just come forward.

As an aside, it's partly due to the BBC's coverage of the allegations against Cliff Richard that the regulations have been tightened:

[quote] It was in 2018 that the Sir Cliff Richard case, ironically involving the BBC, really set an important precedent. The High Court ruled that there had been a disproportionate invasion of his private life by the way the BBC had reported a police search of his home, which turned out to be based on a completely bogus and unwarranted accusation which detectives later dropped. The even more important change since then was last year when the Supreme Court ruled that even somebody who's under investigation, in the earliest stages, by a law enforcement agency could be entitled to privacy.

[quote] The even more important change since then was last year when the Supreme Court ruled that even somebody who's under investigation, in the earliest stages, by a law enforcement agency could be entitled to privacy.

How come the BBC is fine with reporting this guy being investigated for sexual assault allegations then? He hasn't been charged with anything. This was reported just yesterday!

Yt privilege

R107, what the hell are you on about? This is MUCH WORSE than the Schofield scandal. Edwards was apparently sending threatening, bullying messages to one young guy and met with another while violating Covid protocols. He might have been knowingly enabling a drug addict, sending him money to support his addiction. And you are highly underestimating Edwards’ value to the BBC. He’s one iof the prime jewels in their crown.

I still don't understand how someone who simply reads the news out is worthy of £425,00 a year. It's obscene and makes me a bit sick. I've paid the TV licence all my life even though I only use iplayer occasionally.

Don't be so hysterical, R122. Edwards is a twat and will lose his job, but you are accepting every headline as the literal truth ahead of any police action. It's still far closer to Schofield (where, don't forget, there was a lot of excited talk about age of consent, grooming and other 'victims' coming to light, which has all now gone away), than to monsters like Saville or Rolf Harris. Edwards is a pretty big name, no doubt, but he is also quite easy to replace. His main selling points were an avuncular, relaxed but authoritative manner, pleasant voice and air of gravitas. All that is gone and someone else will be reading the autocue, asking political/economic editors 'Well, what does all this mean'?' and saying 'And now over to x for the Sports news'. Other people already do it now - there'll be barely a blip. People remember Robin Day, Charles Wheeler and Jeremy Paxman, if anyone; no-one remembers Reginald Bosanquet or Frank Bough. The only really important newsreaders are ground-breakers like Trevor Macdonald and Angela Rippon.

[quote]I still don't understand how someone who simply reads the news out is worthy of £425,00 a year. It's obscene and makes me a bit sick. I've paid the TV licence all my life even though I only use iplayer occasionally.

He doesn't JUST read the news, he's the main anchor for the huge live events, the deaths and funerals of the Queen and Prince Phillip, royal weddings and the multiple elections and referendums.

And he films documentaries in Wales about Wales shown in Wales.

Not anymore, he doesn't.

R107/R124, can you be any more of a contrarian dolt? Apparently not, going by your pathetic response to my post.

You are off your rocker, R128. Really -see someone.

Huw Edwards also provided a voice over in the Doctor Who episode Fear Her, over the fake 2012 Olympics coverage.

I always thought he was gay, I was surprised to find out he was a married father.

BEARKING: Huw's wife has named him.

In hospital—mental health crisis

Here is Vicky Flind's statment in full:

"In light of the recent reporting regarding the 'BBC Presenter' I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult days for our family.

"I am doing this primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children.

"Huw is suffering from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years.

"The events of the last few days have greatly worsened matters, he has suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he'll stay for the foreseeable future.

"Once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published.

"To be clear Huw was first told that there were allegations being made against him last Thursday.

"In the circumstances and given Huw's condition I would like to ask that the privacy of my family and everyone else caught up in these upsetting events is respected.

"I know that Huw is deeply sorry that so many colleagues have been impacted by the recent media speculation. We hope this statement will bring that to an end."

I know he's been a dick, but I don't want to see anyone in such a bad way that they're receiving MH treatment as an in-patient. The closet really does kill.

In the US they go to rehab.

In the UK they claim mental health issues.

He should go to the sex addiction rehab that Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein went to

VIcky Flind is a news producer at ITV and very well connected.

It must be very strange for journalists reporting on their friends, but that probably lends itself to cover up conspiracy theories.

R136 I don’t think this needs classifying as a sex addiction yet.

He may be suffering a mental health crisis related to being closeted. I have empathy if that is the case.

However, it did not stop him/wife from issuing a statement days ago. It feels a little bit like the PR playbook. Plead for privacy for family/predator’s health.

He's had well documented MH issues for some time, so no need to play that "claim" card.

The Police have also said, again, that there is nothing illegal in the initial claims made against him.

It's not just the main story on BBC One, it's the main story on BBC Wales news.

Huw Thomas says the news about Huw Edwards has come as a shock to a lot of people.

His wife seeming to connect his “severe mental health issues” with trolling for gay sex is sort of despicable, though.

Except she didn't R143.

Well, his lawyer definitely posts here.

BBC Wales only spent 7 minutes on the story before moving on to why overseas tourists don't come to Wales.

[quote]BBC Wales only spent 7 minutes on the story before moving on to why overseas tourists don't come to Wales.

Why don't they?

[quote] The Police have also said, again, that there is nothing illegal in the initial claims made against him.

So why are they investigating? It’s so weird. If I go the police and say an ex is being mean to me via text are they gonna kick off an official police investigation? I’m not doubting you or trying to be sarcastic at your comment at all btw, I’m just extremely confused.

[quote]Why don't they?

confused marketing, a lack of holiday packages and poor transport connections

Thanks, r149!

Huw never pinged for me, but come to think it, he does have quite severe gayface.

Yeah, she sort of has, R144. She claims he has been suffering “serious mental issues.” She didn’t make a direct connection but…uhhh…there’s certainly an intention (perhaps unconsciously) of her connecting his reported trolling for gay sex exploits with “serious mental issues.” Sorry, but I find that despicable. I’m somewhat alarmed the media haven’t pointed this out yet.

Given that he's receiving in-patient MH treatment, there's a decent chance he's attempted suicide in the last few days. This has all spun way, way out of control.

But Jeremy Vine said he spoke to someone who spoke to Huw and that person didn't tell Jeremy Vine that Huw was suicidal.

They wouldn't necessarily have known Huw was suicidal, R154. Vine said Huw was angry, but he was also presumably panicking.

Jeremy Vine was called out on this by another presenter, Richard Bacon, and is trying to cover himself, even though Edwards mental health issues are known and of long-standing, while still making it about himself. He's done himself no favours in UK media circles. None of the others who were named have been carrying on like this.

Vine is trash.

Huw let the dogs out?

Is Huw a Walter Cronkite-like figure in the UK?

In hospital now.

Well done, The S*n.

[quote]Huw let the dogs out?

Pun aside, he’s Welsh, so I would say he “released the red dragon.”

R159 - this Washington Post article makes that exact comparison:

[quote] Edwards is one of the public network’s highest-paid stars. He has been a fixture on British television for decades, a throwback to an earlier age when a trusted voice — a British version of Walter Cronkite — was the calm in the middle of the news storms.

Casting suggestions foe the made-for-streaming movie?

Who will play Huw and his trick?

[quote] Vine said Huw was angry

So his "serious episode" was a tantrum?

[quote] The Sun says it has no plans to publish further allegations about Huw Edwards and will co-operate with BBC investigation

[quote]though everyone is replaceable ultimately

Not Jeff Stelling.

[quote]Casting suggestions foe the made-for-streaming movie? Who will play Huw and his trick?

Kenneth Branagh as Huw Edwards

Indira Varma as Reeta Chakrabarti

Naomi Watts as Sophie Raworth

Idris Elba as Clive Myrie

Rachel Weisz as Victoria Newton

Carey Mulligan as The Mother

James Norton as The Step Father

Emma Corrin as Owen Jones

Steve Coogan as Jeremy Vine

Rylan as himself

R167, I'm liking those choices

Top work, R167. Your choice for OJ was inspired.

The DL borke this news 4 days ago:

The young guy involved told The S*n that his mother's claims were untrue before they published their story. They published it anyway, but without his denial.

Fuck them.

""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," the lawyer writes."

DL didn't break it. Gossip that originated on Twitter and elsewhere was reported back here.

[quote]The DL borke

Welcome, the Swedish Chef, to Datalounge!

I’m team Vine on this.. Edwards should have taken the bull by the horns and said he was the person involved and not let all the speculation ruin the life of innocent people who were unjustly pulled into the story. That his wife had to make the public statement is even more pathetic.

He's heavily sedated in a psych ward R174, he couldn't have made the statement.

So now we've had two public figures, Schofield and Edwards, who have had some form of sexual or sexualised relationship with young men in their early twenties, adults well over the legal age of consent, and both have been smeared as 'groomers' targeting 'youngsters', and in the latter case apparently blamed for someone else's cocaine addiction.

Who would have thought that the anti-trans and anti-drag queen moral panic would have ended up with baseless accusations of paedophilia being hurled at gay public figures? Well, anyone with more than a handful of brain cells.

I'd watch that, R167

The S*n desperately trying to pretend their reporting has been in the public interest, because, ummm, the man involved, whom they repeatedly refer to as a 'child' is allegedly a drug addict..

I find this quite a strange tweet from an actual serious journalist, especially with Boris Johnson's character.

20 years ago when he was first an MP he was sacked for lying about an affair with Petronella Wyatt, who had 2 abortions. Should she have been stopped from disclosing that to the media?

R170 please don‘t start a BORKING NEWS meme.

Sordid, sordid, sordid.

[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.]

Oh, fuck off, r176.

Junior staff members revealed to the Six O'Clock News that the presenter, 61, had sent 'inappropriate messages' to them - but also confirmed that they had not previously officially complained to the Corporation.

In the hours that followed, three BBC employees, two current and one former, then came forward with claims. A current employee said they received inappropriate and suggestive messages from the presenter, while two more, one who has since left, said they have received messages which made them feel uncomfortable.

'One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation', the BBC reported this evening.

R183 Make me

In R176 we have 2 men pushing 60 who had relationships with teenagers, relationships which involved financial transactions, and both have been the subject of complaints about their behaviour in work. Both messaged 17 year olds out of the blue on social media.

The Schofield/Edwards issue isn't that the teenagers are male, it's that the young people are 35-40 years younger and the financial relationship means there's an abuse of power. There is some distaste that they've both cheated on their wives but the same would be the case if it was 17 year old girls they were hitting up.

Remember the reaction Al Pacino and his 20something girlfriend recently had a baby? It's like that.

r170 r178 r185

R187

r188

[me]

R186 you are wrong, there is no "abuse of power" just because someone pays. The abuse of power is when the person has control or power over you, not sending you money

R189 is a sad loser who can't check his Ignored page if he really wants to see what someone he's ignored has written.

[quote] Remember the reaction Al Pacino and his 20something girlfriend recently had a baby? It's like that.

Really? There was a police investigation into Al Pacino? His girlfriend was repeatedly referred to as a vulnerable 'youngster' in the press? He has been suspended by people who employ him? All news to me.

[quote] it's that the young people are 35-40 years younger and the financial relationship means there's an abuse of power.

Have you heard of OnlyFans?

r190 r192 r193

There *is* a little bit of an element of abuse of power if you're a powerful person hitting on much younger people at work or paying a crack addict who probably wouldn't do it if they didn't have a crack addiction.

Why Edwards didn't hire discreet escorts, I am not sure. I can only surmise he must be getting off on the danger of it. Well now it's blown up in his face.

This hysteria is an older generation's gasping last breaths in the face of the commercialization of sex and literally everything else in the world. Humanity only worships money now, so all of this sex shame BS will probably die out in a few more generations.

R196, closet cases often find unhealthy ways to seek out sex

R199 True. The amounts of money is staggering. It's reported he was sending amounts like £200 over via Paypal just to meet up for a cup of tea? What? And £35,000 for pictures? He could have got at least 35 sex sessions with a hot escort for that.

I would have shown him everything for 1/10 the price if I were 15 years younger

[quote]I would have shown him everything for 1/10 the price if I were 15 years younger

If you were younger? Are you sure you didn't mean if He was younger?

[quote]Why Edwards didn't hire discreet escorts, I am not sure. I can only surmise he must be getting off on the danger of it. Well now it's blown up in his face.

Maybe he did hire discreet escorts in the past, but grew tired of them and needed more excitement. As the saying goes, “Addiction is the progressive narrowing of the things that give you pleasure.”

R200 yeah it's fucking weird. Do we know for sure if he even had sex with this guy? Maybe it's something like 'I want to surround myself with hot young guys but I'm too inhibited and impotent to actually fuck them'. '

Oh yes, and did we all read the email going round that claimed George Osborne had sex with a sixteen year old girl in a nightclub toilet?

Where is the police investigation and suspension?

+[quote] The amounts of money is staggering. It's reported he was sending amounts like £200 over via Paypal just to meet up for a cup of tea?

The timeline is odd

November 20: chat on Grindr, Huw not using his own/any pic

December 20: move from Grindr to WhatsApp. The guy eventually realises it's Huw. Huw puts pressure on guy to meet week before Christmas, gets angry when doesn't happen

January 21: Huw wants to meet, says he's been patient and isn't used to being turned down. Guy says he's had Covid.

February 21: Huw travels out of London to meet guy for cup of tea. No sex, just chat. Pays £200 in paypal.

The story doesn't make clear when the guy sent the semi naked photo and received cash for that too.

Really quite odd and controlling behaviour.

No R202 I'm in my 30s so would need to be younger to capture Huw's attention and open his wallet!

The Sussex Squad on Twitter are trying to draw comparisons between this and the British press's treatment of Meghan. FFS, Meghan justifiably gets called out for annoying virtually everyone on God's green Earth. Hardly on a par with being called a sexual predator.

[quote]Oh yes, and did we all read the email going round that claimed George Osborne had sex with a sixteen year old girl in a nightclub toilet? Where is the police investigation and suspension?

The police are investigating. And if that girl's parents go to the police or GO's employer to complain I hope they're taken seriously.

r206, what is controlling about that behavior? I'm genuinely curious. It doesn't seem that odd to me.

Oh thank god someone FINALLY made a connection with Harry and Meghan, I was wondering where the final attack of the dickhead commenters was going to happen but now I know it’s upon us.

R209 lol. I'm going to be charitable and assume you didn't read your own link.

The police are NOT investigating Osborne. The police are investigating the person who sent the email for alleged 'cyberbullying' *at Osborne's request*!!!!!

The wife is using the mental illness excuse?

So gross. These old freaks (of which I am one) need to stop pestering teenagers.

Please, God, give us ONE thread where no members of the fucking BRF are mentioned!

TIA!

[quote][R183] Make me

This is the kind of sparkling repartee that keeps me coming back to DL.

That's the most interesting thing I've ever heard about Osbourne. And it's not even true?

I still haven't read the wedding email. There are few things I have ever wanted to hear less about than George Osborne's sex life.

What's the wedding email? It's about George Osborne's sex life?

R219 it's exquisitely well-crafted and delivered.

So Huw is toast now?

People are too obsessed with sex and “won’t somebody please think of the children!” The same ones who scream about not coddling kids are also screaming that we need to protest their innocence. People just want to hunt out pervs to feel good about themselves. It reminds me of the Red Scare. It’s Q Anon bullshit. Now everyone is a pedophile. A 19 year old is a child. Give me a break.

CSAM launches every story into the stratosphere. Absent that, this would be just another sex pest.

What happened to "No sex please, we're British"?

That's what these people were telling him, but he had other ideas?

Oh, dear God. The poor bride a r209.

Oh wait-- I had George Osbourne and Gordon Brown confused. I was imagining a sex scandal involving this guy!

Gordon Brown slagging his own voter is an all time great.

R228 she was an old Frau cunt. What he was wrong to do was to apologise for calling her a bigot. The BBC wheeled her out during the Brexit referendum too. Needless to say she voted Leave because, well, she's a bigoted woman.

Oh god, she is so stupid. 'I don't want to be European' - What continent is the UK in then?

R129 The guy at R128 is a complete hysterical lunatic. Nobody take him seriously, he is new here and seeking attention. I agree, he needs to ask for help.

R229 Apologise or not it lost Gordon Brown the election. People saw him for what he was, a two faced idiot who thinks that everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a racist. That woman did the nation a huge favour. Unfortunately the Labour Party replaced Gordon Brown with somebody even more unelectable.

[quote]People are too obsessed with sex and “won’t somebody please think of the children!” The same ones who scream about not coddling kids are also screaming that we need to protest their innocence. People just want to hunt out pervs to feel good about themselves. It reminds me of the Red Scare. It’s Q Anon bullshit. Now everyone is a pedophile. A 19 year old is a child. Give me a break.

The UK is not America.

[quote]The UK is not America.

If it were, the same people screaming “think of the children” would, on the other hand, applaud him for breaking COVID protocols. That’s the conservative movement of America in a nutshell.

Can we get back to me?

Jon Sopel being absolutely scathing about the BBC's coverage.

BBC journalists including Victoria Derbyshire were working on a news investigation into Huw Edwards.... before The Sun published its story??????

Jon Sopel defending his friend and former colleague is fine.

Jon Sopel criticising a journalist who had been told of junior staff left uncomfortable by Huw's behaviour and was looking into the story is not fine.

It's people like Jon Sopel, now a highly partisan podcast host, who are responsible for cover ups.

I wonder if this will result in the Sun being taken down like the News of the World was.

R238 If Edwards made some colleagues uncomfortable with some inappropriate messages, that's an HR issue. Should it really be headline news? It's a question of proportionality.

LOL Concerned European being deliberately obtuse.

The Derbyshire internal investigation now a story because of The Sun's story.

Seeing journalists try to shut down criticism of their colleagues reminds me how The Guardian managed complaints about serial sex pest Nick Cohen, and how none of the other UK newspapers were willing to report it.

British media is a scummy cesspool that has to be filly experienced to be believed.

R239 I was wondering the exact same thing this morning. With the News Of The World one of its biggest advertisers pulled out of the paper, I think it was maybe B&Q the DIY store. That set off a whole chain of events were other advertisers quickly followed within hours. The paper had no choice but to stop publication.

I could easily see this happening with The Sun. I would love to see this happen, if only because of the despicable way they outed gay men and women back in the day.

[quote] if only because of the despicable way they outed gay men and women back in the day.

who did they out / how did they do it?

I agree that Jon Sopel has gone too far defending his friend. Jeremy Vine had every right to ask that Edwards come out and face the music.

The entire city of Liverpool hates The Sun. Read why are the link.

The News of the World simply became the Sun on Sunday.

R244 They outed people for no other reason than that they were gay. It didn’t matter if you were a pop star or a social worker, The Sun was openly racist and homophobic for a long time. They very publicly made a decision years ago that they would no longer out people unless it was in the public’s interest, or something like that anyway.

^ Telling the truth about people isn't wrong. You have the right to lie about being gay but you don't have the right to force the media to lie for you.

[QUOTE]They outed people for no other reason than that they were gay. It didn’t matter if you were a pop star or a social worker, The Sun was openly racist and homophobic for a long time. They very publicly made a decision years ago that they would no longer out people unless it was in the public’s interest, or something like that anyway.

You didn't answer the question. Who did they out and/or how did they do it?

My experience has been that the Sun is not very interested in gay people. They'd rather peddle that celebs are straight or conceal the gender of the victims like they did with Huw Edwards.

The Sun so far seems to be coming out well ahead on this.

More to come, for sure, though.

But Huw is getting piled on from all corners, he’s had his wife tell us that he’s taken to a fainting couch, and his bare-arsed come hither picture is in Twitter feeds globally. And now we learn that even the BBC was investigating him. Huw will not sue. He needs this to go away. Badly.

I'd bet money that R249 is a woman. Once again: straight female homophobia is alive and well.

I meant to refer to R251 in my post (R252). Major side-eye to R249 as well, though.

R252 I am gay and closeted gay people who live a lie with fake wives do the gay cause a disservice. I don't see it as homophobia but as a brave honesty. That cowards don't like but they're cowards who impede progress when it comes to homosexuality being open and normalised.

I see you 😜ing at me, r253!

R253 - r251 is a man. Remember how you called him “daddy” and asked him to pee on you through his man penis?

The inappropriate comments and criticism he emailed subordinates -- is this a new development or has he been doing it for decades? I'm trying to get a grasp of whether he's had some type of recent decompensation and cannot control his impulses. £35k for pictures, £200 to meet for coffee while breaking Covid restrictions, revealing his identity online. Really, really stupid stuff

[quote]£200 to meet for coffee

It was a cup of tea!

R256, I can't say I remember that, though it does sound like something I'd say.

Is it 1996? I thought the ‘outing’ of people (whether public or private citizens) had been firmly decided as not being newsworthy UNLESS that person was engaging in anti gay political activism. R249 etc are recently awakened from homophobia induced comas?

R254, I get what you're saying but the post at R249 makes it sound like the media has the right to out people like Huw Edwards, who wasn't actually harming the gay community.

(R260 came up when I started writing this and I fully agree with it.)

R260, treating homosexuality like a dirty secret is homophobic

R262 girl stfu.

When he was on the BBC Jon Sopel was a very good interviewer - polite but dogged, well-prepared and thorough. It's a shame he ended up as a podcaster.

There's certainly A LOT of people who are very relaxed about a 60 year old man paying a teenager for sex when the think the teenager is male.

And the same people are very relaxed with someone else's teenage kids getting DMd on social media by that Welsh guy off of the telly.

The Sun is certainly backtracking furiously on certain things and looking to cover itself. The fact that it never had or even saw any evidence for the story and ignored an explicit denial from the alleged 'victim' leaves it open to potential action.

R263 thinks the purpose of the media is to "in" people

People keep saying Huw paid thousands of pounds for sex or pictures. It seems more likely to me that he was being blackmailed and thats what these payments were meant to be hush money.

No, R268, this was CHILD PORN. The Dirty Digger (Rupe) and his r̶a̶g̶ venerable organ were totally justified in publishing this story.

[quote]Rupe and his venerable organ

Pics please.

R267 no I expect the news media to report news, and outing someone isn’t news. I don’t really consider affairs to be news either, unless they involve politicians, and that affair has some impact on how they acted politically. I bet you’re one of those types that just lovvvvvvvves your local newsletter hahaha.

R268 - now that it's all out of the bag, if he was truly being blackmailed, could he make a complaint to the police? They already investigated and found no illegality, but who did they question and what evidence was presented?

R271, if the media writes about the personal lives of straight people then it should treat gays the same. Journalists are supposed to tell the truth not tiptoe around it

But some of them look awfully cute on their tiptoes!

R273 you’re so stupid I’m surprised you remember to breathe. And I agree with the other poster you do type woman.

R272 - I don't know, I guess it depends on when he gets out of hospital and make more rational decisions.

I have just received this from Popbitch, make of it what you will...

The Sun have been having a hell of a time trying to retrofit a public interest to their Huw Edwards story, pulling up any old incident of workplace misconduct they can find to pin on him now that the police are saying there's no evidence of any crime.

It's a shame they've put themselves in this position because if all they wanted was a story about a news broadcaster who has made life uncomfortable for colleagues by sending them "inappropriate messages", they have a really juicy one much closer to home. It will involve asking some difficult questions, but they have an excellent starting lead.

They should still have all of Dan Wootton's old HR files stashed away somewhere – so maybe they could start there? There's bullying allegations, NDAs - even a few pay-offs they could get the guys in finance to dredge back up. While they're doing that, they could look into why Wootton kept getting promoted while some of those who lodged complaints got sidelined.

Former colleagues seem perfectly willing to chat – but hey. We shouldn't be doing their job for them. Just start pulling at the thread. See what you find...

R275 types Republican closet case

R277, Dan Wootton has been trending all day. An ex boyfriend posted a very long and detailed twitter thread about his behaviour.

Whoa! Popbitch didn't even bother to do it as a blind item. Now the Daily Mail will be drawn in? This is pretty delicious considering how much DL hates Wootton, insufferable, hypocritical conservative bitch that he is. I'd say this deserves its own thread, r277.

Here's the boyfriend's account.

Would some one please clue me in on what a 'presenter' is?

Anchor, 282. Newsreader.

Thanks!

Just finished reading the tweets I posted at r281. Wootton is horrific. He belongs in jail.

Wootton sounds nuts

Who cares about New Zealand drama?

What is Huw’s exit strategy?

“I don’t recognize the person who did those things?”?

Has it been confirmed that the "young people" in question were in fact male? I assumed they were, but it's just occurred to me that this never made official.

Old men show their asses to teenage girls???

The Sun have published an interview with the parents who sound quite genuine.

As despicable as The Sun are I don't get the impression they went with this story without the evidence of payments.

The Guardian have run a story that TalkTV have "offered" the parents "tens of thousands of pounds" in an article written by the boyfriend of the BBC's Executive Editor of news.

[quote]A source at News UK said the Sun had not made any financial payment to the couple but confirmed that TalkTV was speaking to them as part of a planned three-part documentary series. The television channel has a reputation for paying large sums of money to secure interviews.

The Sun has explicitly said it ran the story on the basis of sworn affidavits from the parents. It never had the evidence. Perhaps if they had, they wouldn't have made the allegations they are now backing away from. It is now doing damage limitation.

"Youngster". There were other ways of phrasing this (headline at R291), but the Scum chose this one. Cunts.

I wish some scum-cunt would call me "youngster".

[quote]The Sun has explicitly said it ran the story on the basis of sworn affidavits from the parents. It never had the evidence. Perhaps if they had, they wouldn't have made the allegations they are now backing away from. It is now doing damage limitation.

Can you link to The Sun saying that, explicitly?

So it seems that Dan Wootton wasn't hosting his GB News show tonight. Replaced by someone else even though the show has his name. Not a peep out of anyone who works for GB News as to why though they'd be all over it if Wootton worked for the Beeb.

I was about to ask. I Googled his name under news th8s morning and the show was still being advertised for Thursday night.

If you ask me, Wootton should be the one to suffer under the spotlight and Metro police might want to explain why nothing has come of their investigation three years later when, according to Alex (the ex), multiple men approached them. I actually feel sorry for Edwards, a somewhat tragic man. Wootton sounds like a psychopath. Kind of a mini-Epstein in gay circles, setting men up for blackmail. Hateful creature.

Not linking to the Sun, R295, but this is one of the Guardian pieces referencing it: 'The newspaper’s reporting has instead been based on anonymous interviews with the mother and stepfather of the 20-year-old at the heart at the story, interviews it says have been backed up by signed legal affidavits.'

"The Sun ..... is now doing damage limitation."

No, they're not. They're piling on by pointing at BBC.

Oh won’t this be great if it turns into a police investigation of the Sun and how it acted in relation to complaints re Dan Wooten 😂😂😂 - if those twitter allegations are true it seems like the Sun will have engaged in covering up of actual illegality instead of some trumped up texts.

Unlikely, r300, for obvious reasons.

But they are also overtly lying about what they have said over the last few days., R299 Denial and diversion are complementary tactics.

The last paragraph of the Guardian article linked by r298.

[QUOTE]But it is the Sun which is now facing serious questions – and a potential legal risk: Edwards has used his Twitter account to like a tweet suggesting the Sun could now “face the mother of all libel actions”.

Is it really libel if they sincerely believed the mother and the father?

He’d never sue for libel - opens up too many fronts.

That’s why he’s at the loony bin.

R304 If they had a direct denial by the supposed victim that they chose to ignore then why not?

R306, people can deny stuff that's true though. For all they knew, he could have been lying to defend Edwards

r304 - in the U.S. at least, it's incumbent on the journalists to find verification, preferably independent, before running a story. Copies of bank statements, corroboration from other parties (a friend or counselor the young person confided in) before running the story. I lot of people have sincere beliefs that are not roted in reality.

Thinking of the Rooney-Vardy libel trial, if Huw sues, then the lawyers probably can get hold of the financial transactions and phones. And the judge only has to decide if what the Sun wrote was "substantially true". If the financial transactions and conversations between Huw and the unnamed did happen, I'd think that the Sun has a good chance of winning.

A trial might also open other fronts that H prefers remain closed.

Can't quite get over the fact that according to the piece at R291 'two lives needed to be saved - the child's and the mother's'. Because she lost one and a half stone.

Did they ever speak to Edwards and ask him to stop sending money?

Did it ever occur to them that if he did stop their addicted son would just start fucking other rich men for cash?

Did they never attempt any of the traditional solutions like rehab?

They sound - or have been made to sound - fixated on Edwards when the problem is with their own son. This just doesn't stand up.

R309 Edwards is being called a nonce all over twitter. If he never sent any money to the boy when underage, that sounds like a pretty good basis for a libel action.

Jesus some of you are delusional.

The Guardian isn't some independent analysis site that have investigated this story in a completely impartial way, it's pushing it's own anti Murdoch agenda. The story about TalkTV offering the parents money was written by a journalist who is the partner of a BBC executive editor. It's has been retweeted or shared by a lot of former/retired BBC journalists and other non BBC journalists, friends and colleagues of both Huw Edwards and Huw Edward's wife.

Has The Guardian got proof of discussions that Talk TV have discussed giving the parents money? Has the journalist seen emails or recordings of meetings where it's been discussed? Or has he just been told about it with no evidence to back it up?

It's understandable that people are rallying around their friends, not just because they hate The Sun's style of journalism, but these are people commenting out of self interest and highly biased. They want to make out the parents are liars, that The Sun doesn't have the evidence.

And for those fantasising about libel what would the libel be?

Huw Edwards doesn't know the teenager at the centre of this story and has never had any contact with him?

Huw Edwards does know the teenager didn't give him/her money?

Huw Edwards did give the teenager money but not over a period of 2 years?

Huw Edwards did give the teenager money but not for for sex pics/cam sessions?

Huw Edwards did give the teenager money but not as much as £35k?

Which part of the story was "rubbish" as claimed by the 20 year through his very expensive lawyers?

Are the other stories about Edwards DMing teenagers out of the blue rubbish, and the other stories about Edwards giving cash to people from dating sites rubbish?

If you want a privacy law then make that clear, but that will apply to Dan Wootton as well.

R295 is just one of the many who pontificate about this story without having bothered to have read anything about it.

[quote]The legal letter [of the "child's] lawyers] said: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality.”

[quote]It also called the parents’ allegations “totally wrong” and claimed there was “no truth” in the claims.

[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.

You're a pollutant, R313. You're not clairvoyant about people's motivations for anything, for starters. Don't let this cunt's supercilious attempt at an authoritarive tone fool you.

R314, why does the "child" have a lawyer? Is it a different lawyer than the one representing the parents?

Why don't you fucking ask them, and why don't you grow a pair and make actually statements instead of doing it obliquely with this music hall-level attempt at the Socratic method?

When people say "But how could the Jimmy Savile scandal have happened" the answer is because people like R315 allowed it to.

Oh Jesus Christ, that's the one direct statement you make? Get a grip.

Because, r316, the "child" wants to protect himself from whatever maelstrom parents have triggered and because, according to the "child", his parents are talking rubbish.

I doubt the parents even consulted a lawyer.

R313 Why are you always so full of rage and anger? It’s like you don’t know how to have a civil discussion.

Also, r316, his loving mother has presented him as a crackhead and implied he was selling sordid pics of himself to get money to buy drugs. Even if all of that is true, which is doubtful, he still needs legal representation to protect him from the implications of those alleged activities, some of which are criminal. He has also been falsely by a national tabloid and by his parents to be the child victim of a sex crime, so it makes perfect sense for him to get a lawyer. His "expensive lawyers" are media specialists, so they make sense too.

R322, yeah, that raises another question -- how is this young person able to afford expensive lawyers?

Look at R323, spinning the Sun/Murdoch talking points.

I don't know who this young person is or anything about his circumstances, r323, but perhaps he lawyers are working pro bono, or his father is wealthy, or he made lots of money selling photos of himself in legal transactions. The law firm is only representing and presumably advising him, they're not defending him in court, so the fees may not be that great.

If it really is true that it's all rubbish then Huw has a slam dunk case.

It’s not true though. And that’s why Huw has taken to the fainting couch at the funny farm.

Well, he could have a strong legal case, but it might not be worth it in PR terms.

'The BBC2 show reported that Edwards allegedly sent “inappropriate” and “suggestive” messages to junior BBC employees, including making comments about their appearance.'

-- sounds like he has form though..

He is finished as a presenter. I would get 20 Million out of the Sun and then retire

Saw some tweets earlier from a personality who built a profile from anti Brexit campaigning who attacking The Sun and its shameful reporting but came to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with a 60 year old man paying a teenager tens of thousands of pounds for sex and threatening him to keep quiet about it.

That's where we are.

Owen Jones arguing that it's fine too EVEN THOUGH he was outraged about Prince Andrew having sex with a 17-year-old. I don't mind people who have a consistent position on either side but the double standard is eye-roll worthy.

Kirstie Allsop, currently battling Carol Vorderman for "best Tory populist turned progressive media commentator" had this to say

[quote]Only fans made $900 million last year, 80% of its content is porn. Porn uses up 20% of ALL internet traffic. As I’ve said before, The Sun is taking us all for fools, and we’re pretending we don’t know that sexual images are looked at all the time by billions of people.

If her 17 year old son announced he wanted to skip university next year to become a sex worker I expect she'd be less relaxed about it.

[quote] Only fans made $900 million last year, 80% of its content is porn.

Kind of amazed it's only 80%.

Andy Coulson Crisis Management?

Sounds a good choice, along with Beverley Allitt Babysitting Service, Fred West Patio Design and Harold Shipman Will Service.

R333 I love Kirsty, not afraid of rolling up her sleeves and getting stuck into a good scrap.

I just want to know if Wootton has taken to the fainting couch at the funny farm. Has the Sun, GB News or the DM commented about him?

R337 will refuse to believe that Edwards is actually in need of hospitalisation until she sees him hanging from a beam. Okay, maybe she'll settle for wounds on his wrists, but that's her last offer!

I meant R327, though anyone saying "funny farm" is probably a cunt.

Huw has issues for sure. He comes across as a sad, Christian closet case who paid way too much for young people to do very little. The poor little Boomer snowflake is devastated that the public now has a good idea that he is gay.

I prefer Gen Z over losers like Huw who are ashamed of themselves.

R340 = resident troon troll

R341 What the actual fuck? I rarely comment on trans topics. Mostly I find the sheer number of trans threads on DL annoying. That's random and has nothing to do with this thread.

The “child” has lawyers who have undoubtedly been retained by a Edwards in a continuing effort to shut him up/pay him off under the guise of protecting him. Exactly the playbook used by Schofield a couple of months ago.

The whole thing is a sordid mess and hiring that cunt Coulson for crisis communications is yet another mistake.

Many things can be true at the same time:

Paying thousands of pounds for explicit photos of someone more than forty years your junior is sleazy, to say the least, but if they were over eighteen then it doesn’t make him a sex offender

If it’s true that Huw has sent inappropriate messages to younger colleagues, then obviously that’s completely unprofessional

The Sun appear to have handled this story highly irresponsibly

To be fair, it’s true that some of the people who are currently defending Huw would be less sympathetic if a right-wing celebrity behaved like this

This story has indeed been a distraction from issues such as Boris’s COVID WhatsApps and the George Osborne scandal

Huw’s career is unsalvageable, and it’s entirely his own fault for being so reckless

He has long-running mental health struggles – partly, it’s safe to say, due to having spent decades in the closet – and it’s not accurate to accuse him of “playing the mental health card”

His wife and kids are undoubtedly suffering due to his actions

No one wants to him end up dead as a result of all this

Regardless of whether that photo of him with his trousers round his ankles was real, we'd all be much happier if we'd never seen it

There's a man who was working as a gay escort on twitter claiming that he was drugged and raped by Dan Wootton. He says he reported it to police in 2021 but that 'absolutely nothing' was done about it.

I just did a Google News search and nobody in the media is touching the Wootton claims despite being all over the Edwards claims.

Did Wooton send his ass pic?

I saw that, too, r345. People making Wootton trend on Twitter are pretty enraged, as they should be.

It does give one pause to wonder how many very important, heavily closeted men the gay Epstein Jr. has managed to cow into submission through blackmail using their hidden sexual pecadillos. Or the very low level Sun employees he fucked over bad enough to derail careers. But venerable old Huw from the BBC gets his life and family destroyed for a comparatively vanilla offense? You have to wonder how many important men including Met police he has captured in set up sexual acts.

It really pisses me off and I'm not even British or pay a TV license fee.

Hey, remember Jake Daniels, the 18 year-old first openly gay English footballer since Justin Fashanu?

You know he's going out with a 46 year old man, right? He's been very open about the fact that that's the age group he likes, not his own age group. If you have spent more than ten minutes on the gay scene recently, you'll believe that because of the many other young guys now expressing 'daddy' preferences.

Is that sleazy and disgusting too? Or is it alright because the young guy is the famous guy and the middle-aged guy is the ordinary bloke?

Wait...a young, cute guy likes old farts? Call me, Jake!

R350. Lol, but yes. Look at the apps, go out on the scene, it happens a lot. Should Jake's boyfriend be publicly shamed? If Jake's mother disapproved could she call Mark's employers and ask them to tell him to stop it?

Or is Jake a legal adult with the right to decide what to do with his own body?

I mean R349

I think the difference is that the person is allegedly a crack addict and doing it to fund the habit. It's one of the worst addictions to have because the high is so intense and short-lived. So if all of this is true, he's not doing it because he likes Huw but because he needs money.

R352 I get that but is that reasonably Huw's fault? Does Huw know about the guy's alleged addiction, is he feeding it somehow, is he doing crack with him? We haven't really heard anything clear linking Huw to the purchase or consumption of drugs. Maybe more will come out when the parents do their highly lucrative TalkTV interview. There would be a public interest angle, I agree, provided they had something substantial beyond 'he gave my boy money'.

Why does "Concerned European" consistently make favorable assumptions for men in power positions who are involved with youth of lesser power or ability? It's like he's all "Whoo!, It's LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL" for power brokers to fuck with lesser developmentally able targets without any recourse within the organization.

Speaking of tawdry. It's not the fucking or the pictoral evidence, right? It's the blackmail evidence.

I'm beginning to think "Concerned European's" numerous, inconsistent rants make him a fucked ip asshole who only loves himself. Just roll into a ball and auto-fellate yourself. You're probably engaged right now.

[quote]There's a man who was working as a gay escort on twitter claiming that he was drugged and raped by Dan Wootton. He says he reported it to police in 2021 but that 'absolutely nothing' was done about it. I just did a Google News search and nobody in the media is touching the Wootton claims despite being all over the Edwards claims.

2 years ago The Guardian ran a huge expose on Noel Clarke, the actor. Multiple accusations about sexual assault, grooming, harassment, bullying. He was then appearing in a 5 part drama shown over consecutive nights. ITV pulled the fifth and final part from broadcast on the Friday night. There was an investigation by BAFTA as to why they had gone ahead with giving him a career award despite being told of the accusations.

A year later the police said they would not be investigating any of the accusations.

So there's no reason why The Guardian wouldn't cover Dan Wootton if the information was there or the Daily Mirror.

Except as we saw recently with The Guardian, media outlets don't like reporting on their own misconduct. Multiple women came forward about journalist Nick Cohen and nothing was done. Reputation protection set in. It was only when Cohen got into a spat with pompous barrister Jolyon Maugham over a column about Maugham that Maugham tweeted one of the accusations. Cohen later resigned and apologised, blaming alcoholism. The New York Times later ran a story about why no one in the British media covered that story. The Financial Times had been planning a story but it was pulled.

I don't doubt Wootton is a vile piece of work and would love to see his downfall, but there is an issue with the media protecting their own when it comes to personal scandal. Journalists tear each other apart for their work and political beliefs all the time, but rarely do accusations about personal lives get made.

These stories about Wootton have been around for a long time, so why now? Why have they only been elevated in response to Huw Edwards? Why didn't the good an honourable journalists amplify them before?

We know why.

R355, did the police say why they decided not to investigate Noel Clarke?

[quote]After the complaints came to light, the Met said it was investigating. However, on Friday Scotland Yard said it would not launch a formal investigation “following a thorough assessment by specialist detectives”.

[quote]A spokesperson said: “We have updated the complainants. If any further allegations related to those already assessed are reported then it will be thoroughly considered.”

[quote]Actors including Christina Chong, who starred alongside Clarke in Bulletproof, tweeted that the allegations about him were “the UK film industry’s best-kept secret for years. If in doubt, trust me, it’s true.”

R357, 26 women accused Noel Clarke of sexual harassment, so it's interesting that the investigation didn't go further.

It's also interesting that Clarke dropped his lawsuit against BAFTA for suspending him.

Police pick and choose what to prosecute. Lots of crimes they know were crimes go unprosecuted. It's common.

Another strange observation was watching the friends and colleagues of Huw and Huw's wife hail the three day police investigation into criminality resulting Huw being cleared when British police forces have such a poor reputation for investigating offences of a sexual nature.

The Mirror has made an editorial and commercial decision to be #TeamHuw.

It's particularly bad with fraud as well. I saw this story recently.

[quote]Fraud offences in England and Wales hit 3.7m in 2022, up from less than half a million a decade earlier. However, the number of offenders prosecuted has slumped from 12,378 to 3,455, figures show. The number of convicted offenders sentenced to jail for fraud has more than halved, from 2,629 in 2012 to 1,177, according to analysis of Ministry of Justice data. The number of offenders receiving a caution for fraud has also dropped from 4,420 in 2012 to just 629 in 2022, it found.

3.7m fraud offences but only 3,455 prosecutions.

"Figures published by the Home Office on Thursday showed that in the year to September 2020, figures fell for all types of offences.

Overall, 6 per cent of crimes were prosecuted, compared to 7.3 per cent the previous year.

The proportion of violent offences charged dropped from 7 per cent to 5.4 per cent year on year, robbery from 7.8 per cent to 6.9 per cent, theft from 5.2 per cent to 4.3 per cent and criminal damage from 5.1 per cent to 4.4 per cent.

Only 2.9 per cent of all sexual offences and 1.3 per cent of rapes resulted in a charge, compared to 3.6 per cent of sexual offences and 1.5 per cent of rapes in the year to September 2020."

R354 none of that is coherent: 'lesser developmentally able?'. The young alleged drug addict who may have sold Edwards pictures doesn't work for the BBC, he is supposed to have met him on Grindr.

If Edwards has been sending flirtatious messages with kisses to junior colleagues, I agree that's inappropriate, and would be grounds for disciplinary action within the BBC, but come on, it doesn't justify a multiple-day headline news scandal.

The Police said no evidence of criminality was found, which makes me think he just subscribed to someone's OnlyFans (over 18) and sent them requests for more videos, at a cost of course.

A bit seedy, but is it really worth splashing all over the front pages? I mean, what next? Exposing the fact some other BBC Newsreader sometimes watches PORN in his spare time? SHOCK!

It feels like we're becoming more pearl clutching than ever.

Janice Turner at The Times has written a very honest article about the voyeurism we've all enjoyed with this story.

This section is the most interesting

[quote]It is absurd that allegations about Edwards have circulated in the BBC for years, so that Victoria Derbyshire at Newsnight was investigating his potential abuses before the HR department knew, let alone the director-general. A truly transparent report is needed and a pause to reflect on how the protection of whistleblowers within the corporation hasn’t improved enough since Savile.

This suggests it's more than some DMs on social media to BBC employees he's never met in person, or late night emails ending with xx.

[quote]The Police said no evidence of criminality was found, which makes me think he just subscribed to someone's OnlyFans (over 18) and sent them requests for more videos, at a cost of course.

Why do you keep assuming OnlyFans? They met on GRINDR. The unnamed having OnlyFans hasn't been mentioned in any media reports.

R367, Only Fans has been named by the Guido Fawkes website, the ones who broke the Andy Coulson/Rebekah Brooks story.

And many people have speculated that the 35k the teenager received over 3 years didn't come from Huw but came from all income from OnlyFans.

[quote]Only Fans has been named by the Guido Fawkes website, the ones who broke the Andy Coulson/Rebekah Brooks story.

Nope. I did a search of order-order (Guido's website) and there's no mention of OnlyFans except in relation to other people (last mention is from 2021).

And that cartoon is a joke, a play. Not a factual report of how Huw and this man met.

R360, can you please explain to us just what criminal offence you believe Edwards allegedly committed?

Sexual pictures of under 18s are not legal. My guess is that the unnamed denied it and police thought, this is not worth it (I would agree) and moved on.

R372 it also means that the parents can't stand up their allegations (of criminal behaviour).

[quote]Nope. I did a search of order-order (Guido's website) and there's no mention of OnlyFans except in relation to other people (last mention is from 2021).

[quote]And that cartoon is a joke, a play. Not a factual report of how Huw and this man met.

From Guido:

[quote]If the Sun's crack-addict source was uploading to OnlyFans where the terms of service say content creators should be 18 plus, I can see a strong line of defence from the #bbcpresenter

R374 Oh my god, that is just a speculative hypothetical. He's just speculating like anyone else there.

My view is that if OnlyFans was involved the media would have printed that because there's no real reason to conceal that. As for payments, Paypal is mentioned.

Onlyfans content creators communicate with their fans through the site. So he could easily have started chatting to Edwards on there and arranged extra payments by another route. If they met on Grindr, terms of service there also require users to be 18.

btw The S*n are still not specifying the gender of the alleged picture seller, even though everyone now knows it's a man, which means that in their latest tear-drenched article about the poor worried parents they can keep referring throughout the whole thing to 'their worries for their child', 'mother and child', etc, rather than 'son'.

Meaning that the most recent article posted above has the word 'child' all the way through it even though everyone knows that this person is years into legal adulthood now.

It is so fucking cynical and disgusting.

There is no evidence or claim of sexual pictures of anyone under 18, r372. Where did you get that notion from? The parents themselves have never mentioned such images.

Is the reluctance to identify the gender because the media doesn't want to 'out' people? Given that Huw is not out. I've observed that the media generally has an unspoken code to not out people.

[quote]There is no evidence or claim of sexual pictures of anyone under 18, . Where did you get that notion from? The parents themselves have never mentioned such images.

It's the original story! The parents claimed that it started when he was 17.. of course, they could be wrong, but that was what the story was from the outset.

R378 They might have used that as their justification in the beginning, but everyone knows it's a man now, and yet their most recent article on the parents, published on July 13th, was still full of the word 'child', with no clarifying statement that the child is an adult.

They know what they are doing.

Some people are claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that Huw is paying this young person's lawyers' fee. Apparently the parents went to the BBC and The Sun to try to prevent Huw from sending the young person money. Wouldn't it be funny if Huw started sending him even more money now? There is nothing illegal in that and we only have the parents' claim that the young person is on crack (the young person himself calls their claims "rubbish").

R381 He is estranged from his parents anyway (can't say I blame him). They do seem a bit hysterical, demanding the BBC 'do something', as if that would solve the problem rather than addressing the root causes of his addiction, if he has one.

R379, please find the quote where the parents said that and link it, because I've read what the parents said and nowhere did I see them say that their child exchanged sexual pictures with Huw Edwards at age 17. Maybe I missed it and you've actually read where they state that specifically. So, please quote and link.

Imagine you are a 20 year old drug addict estranged from your parents and keeping afloat as a sex worker.

Are the events of the past week likely to help you make progress in overcoming your addiction? Or the opposite?

In addition to Janice Turner's article, the Guardian has now reported on what could be described as an open secret

[quote]Discussion about Edwards’ habit of messaging younger members of staff had circulated in the BBC newsroom for years, although there are no known formal complaints about this aspect of his behaviour.

What was he saying in these messages that merited discussion amongst his colleagues for years?

I bet Emily Maitlis knows.

R385 He was probably just complimenting people on their choice of outfit that day, perhaps a guys trousers were a little tight and showed off his bum well. Just a friendly message doesn’t do any harm, people are so touchy these days, they should view it as a compliment. Office flirting used to be a big thing, let’s bring it back again.

Probably nothing more scandalous than what goes on in any large workplace, r385.

Or maybe it's more than inappropriate creepy messages to young staff.

The Sun will have known this when they went with the story.

lol ^^^^ that is very much *less* than inappropriate creepy messages to colleagues.

R389 why are you all over this thread?

To be fair to CE, Dutchie, I believe that some other posters have been more prolific but, by not using their names, have flown under the radar.

Concerned European is all over this thread to defend the rights of teenage drug addicts to sell sex.

R390 Fuck me, do you think I owe you some kind of explanation? Why do you start threads about incense?

R392 Fixing it for you, I defend the rights of *legal adults who are *alleged drug addicts to sell *naked pictures.

Trolldar tells me you have made 57 posts in this thread yet you don't seem to be following what's going on. Are you perhaps a little slow? Could you ask a friend to explain it to you?

R367 How do you know they met on Grindr? I can't find that information anywhere. I think it's reasonable to assume it was OnlyFans considering we know money was exchanged for naked images.

[quote] I am gay and closeted gay people who live a lie with fake wives do the gay cause a disservice.

How people live their personal lives is none of your, or anyone else's, business.

People still seem to be sticking to their personal prejudices than the facts, which admittedly isn't difficult when the facts are so thin on the ground.

There is no evidence that anyone paid anyone thousands of pounds for naked pictures. Anyone who wants to see naked pictures, doesn't need to pay a thing.

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone paid anything to anyone who was underage. AT ALL.

The "youth" clearly comes from a highly dysfunctional family. Whether this takes away any of the credibility from the "youth" or their parents we don't know.

We still don't know the gender of the "youth".

If the "youth" is indeed male, that may mean Huw is bisexual. His wife may have know this for years. She may not have had a clue. We don't know. They might have had an open marriage, we don't know. She may have been fine with Huw being faithful if he got his same-sex kicks web-camming or watching porn. We don't know.

Someone putting "xx" at the end of a text message is the most pathetic thing I think I've ever read to see other adults getting upset about.

[quote] She may have been fine with Huw being faithful if he got his same-sex kicks web-camming or watching porn.

R396 But their marriage is none of our business. There's no public interest in whether he cheated on her or whether they have an agreement.

Andy Coulson Crisis Management have logged on at R396.

How is Huw doing?

Just blocked Concerned European and you know what? It felt real good.

R399 A tiny little tear just rolled down my cheek.

Lol, CE is reflexively contrarian and needs to get the last word in on every thread I've seen him on. He and r396 serm to be essentially in agreement, yet CE comes screeching back in with the inevitable "BUUUUTTT!!!" It's predictable and funny.

I think this answers Dutchie's question at 390. Some people need to think they're better, smarter, and righter. Think Axis II.

lol R401, I won't say you're entirely right, but I won't say you're entirely wrong either. DL doesn't always bring out conciliatory tendencies in me.

Does CE have any friends, I wonder? He seems to spend his entire life on DL and is an incredibly tedious and obnoxious individual.

It would solve a lot of problems if Huw and Schofe left the young lads alone and got together instead. #powercouple

R403 how about you, are you volunteering to be my friend?

[quote]It would solve a lot of problems if Huw and Schofe left the young lads alone and got together instead. #powercouple

Tom Daley should upgrade his baby daddy and get hitched to Huw.

The Observer has done a long read of events which is fairly balanced.

This remains a red flag for me.

[quote]...and separately presenter Victoria Derbyshire had also made tentative journalistic inquiries about him in response to suggestions of unwanted approaches to two current and one former junior staff members. Speaking on The News Agents podcast on Friday, Emily Maitlis, a former Newsnight presenter herself, questioned why such rumours were reported as news rather than first forwarded to the HR team.

BECAUSE STAFF WERE FRIGHTENED OF THE REPURCUSSIONS OF MAKING A COMPLAINT!!!! Jesus fuck.

The Victoria Derbyshire story sounds a little unbelievable to me. The complaints made by staff about Edwards don't seem "serious" enough to warrant a journalistic investigation. That's not to say they're not serious, but they're also the kind of thing that one might expect goes on in such a large organisation with an exaggerated hierarchy of power. Why would another BBC journalist be working on a news story of rumours of these complaints? How would such a story even get aired? Wouldn't there have to be a formal investigation first?

I don't think you understand what Maitlis was saying, r407. She wasn't saying why didn't staff make complaints but why didn't the BBC conduct an inquiry before headlining its news shows with these uninvestigated complaints.

If a 24yr old that has a Monday to Friday 9-5 office job goes out every weekend and buys cocaine, is their employer responsible for ‘fueling their ‘addiction’’? The shifting of responsibility and sensationalism on this thread is so wild.

Timeline.

0. Huw Edwards has a reputation for his behaviour towards younger junior staff members which BBC staff and other media people have talked about "for years" according to 2 articles today. A BBC journalist has heard these stories and has been asking questions about it, talking to staff members.

1. Parents go to to the BBC and make a complaint (verified) about Huw funding their kid's drug habit through sex work (not verified). Parents also go to 2 police forces (verified)

2. The BBC make 2 efforts to contact the complainant (verified)

3. The Sun runs the parents story

4. People contact journalists about Huw's behaviour, both professional and personal interactions, this is reported by Derbyshire as part of general Huw coverage

The BBC have covered up scandals about its conduct or refused to investigate complaints about staff members. Victoria Derbyshire has been involved in breaking the story about a paedophile football coach. She knows about cover ups and why shouldn't she talk to staff where she works?

[quote]If a 24yr old that has a Monday to Friday 9-5 office job goes out every weekend and buys cocaine, is their employer responsible for ‘fueling their ‘addiction’’? The shifting of responsibility and sensationalism on this thread is so wild.

If a 24 year old is given a spacehopper in a secret santa and breaks their wrist bouncing on it, can they ask the person who organised the secret santa to pay for a prostitute to wank them off?

And here is Katie Razzall's article on what it was like being in the newsroom over the last 10 days.

The BBC have done a write up on "The Coverage".

This makes clear The Sun has claimed it has seen "evidence" of a relationship between the teenager and Huw Edwards rather than just taking the parents word for it, as some people claimed.

[quote]On Monday, in response to the young person's denial, the Sun said in a statement that it had seen evidence supporting their family's concerns. A dossier of evidence has reportedly been passed by the family to the BBC, but BBC News has not seen its content, nor any of the Sun's evidence.

R413, The Sun only saw "evidence supporting their family's concerns" on Monday, when it released the statement saying it had seen "evidence". There's also a question mark as to what the "family's concerns" actually are, since the young person involved doesn't seem to share these concerns.

The article you link to also says:

[quote]The parents also told the Sun they had referred the matter to a police force, who told them there was no criminal case to answer.

[quote]We now know two forces have concluded there was no evidence of criminality.

In other words, the young person involved is an adult and can make his own choices, without needing his family's permission. Moreover, given that he has also called his family's claims "rubbish", he obviously consented to whatever happened.

A dossier? Well then!

Thanks 414, I did read the article before I shared it.

Many people dismissing The Sun's story said they hadn't seen *any* evidence, and had only taken the word of the parents.

"Evidence of the family's concerns" could be screen grabs of messages, bank statements, emails, whatever. But it isn't "no evidence" as many people have claimed The Sun admitted.

And people at the BBC are briefing against Edwards

[quote]Even before the scandal, there was a sense at the BBC that its star newsreader had become unmanageable by his direct bosses, with friends and colleagues saying Edwards, 61, does not deal with “lesser people” but in effect reports only to the head of the corporation.

[quote]For years, those inside the BBC newsroom have talked about Edwards’s habit of messaging younger members of staff on social media platforms, such as his now-deleted Instagram account. There is no suggestion these were sexual and it is understood there had been no formal complaints about this previously. The star was not spoken to by bosses before the scandal broke.

[quote]There have been complaints made about Derbyshire and her team for “profiling” the young people they sought to ask whether they had experienced inappropriate behaviour from Edwards. Newsroom sources say they have “fed back” the concerns to the journalists involved.

No complaints about unprofessional behaviour, complaints about staff being asked about unprofessional behaviour. What a healthy working culture.

AND YES THE SUN IS CLEARLY A CESSPIT OF ARSEHOLES WHO TOLERATE BULLYING AND DAN WOOTTON.

Europe>dossier

‘Merica>manila folder

I think most of it could have remained internal, but I also understand that if the BBC tried to deal with it all away from the public eye, they'd have faced heavy criticism and not being honest with those who fund it (ie the public).

I'm not surprised about the email thing. When I started in the world of office work in my early 20s this guy used to find excuses to email and talk to me. I quickly realised he was being a bit too "friendly", but because he was senior and had been there longer than me I didn't say anything to anyone. I wasn't out to anyone but I don't think he really cared if I was gay or not, he just thought it was fine was bombard me with messages anyway. I can see why many people keep quiet about unwanted attention until it becomes clear that there's a pattern.

That's right, r416, The Sun had not seen any "evidence" when it first broke the story, it only had the sworn affidavits of the parents. The parents subsequently showed The Sun "evidence" and so The Sun put out a statement saying it had seen evidence.

[quote]"Evidence of the family's concerns" could be screen grabs of messages, bank statements, emails, whatever.

But the messages, bank statements, emails, whatever would belong to the "child", who is actually an adult, so that "evidence" belongs to him, not to his parents, and they have no right to show it to anyone else. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the adult child was not a willing and consenting participant in whatever encounters he had with Huw Edwards.

So, really, just what is the parents' and The Sun's case, when whatever "sordid" things happened between the adult child and Huw Edwards happened between two consenting adults?

Edwards is clearly an asshole, both contemptible and pitiful simultaneously for his shit behavior in multiple imbalanced power relations which appear to be with everyone except the BBC CEO. Fine, he does need to be canned with the BBC issuing a contrite "Mea Culpa" statement.

But, as yet, invoking Matthew Perry's mantra about the lovely Keanu Reeves: "And yet Dan Wootton roams the Earth."

That psychopath Wootton has deliberately and likely GLEEFULLY inflicted damage among scores of gay men, yet few on here bay for his downfall. Why not?

Concerned European, if you're tone deaf, this is your cue.

R420 Do you know who else was tone deaf? Beethoven.

Let’s be honest, no one likes Dan Wootton. He makes the most liberal and progressive people want scream ‘Fuck off back to where you came from’ at him.

Getting angry about someone who is really really horrible just isn’t worth the effort. His awfulness is factored into everything about him.

Dan Wootton has never cultivated a reputation that has merited respect. That’s the difference between him and Huw Edwards.

Lol at r421, comparing himself to Beethoven!

We’ve entered a new era of Puritanism and Satanic Panic.

First they scream that children are two coddled and then they scream that we must protect their innocence. Make up your damn mind.

[quote] Let’s be honest, no one likes Dan Wootton. He makes the most liberal and progressive people want scream ‘Fuck off back to where you came from’ at him.

Dan is conservative. Why wouldn’t they want to scream at him?

Dan now speaks like Trump giving everyone he reports on disgusting nicknames when referring to them. He’s such a phony. He picked up someone else’s flowers to have himself captured as putting them on the ground at Buckingham Palace after the queen’s death.

Guess who’s in trouble again.

Deja vu?

Wikipedia:

In February 2022, Andrew Brady, a former Apprentice contestant and ex-fiancé of Caroline Flack, was jailed for four months for harassing Wootton and making false accusations of sexual offences against him.

R429, we could have a winner here. “Alex” mentions Caroline Flack in his post about Wootton. If Alex is Andrew Brady, he’s violated a restraining order and could be locked up again.

There's also the Edinburgh former escort who tweeted out accusations of rape against Wootton. Of course he has a criminal record of fraud.

[quote] We’ve entered a new era of Puritanism and Satanic Panic.

Hey Dan!

Wootton didn't vanish from the digital world during the Brady case, though, suggesting that this time there is much more evidence (and one suspects Brady's accusations were then unproveable rather than actually false).

The Spectator have run an opinion piece written by an anonymous BBC News employee who highlights the panic at the BBC and how journalists disagreed on how to cover the story.

This bit contradicts almost all of the other summaries which commented that people had been talking about Edwards' behaviour "for years".

[quote]There were no whispered, ‘Well, I always thought he was dodgy’ comments among my colleagues or, ‘Well, he had it coming,’ remarks. Indeed, the opposite has been true. I haven’t heard a bad word against Edwards in all the time I have worked at the BBC.

[quote]First they scream that children are two coddled and then they scream that we must protect their innocence. Make up your damn mind.

It's possible to admit there are grey areas when it comes to young adults.

Zoe Gardner, a woman who writes about refugees and asylum policy, pointed out that The Sun used the term "vulnerable young person" to describe the drug addict at the centre of the story, when The Sun uses the term "men" to describe 18, 19, 20 year olds who cross the English Channel in small boats. All true.

The Scottish MP Mhairi Black has been doing a farewell tour of sympathetic interviews, talking about her mental health and how she was "only" 20 when first (unexpectedly) elected as an MP, and how difficult she found it the travelling, the media interest and the boys club at Westminster, despite being paid a huge salary. Black also supports votes at 16, marriage at 16 and letting a 16 year old change their legal sex.

There's been a huge push for universities to take responsibility for the mental health and wellbeing of students - all adults aged 18 and over - especially around freshers week and drinking culture.

And last week on the BBC there was a documentary about children leaving the care system. At 18 they get lots of new rights but lose a lot of state support despite still being incredibly vulnerable. The government in Wales is giving all care leavers aged 18 a cash payment of £1600 a month until they turn 20.

And to go back to the original story, the allegation is that parents of a 20 year old drug addict made a complaint because a famous person had been funding his drug addiction for several years, having first "met" him when was 17. I know people are desperate for the story to be false and want the parents to have fabricated it for their own financial gain but that's the story

R435, what we're saying is that there is nothing illegal happened when this young person was 17 and that The Sun fabricated that part. The claim that those of us who do not believe that anything illegal happened want the parents to have fabricated the story for their own financial gain is also a fabrication. It's also not clear that a famous person funded this young person's drug habit. That whole area of claims is particularly hazy.

The young person himself has stated that his parents' claims are, quote, "rubbish".

[quote]The young person himself has stated that his parents' claims are, quote, "rubbish".

A statement drafted by expensive lawyers used the well known legal term term "rubbish" and didn't specify which aspects were "rubbish". Not false, not untrue, but "rubbish".

The claims by the parents are far from "hazy" but the legal statement from the 20 year old is deliberately so. Which bit is rubbish?

That he knows Huw Edwards? That he provided Huw Edwards with "services" for cash? That he was paid cash but it wasn't £35k? That he was paid £35k but not via paypal? That he doesn't have a drug addiction? That he isn't estranged from his parents? That the people claiming to be his parents aren't actually his parents?

Lol at r437, who claims to protest against "fabrications" and then fills his post with a whole series of presumptions. Just as the claim that something illegal had happened when the youth was 17 turned out to be a false assumption, so most of everything else that The Sun has claimed is assumptions, for which no evidence has been produced. And no evidence can be produced because all correspondence between Huw Edwards and the youth belongs solely to Huw Edwards and the youth, while any screenshots and bank statements alluded to belong solely to the youth. Neither Huw Edwards nor the youth have shown The Sun anything.

The word "rubbish" in the lawyers' statement was not the words of the lawyers themselves - they were quoting their client.

[quote]And no evidence can be produced because all correspondence between Huw Edwards and the youth belongs solely to Huw Edwards and the youth, while any screenshots and bank statements alluded to belong solely to the youth.

OMG arrest the parents under data protection laws!

Pretty sure the Sun could be got under data protection is they published any of that, which is why they have studiously avoided this, even once they actually got it, or at least saw it.

So we're going from Huw liking tweets about "the mother of all libels" to "The Sun can get done for printing messages between a 60 year old man and a teenage drug addict"?

I've never thought Edwards had anything to gain from a libel suit, R441, and a lot to lose. However, while the tabloids sometimes like messy libel cases, regardless of the cost, the Sun does seem to be playing things cautiously.

I'm not talking about Edwards suing The Sun for libel (although, he may wish to do that once this is over) but the fact that if the parents showed The Sun "evidence" such as screen shots and bank statements, then that "evidence" belongs to their adult child and they have no right to show it to The Sun. Besides, the mother initially told The Sun that her child showed her images and bank statements, not that he gave them to her. So that evidence should not be in her possession.

No wonder the adult child got himself a lawyer if his parents are showing The Sun his private images and bank statements without his permission, which they would only have if they stole them from him.

[quote]Besides, the mother initially told The Sun that her child showed her images and bank statements, not that he gave them to her. So that evidence should not be in her possession. No wonder the adult child got himself a lawyer if his parents are showing The Sun his private images and bank statements without his permission, which they would only have if they stole them from him.

The way this story has encouraged people to take absolute positions on this.

Imagine hating The Sun so much you're willing to overlook a 60 year old millionaire funding a teenager's drug addiction by buying sex from him.

But that is precisely what is contested, R444. Your position is as absolute as anyone else's, so dismount from the high horse.

[quote]No wonder the adult child got himself a lawyer

It's so cute that you think a crack addict got himself that expensive lawyer. But I guess you'll argue that we don't know for sure that he's a crack addict. Which, fair enough, but on the balance of probabilities....

[quote] you're willing to overlook a 60 year old millionaire funding a teenager's drug addiction by buying sex from him.

This only makes sense if 1) the younger adult is actually addicted to anything (whether it be crack or something else). 2) Huw would have to be aware of this addiction 3) if Huw did in fact ‘buy sex’ from ‘him’ (or her nobody knows yet). And even if all this were true, finally and most importantly, you would have to take away all personal responsibility and agency from this adult in order to fulfill this scenario in which paying someone for a service makes you responsible for every single life choice that they make as long that involves any expenditure as they’re younger than you. Give me a fucking break lol.

Still can't quite see past this: did the parents attempt to contact Huw Edwards to ask him to stop the payments and explain the crack cocaine thing? If not, why not?

Dan Wooton’s atrocious New Zealand accent was always enough to make me loathe him. I hope the UK deports him.

[QUOTE][R420] Do you know who else was tone deaf? Beethoven.

Tell us even more about your tone deafness, CE.

TIA!

Dan Wootton gossip can now be redirected here

R450 Sorry, I can't think of any more cool tone deaf people right now.

Private Eye this week has confirmed, for the first time that I'm aware of, that the person paid money by Huw was indeed male.

Here's the article R453 mentioned. It sounds as though the Sun's handling of this story has been disgraceful.

The Sun printed this by journalist Scarlet Howes after Edwards was named.

There is a lot of detail about the relationship between the parents and the child, and the child and Huw Edwards. But the details given to The Sun over the nature of the complaint which led to them running the story as BBC COVER UP are clearly incorrect or misrepresented.

It is incredibly strange that it's now accepted Edwards DID give a teenager 40 years younger than him over £30k, but the parents were confused or jumped to conclusions over what the money was for.