Trouble at the BBC.

[duncanp]

The person concerned has been named on the main news outlets. It all seems rather sad. I hope the media take a long hard look at themselves after this, but I doubt they will. They will probably try to out the young person involved next.

The question is whether publishing such a story is in the public interest, regardless of whether any offence has been committed.

If the BBC had investigated this matter promptly and efficiently, then perhaps it would never have come to light in the way that it has.

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing stopping British companies seeking overseas funding.
indeed that has all kinds of other benefits, not least saving the £, keeping inflation down, inwards investment….
All those promises made by Brexiteers.

its a global market, waiting for British companies to exploit.
if these opportunities are that attractive, overseas investors will be falling over themselves to pitch in….surely ?

At the moment the BoE is amply demonstrating that the only "lever" it has to control imported inflation is to engineer a recession.

It's time more money was spent building up the capability to provide for more of our needs here, at home.

 

[johntea]

Who would have thought the biggest clue was probably the guest listing for a One Show appearance last week!

 

[brad465]

Who would have thought the biggest clue was probably the guest listing for a One Show appearance last week!

For me it was this "slip-up" from Victoria Derbyshire:

https://twitter.com/seanhc93/status/1678520484042792960

Top quality slip ups on Newsnight

Video attached

 

[Ashley Hill]

I see the BBC have now given the presenters name. You should see their news sites for further information.

 

[brad465]

Police are also saying no crime appears to have been committed:

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1679172934534053888

Police say no indication of a criminal offence in case of BBC presenter alleged to have paid for explicit images

 

[MP33]

If anyone who knows me and what I do. I heard who it was the same time as everyone else.

 

[duncanp]

Police are also saying no crime appears to have been committed:

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1679172934534053888

If no crime has been committed, then perhpas Huw Edwards should sue The Sun for libel and defamation, because their allegation is that he paid a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos, and it is a crime to be in possession of sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18.

 

[Purple Train]

Calling it a "scandal" is very poor of the BBC given that no wrongdoing has been proved yet.

Oh, they will. They will learn the lessons so that next time they can sail even closer to the wind and cause even more damage.

And won't care about the fragile mental state the presenter concerned is in. It is utterly despicable.

Nothing about this story adds up, so caution should be of the essence.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's similar with the age of consent laws. They are obviously there to prevent peadophilia, but at the same time it would criminalise a 16 and 1 day year old sleeping with a 15 and 364 day year old. Difficult.

In a case such as you describe, there would almost certainly be no charges brought as it wouldn't be in the public interest to pursue (assuming no other factors such as violence or duress).

 

[brad465]

If no crime has been committed, then perhaps Huw Edwards should sue The Sun for libel and defamation, because their allegation is that he paid a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos, and it is a crime to be in possession of sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18.

If I was him or in his family I absolutely would be suing them. He might not be in a position though to do this yet given the reports he's in hospital.

 

[Busaholic]

Given the identity of the person concerned, I'm more than ever convinced that elements at the BBC were stoking this one for all they could get. Edwards seems never to have been a popular man amongst his colleagues generally, especially since his aspirations to be the next David Dimbleby became ever more evident. I hope Clive Myrie manages to counter the ridiculous complaints made against him by BBC management for being disrespectful about 'Auntie' in his presenter role on 'Have I Got News for You', just the sort of thing Edwards would never have done, and take a more prominent role in the BBC News hierarchy now.

 

[Sm5]

his name was on US owned (India presented) Sportskeeda website on July 8th.

Pop Culture News, Latest Update on Entertainment, Movies, TV Shows, Music | Sportskeeda

Stay up-to-date with the latest pop culture news, updates, reviews, and trends on Sportskeeda. Get the latest scoop on entertainment, movies, TV shows, music, celebrities, viral news, and more.

www.sportskeeda.com

Amid the ongoing BBC presenter scandal, distinguished presenter Huw Edwards’ name has been trending on all social media platforms for all the wrong reasons after a viral photo of a man bearing resemblance to Edwards started doing the rounds online recently

Quite what Huw Edwards association is to Indian Sports is unclear to me, so why they had a page dedicated to it was mystifying.

I wonder how they found out, and why they chose to run such a story, on an Indian Sports website.

What i also found odd, was if you typed in “Hugh” Edwards name on google, this link was highlighted match to the right of his name… How come google ranked this link so highly ?

 

[duncanp]

If I was him or in his family I absolutely would be suing them. He might not be in a position though to do this yet given the reports he's in hospital.

But the question is, did Huw Edwards actually do those things of which he has been accused?

The article in The Sun is only libellous and/or defamatory if it is untrue, and presumably The Sun could produce evidence to back up its claims in court.

 

[Sm5]

Do you think law would actually work in this circumstance…

Under Article 17 of the UK GDPR individuals have the right to have personal data erased.

Let alone the right to privacy.

imo this is why this is messed up.
Had he done wrong, then its public interest.
if theres no wrong doing then what he does is upto him (And whoever consents), whether we agree with it or not.

However to do nothing wrong, publish a story creating a witch hunt across an industry and walk away hiding behind “we never mentioned a name“ whilst pocketing millions is not journalism.

imo if the Sun had something, they should have gone to the Police first, and in return had the Police upheld it, the Sun should have exclusive rights to the story… to me thats socially, morally responsible and journalistic investigation that leads to reward.

 

[Gloster]

But the question is, did Huw Edwards actually do those things of which he has been accused?

The article in The Sun is only libellous and/or defamatory if it is untrue, and presumably The Sun could produce evidence to back up its claims in court.

Or could it? If it had evidence to back up what it was claiming, why didn’t it go ahead and print his name instead of being so coy. A number of sources have said that S*n’s only source was claims by the young man’s mother and there was no corroborating documentation or independent witnesses. Never trust a single source.

 

[yorkie]

But the question is, did Huw Edwards actually do those things of which he has been accused?

The article in The Sun is only libellous and/or defamatory if it is untrue, and presumably The Sun could produce evidence to back up its claims in court.

The Scum Sun might try to weasel out of it by stating they used words such as "alleged", didn't name anyone and most of the article was quoting the mother of the youngster. Whether or not this can get them off the hook, I've no idea as I have almost no legal knowledge (other than in the area of railway ticketing!) but maybe others can advise.

The original story appears to be this one:

I blame BBC man for giving money to my crack-addict child, says mum amid probe

A MUM has lashed out at a BBC star who allegedly paid her crack-addicted child for sexual images. The BBC has launched a probe into the household name presenter, who is accused of pinging £35,000 i…

www.thesun.co.uk

A MUM has lashed out at a BBC star who allegedly paid her crack-addicted child for sexual images.
Last night the presenter, a familiar face who is known to millions, was off air while the BBC investigate the mother’s bombshell claims.
She told The Sun: “I blame this BBC man for destroying my child’s life...

Unfortunately The Scum Sun have been able to profit from misleading people in the past and no doubt they will have got legal advice and they certainly know how to weasel out of things.

If what The Scum Sun are reporting (i.e. the mothers allegations, which incidentally are refuted by a solicitor acting on behalf of the young person) is true, then I don't see how he couldn't be facing charges. And yet the police aren't pressing charges.

Given this important fact, and The Scum Sun's abysmal reputation, I am not minded to believe The Scum Sun.

Also the image referred to in the article posted by @Sm5 above could easily be a "deepfake" image; the article says this:

there is a high probability that the image doing the rounds has been doctored to resemble Huw Edwards, which in today's age of deepfakes, seems to be quite reflective of today's concerning reality.

However, despite deepfake images now becoming widespread, people are still assuming such images to be real unless somehow "proven" to be fake, for example:

https://twitter.com/AquariusSydd/status/1678325303779655682

People saying that photo of Huw Edwards is fake? I'm going to need evidence to back that claim up.

This is a dangerous territory here; we are now in a situation where anyone can make a false allegation against an unnamed person, a newspaper will publish it, social media will out the person, deepfake images will emerge which people assume to be real unless proven to be fake.

Anyone could be a target of this, but the more well known someone is, the greater the risks for them, and all it needs is one person with an axe to grind...

 

[duncanp]

Or could it? If it had evidence to back up what it was claiming, why didn’t it go ahead and print his name instead of being so coy. A number of sources have said that S*n’s only source was claims by the young man’s mother and there was no corroborating documentation or independent witnesses. Never trust a single source.

It depends what the claims by the youg man's mother actually consisted of. She claims to have evidence of phone messages, bank statements and a picture of Mr Edwards in his underwear.

Did The Sun look at this evidence before it published the story, and was the evidence credible to the extent that it would stand up to independent scrutiny or be admissible in a court of law.

Sometimes there is no corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, but that doesn't prove that a crime hasn't been committed.

Indeed this is one of the reasons so few rape accusation are prosecuted, because often it is just one person's word against another person.

 

[A0]

The Scum Sun might try to weasel out of it by stating they used words such as "alleged", didn't name anyone and most of the article was quoting the mother of the youngster. Whether or not this can get them off the hook, I've no idea as I have almost no legal knowledge (other than in the area of railway ticketing!) but maybe others can advise.

The original story appears to be this one:

I blame BBC man for giving money to my crack-addict child, says mum amid probe

A MUM has lashed out at a BBC star who allegedly paid her crack-addicted child for sexual images. The BBC has launched a probe into the household name presenter, who is accused of pinging £35,000 i…

www.thesun.co.uk

Unfortunately The Scum Sun have been able to profit from misleading people in the past and no doubt they will have got legal advice and they certainly know how to weasel out of things.

If what The Scum Sun are reporting (i.e. the mothers allegations, which incidentally are refuted by a solicitor acting on behalf of the young person) is true, then I don't see how he couldn't be facing charges. And yet the police aren't pressing charges.

Given this important fact, and The Scum Sun's abysmal reputation, I am not minded to believe The Scum Sun.

Also the image referred to in the article posted by @Sm5 above could easily be a "deepfake" image; the article says this:

However, despite deepfake images now becoming widespread, people are still assuming such images to be real unless somehow "proven" to be fake, for example:

https://twitter.com/AquariusSydd/status/1678325303779655682

This is a dangerous territory here; we are now in a situation where anyone can make a false allegation against an unnamed person, a newspaper will publish it, social media will out the person, deepfake images will emerge which people assume to be real unless proven to be fake.

Anyone could be a target of this, but the more well known someone is, the greater the risks for them, and all it needs is one person with an axe to grind...

Whatever you may personally think of The Sun, the reality is this is a story of legitimate public interest.

The BBC's safeguarding processes, once again, appear to be inadequate and that's a very serious matter. Compare and contrast with ITN / ITV's dismissal of Alastair Stewart who quoted Kipling in a Tweet.

 

[Cowley]

I guess this story was bound to come up eventually so I’ve split this stuff off from the In Other News thread to stop that getting cluttered up. So firstly, some parameters:

1) Until a name has been officially released. Don’t name them.
2) Until a name has been officially released. Still don’t name them.
3) Not even subtly because you think you’re being clever
4) You get the idea.

Seems a bit odd linking a BBC story for this but here’s the latest development:

BBC presenter sent abusive and menacing messages to second young person

They say they were sent abusive messages by the presenter and put under pressure to meet up.

www.bbc.co.uk

Just to say that obviously it’s fine to discuss this person now that the name is out there.

 

[duncanp]

Whatever you may personally think of The Sun, the reality is this is a story of legitimate public interest.

The BBC's safeguarding processes, once again, appear to be inadequate and that's a very serious matter. Compare and contrast with ITN / ITV's dismissal of Alastair Stewart who quoted Kipling in a Tweet.

Yes, and I can imagine what would have happened if a Conservative MP had been accused of the same things as Huw Edwards has, and the Conservative Party had investigated the allegations in a similar manner to the BBC.

It would have been all over the BBC and The Guardian, and no doubt a Labour MP would have named the suspect under parliamentary privelege.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its a real shock it being him, its like being told your Dad is a bank robber

 

[Sm5]

Yes, and I can imagine what would have happened if a Conservative MP had been accused of the same things as Huw Edwards has, and the Conservative Party had investigated the allegations in a similar manner to the BBC.

It would have been all over the BBC and The Guardian, and no doubt a Labour MP would have named the suspect under parliamentary privelege.

David Cameron and Piggate..

 

[1D54]

The Sun should have named him eight days ago. Edwards sat back while fingers were being pointed at his colleagues. He now lies in a hospital bed suffering with depression and few will have any sympathy for him.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Three things strike me from all of this:

1 - the Sun is, yet again, showing itself as a horrible rag run by reprehensible lowlifes

2 - its an utter tragedy for the wider Edwards family, given the length of deception that must have been going on

3 - Edwards must have known he'd get caught eventually, either by accident, bad luck or someone going to the press. Some people must have some sort of self-destructive character trait, quite apart from any other mental health issues

 

[GS250]

If no crime has been committed, then perhpas Huw Edwards should sue The Sun for libel and defamation, because their allegation is that he paid a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos, and it is a crime to be in possession of sexually explicit images of someone under the age of 18.

Has this changed since the days of the Sun printing photos of Sam Fox whilst she was still at High School?

 

[duncanp]

Has this changed since the days of the Sun printing photos of Sam Fox whilst she was still at High School?

I believe the law was changed in the early 2000s, so that possession of sexually explicit photos of someone under the age of 18 is an offence, despite the age of consent being 16.

Samantha Fox was 18 in 1984, so this wouldn't have applied to her.

 

[Sm5]

The Sun should have named him eight days ago. Edwards sat back while fingers were being pointed at his colleagues. He now lies in a hospital bed suffering with depression and few will have any sympathy for him.

Your assuming we know the whole story.
We dont know anything of Huw Edwards side of this story, and if he sat back at all, or when he was admitted in hospital… he maybe in hospital in isolation from as much as the story as possible, to protect his mental state.
we dont know.

innocent until guilty.

At the back of my mind I wonder if the Sun found themselves with this story on shaky ground, and as such presented it this way to try to shake out the rest of the story.
I’d also be wondering why, when the main witness disputes their story, and claims not to be in alignment with the Sun, that they have doubled down on it, indeed tripled their bets.
Is it a bluff, or do they have more ?

I still find this weird, I picked this up researching posts in a Russian telegram channel about the Ukraine war, pointing to the Sportskeeda website in India. Once I saw the website was legit, indeed a very high $$$ sports channel, and obviously the story breaking in the Sun, then I thought uh-oh… but why would they be running a story like this ?
Whats more they had a journalist dedicated to updating the page through out.
I see no obvious connection between Murdoch and Nazara (owners of Sportskeeda) though I could imagine that site being a good fit in the Murdoch empire someday. I see no connection between Hew Edwards and sports in India either. Though I could imagine the Indian government having no favours to spare for the BBC currently.
Whatever the reason, they found themselves a nice spot on google, twitter, telegram….
Where they the first to publish it, I dont know, but I found it July 8th.

I dont believe in coincidence, and leaks are always designed to protect the leaker, was this a seeded leak to selected safely separated websites far removed from the Sun, and the UK to promote the story knowing it would go all over social media and to draw out a response ? - I’ll probably never know, never be proven and no one would admit… a bit like the story itself really.

 

[yorkie]

Your assuming we know the whole story.
We dont know anything of Huw Edwards side of this story, and if he sat back at all, or when he was admitted in hospital… he maybe in hospital in isolation from as much as the story as possible, to protect his mental state.
we dont know.

innocent until guilty.

At the back of my mind I wonder if the Sun found themselves with this story on shaky ground, and as such presented it this way to try to shake out the rest of the story.
I’d also be wondering why, when the main witness disputes their story, and claims not to be in alignment with the Sun, that they have doubled down on it, indeed tripled their bets.
Is it a bluff, or do they have more ?

The fact that the mother of the person in question is prepared to make accusations will absolutely be enough for The Sun.

However, as sad as this may sound, the reality is not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart; we don't know if this mother does, or doesn't but it would be interesting to hear if she got paid by The Sun for her story, though...

 

[Darandio]

but it would be interesting to hear if she got paid by The Sun for her story, though...

Many of the initial statements made it clear that she hadn't. Whether that's true is another matter.