FlaxBBC News - BBC: Claims about presenter 'rubbish' - young person's lawyer
HeartyBeastWell this is a turn up for the books. If this is right there are going to be some people with some egg on their face, not least The Sun
At least they didn’t name him. It lines up though because if they had no evidence, they couldn’t really publish the name. There was a picture doing the rounds of a presenter online but I think if they had that they could publish about it
ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝Yeah, it did the rounds on Twitter and was discussed on Reddit. Some people feel it could be a deepfake and it definitely isn’t the picture The Sun were talking about, which would support that notion, as does this update because it sounds like the teenager wouldn’t have leaked the image.
His Instagram has been taken down :(
Was it a must-follow?
It actually did have good content tbh. I quite liked him so I followed him.
a fading echo@HeartyBeast @Flax_vert
The Sun does not have a reputation for accuracy.
And the story seemed tenuous, and to assert a remarkable market rate.
Probably didn’t believe in it themselves but kept on the edge enough to not be sued
starlingukAnd still the guardian reported it as fact. Terrible journalism.
comicmuseThis story is something of a rollercoaster
The Sun says: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.” “Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.”
That sounds pretty weak to me.
Exactly. This is The Sun walking away whistling. No “We stand by our story”
And this is why we never jump to conclusions!
HumanPenguinHmm. Have to admit. From the begining I questioned why the BBC seemed to be the target.
If the star broke the law. (And paying a 17yo for explicit pic def is). Hen why the hell are the parents not calling the police.
If its not illegal then as scummy as it may be. Its all consensual adul0ts make a choice.
As bad as I feel for younger people taken advantage of by older. The reason we have the 19 law. Is 18yp ha e a right to make theor own choice. Good or bad ones.
No other employer would have the right or expectation to address a member of staff following the law. And the police would be involved if its a crime. So why an attack on the BBC rather then a call to the police.
The simple answer 8a because the right wing press will use any excuse to put the knife into the BBC. Quite how the Murdoch papers get away with such an obvious conflict of interest is a question that needs asking.
The only way or becomes a BBC matter is if it isn’t a crime but the shiftiness of the behaviour could bring the organisation into disrepute, especially after all the previous scandals and mishandling of situations, and they would want to think hard about letting the guy back on telly.
Many other professions have a "disrepute" law that while legal can get you struck off
And most don’t. Those that do. The actions tend to have to be related to the professional status of the person.
IE if he was the guys therapist teacher or even a manager etc.
Heck if the teenager worked for the BBC in some way. Or had been interviewed. Fine the BBC would be seen as having some responsibility.
But this is no different to testcos being asked to investigate a warehouse worker. Because he/she met an 18yo in a pub and partook of consensual, acts.
rmukTo be honest, this is the whole reason I’ve been telling people that the story isn’t nearly what is being reported. If I was attacked by someone that I knew worked at Tesco, I wouldn’t write to Tesco to demand they investigate, I’d go to the police. So why involve the BBC? Why involve The Sun? If the “dossier” that The Sun has is so definitive, why are they not handing it over to the police like the BBC has with their evidence? Then, as the story developed: why did the step father change the complaint to the BBC after more than a month? And are we supposed to believe that this change just happened to occur less than 24 hours before The Sun’s front page headlines?
The problem is that the allegations are playing second fiddle to a dangerous, damaging witch-hunt clearly being played out to cause maximum damage to a public service broadcaster for the benefit of not just any tabloid, but a nasty, vindictive tabloid backed by one of the most sinister and manipulative people in the world. Murdoch will never face anything like justice for the evil he’s caused, but I seriously hope that this whole shitshow massively blows up in his face.
Wouldn’t they actually be able to publish his name if they really did have evidence? Due to public interest?
If it is a load of rubbish then I hope they keep the accused name confidential. Could be career ending even if it’s all made up, this society loves a witch hunt. Even when there’s no evidence.
tkcWhy would a person, who was supposedly a crack addict, and was paid 10s of thousands of pounds by a person who likely groomed them, come out in defense of that person. Real puzzler this one.
From The Sun’s latest story, the Step-dad seems to be doing the talking today. And he claims the police said nothing illegal happened. Which is hardly helpful to The Sun.
He added: “I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal. They knew all of this.”
klzSurely the whole point of this story was to distract from the fact that today was the deadline for Boris to hand over his whatapp messages?
But, but, he can’t turn his phone on, so there’s nothing to see here.
98% of the Tory press’ output is misdirection from whatever the latest shitshow is. If they can get a dig in at the Beeb at the same time then that’s gravy.
I may have to redact my last post on this, considering the new allegation. Could be more ‘rubbish’, but possibly not. Seems like the BBC may have another one on their hands.
SNEWSLEYPIESSeems like the BBC may have another one on their hands.
Another… what, exactly? Rude, unpleasant person who happens to be either gay or bi? (I think I get this message from the reporting, but I’m not certain that I’ve specifically seen the gender of the original “young person” mentioned now that I think about it)
This is such an obviously confected story to fling shit at the BBC. It disappoints me that so many otherwise articulate and sensible people seem to be swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Huw always seemed so nice, not really rude or unpleasant
I’ve still got no idea who people think he is.
Nor do I care to, because it ain’t remotely sodding important.
Another… what, exactly? Rude, unpleasant person who happens to be either gay or bi?
I meant it seems like they have another scandal on their hands. Of course it’s all speculation at the minute but they’ve had a few in recent years, as have many I suppose.
Okay, that’s fair, they do have another scandal to weather (contrived though it appears). Sorry, I thought I read a slight undertone of “filthy BBC got anuvver nonce innit” :)
Sounds like the BBC themselves verified that. The Sun was scraping the barrel as people who posted DM conversations from a specific presenter were dmed by journalists and exposed that, and said that the dms were just in response to comments made by people on his page, which while being uncommon, he is older and tbh, personally thanking people in dms for kind comments is a very nice thing to do and he seemed like a very nice man
northernscrubDetectives from the Met’s Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.
That says to me that either:
-
The young person involved voluntarily sent images of themself to Edwards, and he either did not respond to them, or responded passively or properly
-
The young person involved was solicited for messages, but no evidence to support this remains
-
This entire thing is a cockamamie bullshit piece dreamed up by a set of parents who are Very Angry that their son is gay, and decided to take things to the press to hit back at him for asserting his sexuality.
There is, of course, the matter of the second allegation - but copycat cases also exist, and it is hard to say whether or not the Met’s statement covers both allegations or merely the first.
It does confuse me, somewhat, that Edwards voluntarily offered his identity to the public. He was potentially entirely in the clear after the police statement, so he may either be considering the public interest angle (given he has worked in newscasting for a very long time), is attempting to curry public favour, or maybe just thinks its the right thing to do.
Problem with his revelation is the possibility of it being traced to the young person. It obviously sounds as though they want to remain anonymous and private - what are the chances of that happening now?