BBC suspend unnamed presenter

That’s irrelevant, just because it’s ‘Huw’ if you would be happy for him to be apparently supporting the kids habit fair enough, all I’m saying is I wouldn’t . Again, to me just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
If a bloke that age was pursuing anybody male or female he needs treatment

 

He should have been the man forever remembered for breaking the news of the death of Britian's longest ever reigning monarch.

Sadly, he'll be remembered for more sordid reasons. Like others have said, obviously very ill, but a career in tatters.

 

Bottom line for me here based on what I've read is that Edwards is very poorly and needs help. The whole incident looks quite smutty for want of a better word but if the police aren't pursuing it just leave it at the smutty stage and give Edwards some support. I hope the Sun reporters are happy. Probably generated a few hundred thousand more quid by running a story that's not really a story.

 

What’s irrelevant?
I don’t know what the ‘just because it’s ‘Huw’’ bit is about either.
When the ‘kid’ is 20 they can make their decisions of how they earn money. Would you be angry at their boss for paying them if they then spent it on drugs? The money, or how they made the money isn’t the problem, it’s what they then spent it on. The parents are expending their energy and anger in the wrong place.

 

You're assuming he knew the lad was buying drugs...?

 

don't believe everything reported in the Sun !

 

What part of ‘no information to indicate criminal offences had been committed’ is unclear?

If the ‘young person’ was 17, and not 18 or over, then there would be criminality. Two separate police forces, after speaking to everyone, including the parents, have concluded that.

I’d also suggest the god awful rag The Sun would have referred to the said ‘victim’ as a ‘minor’ rather than a young person. The fact they referred to them as young person all along suggested to me they were an adult as the wording is ambiguous but not strong enough to conclude as under 18. You can absolutely guarantee that if that rag had any evidence at all that he’d instigated something with a kid under 18 they’d have used much clearer and damning language than ‘young person’, as I say, maybe minor, or child.

It’s just another example of a far right rag going to town on a pretty inconsequential issue; designed only to distract attention from the latest **** ups from a government their paymasters need to keep in place.

‘Man legally buys explicit photos from another adult who was readily trying to sell them’ doesn’t really look to be that sensational as a headline.

There’s a suggestion the young person is male - which I reckon is probably the sinister driver behind the outrage some folk have. Edwards is married with kids so his behaviour as a husband is questionable of course.

But he’s done nothing wrong legally, and who are we to question the morals of buying and selling photos on only fans? Or touting for tips for your content? It’s a legitimate way to make money, and buying them / topping content uploaders is not an offence - and little different than looking at ‘special interest’ (ahem) websites, or in years gone by buying a top shelf magazine. If those things are grounds to be hounded out of employment there are going to be quite a lot of unemployed people if universally applied.

 

I do. I always bought the Sun when they showed under 17's with their tackle out and fully supported the Sun when they shamed the Liverpool fans after Hillsborough. Fine newspaper. Moral, ethical and straight-talking truth.

 

The mum only told the BBC in May who didn’t mention anything to Edwards until Thursday as they couldn’t get back in touch with her and they don’t pass on complaints as they might be false. Unless the young person told him, he had no idea.

 

If you mean something I have said. How many times can I to me it was never about legality but morality.
People are hanging too much on it being in the Sun, yes they shouldn’t have done it like that but did the police say that the accusations were lies? No they just said that no crime had been committed.
As a parent believe me if I saw an adult of Huw Edwards age pestering my vulnerable son or daughter ( and one of my sons used to be, albeit for different reasons) I would want him stopped, as quickly and as best I could.
Remember if the BBC had acted there would have been no article to write.
And for the life of me I can’t see why this case is in any way comparable to Only Fans.

 

The police said it wasn’t true did they? I must have missed that bit.
I don’t read the Sun I read the news and watch it

 

What action do you want them to take? He hasn't done anything illegal, obtaining pornography is hardly grounds for dismissal from work, and how would dismissing him from the BBC make any difference? He'd probably get a job at GB news and continue to do exactly the same, except that the Sun wouldn't give a monkeys.

 

He will get a job somewhere but i bet you don’t see him reading the bbc news anytime soon.

 

The scum will go to town in their despicable rag tomorrow, i wouldn't wipe my Backside on it.

 

Are you thinking of Becky Goodwin? If so no it's not her

 

Cheeky *****. TM is only jealous that I haven't seen his figures

 

Who said dismiss him?
. They just needed to take him seriously and interview him to warn him off.
You seem to take this stuff very lightly, are you a parent?