Huw Edwards: Household Name Bbc Presenter 'Paid Teenager For Sexually Explicit Photos'

[HeHasRisen]

21 minutes ago, atticus said:

Wish they’d hurry up and publish who this wrong un is , then we can move on to the real story of the weekend ……. The George Osbourne e-mail. Now if what’s in that is true then he’s a proper wrong un .

People in power eh

There has been an, ahem, lovely photo put on Twitter now of the current favourite. I wont be republishing it here. Lets just say we should all turn the other cheek....

[sheffbag]

On 09/07/2023 at 09:33, zaci said:

The newspaper first reporting the story knows who it is! makes them just as guilty as the BBC for not revealing who it is.

you do understand the law with regards to privacy and defamation 

[cressida]

BBC and Scotland Yard would know who it is,  police probably have or have seen the phones even bank accounts,  isn't that enough evidence?

 

Every other male presenter must want the perpetrator's named to be revealed asap because meanwhile they are also under suspicion,  I haven't noticed who has been taken off the air.

Edited July 10, 2023 by cressida

[HeHasRisen]

2 minutes ago, cressida said:

BBC and Scotland Yard would know who it is,  police probably have or have seen the phones even bank accounts,  isn't that enough evidence?

Huw knows?

 

Sorry...I mean, who knows?

[cressida]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Huw knows?

 

Sorry...I mean, who knows?

You got that off the Daddy

[HeHasRisen]

Oh, has he already done that one? Never mind.

[Mister M]

What I don't understand is that the BBC presenter must know that by definition they are in the public eye; and unless they live under a stone, they know that being on the BBC they have a target painted on their backs for all the usually right wing 'commentators' desperate to use it to undermine the organisation.

In an age when porn has never been so widely available via the internet, why would they risk a jail sentence and a public savaging by paying someone under the age of 18 for nude pictures? 

Doesn't make sense to me.

[cressida]

4 minutes ago, Mister M said:

What I don't understand is that the BBC presenter must know that by definition they are in the public eye; and unless they live under a stone, they know that being on the BBC they have a target painted on their backs for all the usually right wing 'commentators' desperate to use it to undermine the organisation.

In an age when porn has never been so widely available via the internet, why would they risk a jail sentence and a public savaging by paying someone under the age of 18 for nude pictures? 

Doesn't make sense to me.

I wondered that,  and if the culprit isn't a young presenter the the older presenter should be a bit more savvy,  loss of career/income,  maybe wife,  doesn't make sense.

[Mister M]

3 minutes ago, cressida said:

I wondered that,  and if the culprit isn't a young presenter the the older presenter should be a bit more savvy,  loss of career/income,  maybe wife,  doesn't make sense.

All these sums of money being talked about makes me wonder of the BBC presenter is being blackmailed. Obviously I don't know this, but being high profile they run the risk of someone using the presenters public persona as collateral.

[Al Bundy]

9 minutes ago, Mister M said:

What I don't understand is that the BBC presenter must know that by definition they are in the public eye; and unless they live under a stone, they know that being on the BBC they have a target painted on their backs for all the usually right wing 'commentators' desperate to use it to undermine the organisation.

In an age when porn has never been so widely available via the internet, why would they risk a jail sentence and a public savaging by paying someone under the age of 18 for nude pictures? 

Doesn't make sense to me.

The left are banging on about the beeb being right wing aren't they?

 

Maybe the same reason why Hugh Grant went with a prostitute whilst his gorgeous girlfriend was at home... The risk being the excitement?