BBC Scandal - Huw Edwards formally suspended over payment of explicit images of teenager Read OP*

Keep going, you’ll get there eventually in the end.

There is a difference between legal and just immoral.

If for example a presenter was using someones drug addiction as leverage to get them to do stuff, that's still wrong. It could be someone who holds the public trust.

Let me give you an example. If I go to see a boxing match, that's ok. I'm paying to see people fight but they're professionals and it's their job. If I paid two homeless people 50 euro each to beat each other up, that would be wrong. I'm taking someone vulnerable and using it against them.

Likewise, if I buy a newspaper/magazine with a topless woman in it, that's ok. But if I see a homeless drug addict begging and I tell them they'll get money if they show their breasts, that's wrong.

And it's probably all legal.

In this case, it could be someone paying money to an onlyfans account. Perfectly legal and aboveboard. But it could also be something worse.

Now I need to bookend this by saying that it's the sun. They're dishonest. Even with this story, they've rowed back. No-one should be named until something is shown to be bad. Unless there's a criminal charge or the BBC discover something substantial that they feel the people need to know, there should be no naming and shaming.

So 4 separate “allegations” of varying degrees -

This whole story now seems like a bunch of sensationalist crap. Older man seeks kinky images and meet-up with younger adults and pays for same.

The only law that may have been broken is covid lockdown rules. Slap on the wrist.

I feel sorry for his wife and kids to be honest, they are the real victims here. He should have stuck to pornhub to get his rocks off.

What consenting adults get up to in their spare time is not the business of the public.

Suppose we will see another witch hunt like the Philip Schofield story again.

It is if there is money changing hands and abusive messages are being sent.

It is also to establish if all of these things only involved adults.

It might be police business, and it certainly seems like BBC business.

What is the business of the general public then?

How is it not the business of the general public if someone is charged with an offence?

How is it not the business of the public why someone in a public role at a public broadcaster is stood down and disciplined?

The younger man, who is now 20, is backing up the BBC presenter. But of course the law in the UK says its illegal to share explicit images with someone aged 17 and under. I don't know who is telling the truth in this case. The Sun is not exactly where I would normally look for the truth, after their disgraceful defamation of the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough in 1989 and since.

The parents of the young man are believed to be those who made the complaint in the first place. Are they just controlling parents who don't accept they have a gay son? Or perhaps the allegations are true. I don't know.

If someone is charged and goes to court it is reported.

What 2 consenting adults get up to us not the business of the general public. As far as I'm aware there has been no charges and unless there is, it still remains no-one else's business.

It's not for journalists no. But apparently it is for you to make statements such as "there's no reason to consider it illegal"?

Your statement has no foundation.

And I'm guessing said journalists might be running this stuff past their legal counsels...

What do you know about the BBC's code?

IS that what it says???

"what he does in his private time, as long as legal, should not be the BBC's business."

I'm guessing not?

So I'm basing my comments on past cases. Tabloids have for example named both parties having an affair, where they have slam dunk proof of same. What happened privacy entitlements there?

If you have something solid to counter that fire ahead. I'm not an expert by any means but you are making statements of fact based on opinions of what things 'should be' that have no basis. My posts reflect things as they are.

I've heard every single BBC presenter mentioned as a possibility.

Is that a typo or a subtle nod to who we all know it is?

I heard he did broadcasts with a mans fist up his you know what.

It's not hazy. I would say that forcing two homeless people to fight for money for food is immoral. The fact that you don't says a lot about you.

Making an addict flash for money is also wrong.

There's a massive power imbalance and the person is vulnerable.

I will say the sum here is big. But we don't yet know details. My point was that just because something's legal doesn't make it morally right. It could be despicable and still be legal. And if it's a person who holds the public trust, then the public have a right to know.

BUT, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think anyone should be named until there's been an investigation.

The Sun already reported that the Stepfather was told the police they could not investigate because nothing illegal took place. The police themselves have stated that they are carrying out further inquiries to establish whether any crime has been committed, however, the Sun is rowing back on the one accusation of illegality (child porn) that triggered all of this off - so yes, there's every reason to believe nothing illegal occurred. This is not a statement of fact btw.

In terms of privacy, it depends whether it falls into the category of being in the public interest.