What is your take on this situation? For more like this, check out 10 Times the Government Got Involved with TV Scandals ua-cam.com/video/QSfgSQnPqGU/v-deo.html
Actually, to be perfectly honest anyone with a single shred of decency would be butting out of this matter. His wife haz issued a statement saying that he has severe mental health problems and is currently in hospital receiving treatment. The Met Police in London has also said that no offence has been committed, there's no crime to investigate. He may or may not have done or said things which on another day would never have crossed his mind. He's also apologised to his co-workers for not speaking up sooner. Deep down I think that Huw Edwards is a very good and honourable man and the the things that he's supposed to have done or said are quite out of character but I am sure that when he is well enough he will issue a statement of his own and will be willing to answer any questions that require an answer.
I am both a mental health patient and a mental health professional. Nobody else gets to use their mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour. This was a long term course of action, which he knew was wrong because he hid it. Guilt and shame are not mental illnesses.
He hasn't used mental illness as an excuse... his wife said he's suffered severe mental health issues as a result of this incident, which is understandable. Also he did nothing wrong.
As someone who has got depression, had issues with suicidal episodes and has anxiety, there is nothing that could justify criminality, no less involving a minor.
Huws well known in tv land just like schofield was. Just like Phil he would message strangers inappropriate comments. Schofield would snap chat with kids.
One of the worse things that happened at the very start were other news companies heavily (and I say VERY heavily) were pointing their fingers at Graham Norton and Rylan Clark, more than any other presenter. I don't want to cry 'homophobia' but... it gets the brain gears whirling.
before a friend who worked for the bbc told me it was huw, i was saying at work "i think its graham norton". I like how graham didnt put out a "it aint me" message, he probably thought bugger this why should i have to?
@@Dynexsil the junk food is relatable. I’ve never been diagnosed with depression, but just mentally feeling like crap after a long day has made feel lazy with basic stuff a lot more recently.
3 crimes committed: 1st is 17 year old producing images of themselves for another to view. 2nd is Huw receiving and viewing the images. 3rd is Huw inciting the other to commit the 1st offence.
4 offences, yes. But the lockdown rules offence is not a crime it is just an offence - speeding, do don’t get photographed, fingerprinted or get a cro number for that. The first 3 can attract prison time.
Yes, they could arrest, but that doesn’t mean that the offence is a crime. Certain offences are crimes and others are not. So Boris could have been arrested and interviewed, but not fingerprinted and photographed. The offences involving the indecent images can carry 5 and 10 year imprisonment. Offences that tend to carry only fines are not crimed, if they were lots of decent people would be wandering around with cro numbers (criminal records office). I found this confusing when I joined the police all those years ago.
I’m still suffering from mental health issues 60 years after being abused by a nonce. Mental health issues have nothing to do with child grooming. Just another Jimmy Savile cover up. Edwards sent and received indecent images of a juvenile under the age of 18 years of age. That is an offence. Why hasn’t all his devices been taken away by police and searched? Freemason written all over it.
The age at which young people can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can consent to sexual activity. The self-production by children of indecent images is an area of increasing concern in this age of poorly-regulated social media. It is also an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 18, even if the photos were distributed after the person in them turned 18.
you are correct, but you also imply that the young person was a child when they sent images the police have said this was NOT the case (but sure, jump on the pedotrain anyway), so the young person would have sent images consensually when they were 18 - this is NOT a crime (no matter how much you want it to be) and the labelling of Huw as a pedo is factually incorrect 18 is not a child, legally nothing wrong happened (also how do you feel about the Sn page 3 girls, just to take a barometer? should their workers/writers/photographers be hunted for pedophilia? double standards at play maybe?)
@@cirons1960 people need to make more noise just as they did with News of the World back in 2011. The more persistence, the more hits it’ll start getting affected by
I appreciate the summarisation of this, it’s so hard to keep up with all the chatter about this. I just wanted the facts about it to know where I stand on it.
That you will never properly know as Huw has a lot of media friends and even on GB News! That’s saying something . Had he been an MP there would have been a call for his resignation whether or not a crime has been committed. In Huw’s case it becomes a private matter - and only a tumble from grace!
The fact is that back in 2021 he opened up about bouts of depression he has been suffering since 2002 in a Welsh documentary. He isn't suddenly making them up because he has been accused of something.
@Gmackematix don't believe him it's just excuses to get out of it. With the amount of idiots that use mental health as the reason for everything is pathetic, just like you and anyone else who stands for this pathetic piece of scum, reminds me of Prince Andrew
Yh that’s a good point actually, just Ignore my comment lol. I just meant more of a household name cos someone told me that it was Jeremy clarkson lol, so I expected it to be a presenter like that, just more well known and a more familiar face. I didn’t Believe for a second that it was Jeremy clarkson though, I no he’s got a reputation for being an arrogant bastard but I didn’t think he would be capable of this type of scandal x
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong, but the Sun still isn't sold in Liverpool. To this day. Their track record Mirrors the News of the World. What's referred to as the British press is simply yellow journalism. However, the Beeb can kiss the license fees goodbye and figure out how to jockey amongst much faster horses. If they didn't misstep and cover for the upper class, a la Saville, they'd have no purpose at all...other than pay Lineker et al.
I do hope the Sun gets shut down - I mean look what it did to Hillsborough all those years ago, it should have been shut down then! I've always hated them for that!
IMO Mr Edwards didn't pay the young person 35K for the explicit images. If, as stated the young person used it to pay for drugs then it's more likely Mr Edwards paid gradual amounts up to 35K for that person's silence. Otherwise known as blackmail.
@@TheLadyfocus Now that is illegal! Not sure the Courts will see it that way given the age difference, the vulnerability of the boy ( most likely he has mental health issues ) and the routine payments or what, let’s face it, was a pathetic amount!
The Met Police have pored over all the evidence and concluded that there is no criminality whatsoever, from anyone allegedly involved. There was a suspicion that Huw was perhaps being blackmailed by one of the others. That doesn't appear to be the case. Huw appears to have been using Grindr and quite likely something else paid such as OnlyFans or a specific gay equivalent. The age of consent is 16, but you do need to be 18 to appear in or share pornographic images. What Huw appears to have done is pretty sordid, pretty grubby, hugely embarrassing, quite probably career and marriage ending... but absolutely not illegal.
@MAl-eo2cx Where is the evidence that the money was sent? If it was there would be evidence and the police could step in and investigate. However, there is no evidence.
One needs to take a step back before rushing to a judgment or draw conclusions. Anyone will be affected mentally when these sort of allegations are made publicly. Every one should hold their tongue until all investigations are completed.
I will rush to judgement when it involves the sh*trag that's The S*n. I don't know if Huw broke the law or not, but if the police cannot find enough to say he did, then The S*n certainly didn't have enough to run with thar story. Nobody should believe a word printed by that rag.
As someone at the age of 56 yrs old who has suffered from depression from my early 20's I can understand the hole that draws you into an abyss of deep n dark thoughts n self harm. But to harm ,manipulate, abuse others to your own satisfaction is something I have never done. Shame on the BBC n all those that support such deviant behaviour swathed under the a mental health issue. Abuse and deviences cannot all be blamed on mental health. Joe blogs would not get away with such disgusting behaviour and as such I call for all privileged individuals be named ,shamed and treated as any member of society would be. Fame and money is not a rite of passage to anonymity or prosecution.
But was this true though? It’s like you would trust Epstein despite the evidence just because the story originally came from Alex Jones. Don’t be a moron.
Indeed. I'm no fan of Huw or the BBC but The S*n is an absolute sh*trag and should be held to account for their actions. Why anyone still believes a single thing they print I have no idea.
The wife's response LOOKS like admission of guilt and trying to get ahead of the narrative. Also LOOKS like trying to gain sympathy by having the wife make the announcement...couple that with the mental health and hospital angle. If one is innocent,why not come out like the other reporters and say it's not you or that it's all lies??
Innocent until proven guilty is silly, because that does not always work. For example, OJ Simpson was found to be not guilty at his trial of murder, but most sensible people know that the evidence says that OJ Simpson is 100 percent guilty of murdering those two people. Also, there are people who are found to be guilty in court who later turn out to be innocent due to new DNA evidence that exonerates them. So the courts don't always get the correct verdicts. You should not always trust what the courts say. Sometimes the courts get the correct verdicts, sometimes they don't.
My understanding is that a person must be 18 years of age and over for someone to receive dirty pics from especially if the pay for them. So, as far as I'm concerned, Edwards is guilty and should be locked up.
If he put his own pictures for sale on an adult site it is perfectly reasonable to believe the person is over 18. How many men do the same for female pictures ?
I HATE the sun propaganda and lies rag!FCOL the Sun paid Samantha Fox to leave school at the age of16 to be their page 3 girl - bare tits and ALL!! Oh the hypocrisy😅 Anyone who works for the Sun and anyone who buys it are sick human beings.
Did he know he was under 18? Is there any proof that he was under 18 at the time? Is there any proof to the claims that he did pay for these pictures? You shouldn't rush to judgement if you don't know all the facts. This is why we have police investigations, trials, judges and a jury. And so far this has gone as far as the police who said no laws have been broken. How can you possibly know more than they do?
The only true victims in this whole sordid affair are his wife and children. Being married to a bisexual leading a double life, that must be so humiliating for them.
Leave the Huw alone!!! I mean, who's Huw hurt ?? Focus on people who cause harm in this world not people who display human tendencies that cause no harm. SIMPLE
How would you feel if your dad had paid for pictures of 17 year old boy. Would you wonder what else was going on......? Would you be upset, would you feel a breach of trust. Huw Edwards, as a newsreader, the National newsreader, has established a relationship of trust with millions of people. But he is not what he seems, and many people quite rightly feel a breach of trust. Many people, including me, are disturbed (or even a level of revulsion) by suposedly mature people exploiting young people, even if the young person voluntarily participates at the time. Ofter young people, get caught up in sex exploits, and later regret their actions.
It is wrong he has committed multiple crimes sending indecent images of children & breaking the rules of lockdown by going to another city when that was made clear to all that was not allowed. During a time where people could not see ill relatives in hospital etc.
I,m not condoning what Huw Edwards did if it's proven true but how much did the Sun pay for explicit photos of Sam Fox page 3 ? She was only Sixteen wasn't she ? Explicit meaning,Containing overt sexual material (e.g. language or pictures) that might be deemed offensive.
Unfortunately the law was different back then. The age threshold of 18 was introduced in 2003 when sexual offence laws were overhauled. Before 2003, gay men had a higher age of consent than straight couples (18 instead of 16). Gay group sex was illegal, as was anal sex between two people of opposite gender. Yes, that's right - a straight man consensually taking his girlfriend up the arse was technically a crime.
Huw Edwards has had mental health issues in the past, so those who say he doesn’t are wrong. He has publicly stated his depression he has suffered has been debilitating . Also the police have said there are no criminal charges against huw Edwards. What Mr Edwards can possibly be accused of is a terrible lack of judgment. Unfortunately mental health issues can lead us into situations where we can’t get out of. Being famous doesn’t preclude any one person from being perfect. No one is perfect. We can just listen without judgement to each of the stories that are presented here.
thank god... somebody with common sense. Yes he has made poor choices but he has done nothing wrong. There are thousands of people out there famous or otherwise who will have done similar or worse.
@@elizabethrobertson2045he's a man married with children you wet wipe. Dirty pervert who likes young even if barley over the legal age. You fucking lefties would probably stick up for Saville if he was alive
Anybody who watches legal porn is equally reprehensible. He or she is contributing financially to over 18 actors and actresses who are each someone's child.
A grey area that has amplified this controversy is that in the UK it is possible and legal to have sexual relationships with people at ages of 16+ while technically adulthood in the UK is seen to be 18+. From the very start the mother of the teenager involved have hammered down on the word "child". The celebrity did this or that with their "child", that their child did this or that in response. All the while this "child" was technically able to have sexual relations with whoever they wanted that was 16+. The teenager is apparently happy with their relationship. The celebrity is seemingly satisfied with their relationship and nothing illegal has happened. Move on.
Yeah a powerful 61 year old man grooming the 17 year old boy and funding his drug habits. Are you nuts? So wrong on so many levels what he was doing. When the boys mother went to BBC for Huw to stop funding her son of drug habits by buying sexually explicit photos for £35000, BBC ignored. FOR two freaking months they sat on that facts. Oh until Sun came out. Thank you Sun for exposing the child exploiter and the corrupt media organization who extorts money from the public via licensing fees. You must not have any children. You should be ashamed of yourself for protecting a pedophile. Disgusting.
@@lucius4556 oh don’t get me wrong - what’s right and what’s legal don’t always align well - just in this case it doesn’t seem illegal but that doesn’t make it right.
I find it particularly confusing and unnerving, that they call this a scandal (correctly so) but are demanding that kids far younger than 17 are taught about all types of porn sites, that they can consent to adults touching them (the book "Consent" for kiddies), and all manner of other non-academic invasion of their psyche to create sexual obsession in them. But that's not a scandal putting all that in their minds so they'll be available for people like Huw?? The whole thing is twisted. It's about time schools, and TV, cleaned up their act.
@@xtroguyver Obviously not. If you reread it you will see that I'm co fused why they are calling it a scandal one minute and yet teaching kids it's all fine the next. The school system is overstepping the mark in order to promote thinking that encourages kids to be victims to people like this man. So they need to think about the mixed messages. They are not helpful are they?
@@Samua3 sounds like you are ranting nonsense there. School focus on teaching kids to not be idiots online not the other way around but you really don't sound like you have any clue what goes on in schools
Considering that children as young as 8 (& probably younger) are watching porn these days, you really don't want them to be educated about how unrealistic & damaging it can be? I'm in my 30s now & the sex education my school provided me with was heteronormative & focused only on reproduction. I wish that it had covered LGBTQIA+ relationships, porn & consent - maybe my teens & twenties wouldn't have involved so much sexual assault & unhappiness. I put up with so much pain because porn normalised it, & I'm not alone.
@@socialmoon ludicrous to think that feeding the mind on more would make it less. The biggest problem is that they don't teach abstinence as an option. They are not allowed to. Yet in an experiment in this they showed that it led to less unwanted babies, more successful and happier adults, and strangely less porn led to less crime. I think kids should be kids while they can. But no one cares about that anymore. Sad. So don't worry about some older guy asking for photos if you're teaching the kids to give more than that. Worry about the mental state of the kids who are not taught to respect their own bodies, to not respect the beautiful gender they were born as, to view puberty blockers as a path to happiness, to consent... Oh why bother. Deaf ears. Forget it.
I must admit, Graham Norton was one of my guesses. My other guess I don’t want to name, because I feel like I’d be betraying my admiration and respect for him and quite frankly he doesn’t deserve to even be considered
An adult on an adult legal sxx worker site (like OF etc) that is meant to be age verified (so not his fault if OF didn’t check) and the sxx worker uploaded their own self made content and added it onto the payment system and took the payment, isn’t any type of grooming or predatory behaviour. Unpleasant for his family but it was a fair swap. Millions of adults use adult content sites, many are married, and none of it is any of our business.
@@AlD180 Is that really actual fact or what’s just being said, with no proof yet? We’d need to see receipts on that to be sure. Andrew Tate and his brother do things like that, messaging young girls on Insta to lure them in, so I guess that’s possible. But if you’re on dating apps, then you’re looking for something, and it’s easy to ignore messages from a man you don’t want to meet. If it’s Grinddrr or such like, then the young guy is no naive innocent. It really is up to the site to be checking age. Paying for photos and such, I wonder if the young guys were doing that elsewhere, with others. It’s a common thing now, online sxx work, like OF, especially in the lockdown when people couldn’t work at all, it was how bills were getting paid. Just wondering if these guys were already offering it up first. Some straight guys will be ‘gay for pay’ online, as they know they won’t be meeting, it’s just photos and cam stuff. It’s all possible.
It's sad that the majority of replies I've read are angry at Huw and want him locked up, yet don't even mention how a national newspaper has printed stories that have destroyed lives without a care other than selling more copies. That rag lies for a living and the public just lap it up.
No one knew? Or no one was supposed to know? That's what I'd like to know 😄 Remember, it's the same BBC who did a full helicopter camera coverage of the raid on cliff Richard's property, sparing no privacy for that man.
Are you saying everyone on MSM is a pedophile? Ludicrous. And BBC is NOT at all the same as any American channels you mentioned. It’s a publicly funded national channel. You must be American. No clue. Not the same.
I'm sorry, he only has himself to blame and be angry at. What he did might not have been illegal, only just!, but it was morally wrong and arguably exploitative not to mention highly embarrassing to him and his family.
After watching this, he sounds innocent as fuck. Sounds to me his parents have said sexual images, to fuel the story and get some money from a paper. Almost like they saw the kick off over Phillip Schofield and thought they could use this situation to their advantage.
So if you were innocent of these abuses you'd run to rehab and let your wife and family face the music ? No chance , more than one accuser and photographic evidence, he's definitely immortal at least .
Anyone asked if he is in a private hospital under a paid for doctor on his own request ? Sexual,perversions are not a crime between two consenting adults but, didn’t Prince Andrew have his reputation ruined for having under age sex with a 17 year old in London ?
talk about burying the lead! The story as it stands here is "The Sun possibly defamed again" yet we go through 4 minutes stoking up the sexual "scandal".
@@moggpiano8043 so, what you’re saying is that if it isn’t criminal then it isn’t a crime? My moral stance on life must be higher than yours and Huw. At least his loving wife did the right thing and told the world about her dodgy, dirty HUSBAND and FATHER.
Anybody who watches legal porn is equally reprehensible. He or she is contributing financially to over 18 actors and actresses who are each someone's child.
As of the time of me posting this (things may change following the BBC's internal investigation) Based on the original alligations brought up by "the sun" newspaper - which was investigated by the London MET and South Wales Police, no criminal acts were committed (and no it's not because the age of consent in the UK is 16, as mentioned in the video having any illicit images of an individual younger than 18 is illegal in the UK - Juliet laws do not apply her). As the story written by "the sun" only took the comments if the 20yo's nother and step-father, whom the 20yo is currently estranged from plus the 20 year old's comments to the sun that no illegal activities were undertaken (a comment reinforced by the MET and SW police investigations) being ignored by publication this reads more like an attempt at a character assassination through selective "journalism" by the sun. Did Edwards pay the 20yo for pictures? Likely, however as no criminality was proven it's likely that the person in question may have been at least 18 at the time with the mother and step father either misleading the sun or their comments to the paper being delibaretley skewed. Was this a direct messaging to a known person by edwards or an onlyfans like situation? Who knows - all that's been mentioned are "innapropriate photos". As mentioned by another journalist this reads more like the sun delibaretley attacking the BBC (whom the sun's owner rupert Murdock dispises) by airing out a families personal dramas out into the public with a microphone under the guise of "public interest" but which may actually be a Trojan horse story - with further allegations about Edwards, and soon possibly other BBC presenters, coming out which may not have gained the same level of notice without the microphone provided by the sun story.
Im going to say something controvercial. A 17 year old, who is taking their clothes off online for money is making a bad decision. Most wouldnt be doing that because previous years online would have been under the supervision of a parent, until the parent allows the child to be quite autonomous, as the parent is paying, usually for the internet. On top of that, most people are taught stranger danger and most schools teach cyber security and about sharing photos online. Im going to put it out there, that most people offered money for photos are faced with a choice...do it, or not do it...connect with others, or not and this person made a choice at 17, while also happening to have a drug habit...another bad decision...!!! A 17 year old is old enough to pay tax, drive, work, complete high school, but at the same time...remain completely unable to make reasonable decisions on their own. I dont buy it. This news reader....is a little pervy, but at the same time...... why is this not a question about childrens security online. Who Else is responsible is what I am trying to say.
In the Box ticking world , they must ask even more questions including peoples' deviant proclivities. Any subsequent enquiry reveals dishonesty , instant dismissal just like Banking used to be.
At this point the police have not charged this man with any crime. Is this a case of guilty until proven innocent??? I thought it was the other way round
When the news about this broke, it took me 2 minutes to find out who it was. I thought most knew also. The amount of times you'd read "Huw is it?" as well in the comment sections. Why was people shocked? Still, Am very split about this story. But glad I dont buy the Sun or watch the BBC
Excellent encapsulation; The Sewage - sorry, The Sun - are the villains of this piece, as their recent back-tracking demonstrates. Yes, Huw Edwards has been a fool - but not a knave. Who can truly say that they have no (perfectly legal) skeleton in their private life cupboard that they would hate to become public knowledge? Prurient and salacious stories could be concocted about many of us - unless we are God’s cousin Alf.
One of the cornerstones of our very way of life , champion of all that is high and moraly right , it is Edwards own failure to distance himself from having anything to do with anything seedy like sending explicit photo's from a young teenager to a man in his sixties . is reprehansible and Edwards should be sacked immediately and never talk about moral issues ever again . The dirty old hypocrit .
Makes me laugh how because its Huw hes not done anything wrong yet with Philip Schofield everyone was going mad saying what wrong hed done! If you work for the bbc you can do what you want 😡
What is your take on this situation?
For more like this, check out
10 Times the Government Got Involved with TV Scandals
ua-cam.com/video/QSfgSQnPqGU/v-deo.html
Focus on Boris & the MPs who are being investigated for bullying & sexual misconduct
The sun newspaper lie
What do you expect from The Sun.. Just ask any person in Liverpool how they feel about it
Actually, to be perfectly honest anyone with a single shred of decency would be butting out of this matter.
His wife haz issued a statement saying that he has severe mental health problems and is currently in hospital receiving treatment.
The Met Police in London has also said that no offence has been committed, there's no crime to investigate.
He may or may not have done or said things which on another day would never have crossed his mind.
He's also apologised to his co-workers for not speaking up sooner.
Deep down I think that Huw Edwards is a very good and honourable man and the the things that he's supposed to have done or said are quite out of character but I am sure that when he is well enough he will issue a statement of his own and will be willing to answer any questions that require an answer.
A man who is dishonest about his sexuality and cheats on his partner and has probably been at it with rent boys. Deserves all the support he can get.
I am both a mental health patient and a mental health professional.
Nobody else gets to use their mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour.
This was a long term course of action, which he knew was wrong because he hid it. Guilt and shame are not mental illnesses.
What laws has he broken?
He seemed fine when he was presenting the news last week, was this self inflicted.
@@paulbird3235
One of the biggest triggers of "mental health episodes" is getting caught😃😃
He hasn't used mental illness as an excuse... his wife said he's suffered severe mental health issues as a result of this incident, which is understandable. Also he did nothing wrong.
That must be handy! You can treat yourself
As someone who has got depression, had issues with suicidal episodes and has anxiety, there is nothing that could justify criminality, no less involving a minor.
The person involved was not a minor nor was anything he did criminal
@@lindajackson4190 still abhorrent.
Huws well known in tv land just like schofield was. Just like Phil he would message strangers inappropriate comments. Schofield would snap chat with kids.
yup
One of the worse things that happened at the very start were other news companies heavily (and I say VERY heavily) were pointing their fingers at Graham Norton and Rylan Clark, more than any other presenter. I don't want to cry 'homophobia' but... it gets the brain gears whirling.
Wait wasn't it reported early on that it was a girl who was harassed 😮
I said the same.
@@suzawilono. There's been some confusion about the gender of the young person.
before a friend who worked for the bbc told me it was huw, i was saying at work "i think its graham norton". I like how graham didnt put out a "it aint me" message, he probably thought bugger this why should i have to?
@@jamiew1664 Why Graham Norton ? because he is gay ? I always thought it would be someone that people thought was above reproach, it usually is.
As someone with depression, you CANNOT use that as crutch to treat people bad, let alone commit crimes.
The worst my depression makes me do is order a shit ton of junk food, not solicit explicit material off a vulnerable person!
He didn't commit any crimes though
@@bertiewooles3093 possession of explicit images of a person under the age of 18 is a crime. He just hasn’t been found to be guilty as of yet.
No u can't I got depression I don't do shit like that but because he's in the hospital with depression he properly get a slap on the wrist
@@Dynexsil the junk food is relatable. I’ve never been diagnosed with depression, but just mentally feeling like crap after a long day has made feel lazy with basic stuff a lot more recently.
Let's be clear he has committed two crimes.
-Sending photos of under eighteens.
-Breaking rules of lockdown
3 crimes committed:
1st is 17 year old producing images of themselves for another to view.
2nd is Huw receiving and viewing the images.
3rd is Huw inciting the other to commit the 1st offence.
@@stevehaynes2857 So 4 then including breaking lockdown laws.
4 offences, yes. But the lockdown rules offence is not a crime it is just an offence - speeding, do don’t get photographed, fingerprinted or get a cro number for that. The first 3 can attract prison time.
@@stevehaynes2857 I thought the police were allowed to arrest people wandering about during lockdown without a reason.
Yes, they could arrest, but that doesn’t mean that the offence is a crime. Certain offences are crimes and others are not. So Boris could have been arrested and interviewed, but not fingerprinted and photographed. The offences involving the indecent images can carry 5 and 10 year imprisonment. Offences that tend to carry only fines are not crimed, if they were lots of decent people would be wandering around with cro numbers (criminal records office). I found this confusing when I joined the police all those years ago.
I always believed that Huw was a nice & approachable guy, and was deeply surprised by this revelation
I take it you know him personally with your comment?
Well he clearly is OK approaching others.
Me too. My old company hired him as a conference host for a couple of years and he seemed so personable and charming, just goes to show.
Whats changed ? Not a bad person for watching porn just human the sun screwed up and are now back trscking
@@jonathanpork-sausage617I shouldn't laugh...but your comment made me laugh loud enough to scare my cat 😹
You certainly can't judge a book by its cover !
Yes, like Bill Cosby, Rolf Harris etc.
His wife thinking she can cure gay and calling it depression is like something straight out the 1950's
I’m still suffering from mental health issues 60 years after being abused by a nonce. Mental health issues have nothing to do with child grooming. Just another Jimmy Savile cover up. Edwards sent and received indecent images of a juvenile under the age of 18 years of age. That is an offence. Why hasn’t all his devices been taken away by police and searched? Freemason written all over it.
Read all the comment. S must be all the bbc employees. Writing in. “ what did he do. It’s not a big deal. He is in hospital. Geez folks. Nice guy.
The shocker is who ISN'T a wrongun at the BBC.
Here we go again fucking hell 1 month after Philip Schofield
trial by media with no facts is all , philip got thrown to the wolves now this guy , any allegation nowadays is truth didnt u hear 🤣🤣🤣
Ah the elite and the ones who thought they were elite
If David Attenborough is ever found out to be a nonce I’ll probably jump off a cliff
Oh please god NO
And he’d do a documentary narrating you jumping off a cliff😂
@@Bickle121 that’s the stuff of nightmares
Omg that would ruin my love of documentaries. 😅 lol
He is a animal lover
The age at which young people can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can consent to sexual activity. The self-production by children of indecent images is an area of increasing concern in this age of poorly-regulated social media.
It is also an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 18, even if the photos were distributed after the person in them turned 18.
The police have said nothing illegal has happened
you are correct, but you also imply that the young person was a child when they sent images
the police have said this was NOT the case (but sure, jump on the pedotrain anyway), so the young person would have sent images consensually when they were 18 - this is NOT a crime (no matter how much you want it to be) and the labelling of Huw as a pedo is factually incorrect
18 is not a child, legally nothing wrong happened
(also how do you feel about the Sn page 3 girls, just to take a barometer? should their workers/writers/photographers be hunted for pedophilia? double standards at play maybe?)
Did the teenagers parents egg him on
@@NailahRoberts Who can ever rely on the cops.
@@koalaeinstein-y7r So is depravity.
Really hope this comes back to end the Sun for good
Agreed
That will never happen, remember who owns the Sun, Murdoch also has the British establishment bowing at his feet
Absolutely
@@cirons1960didn’t Murdoch also own the News of the World? Seem to recall that came to a sticky end under his control
@@cirons1960 people need to make more noise just as they did with News of the World back in 2011. The more persistence, the more hits it’ll start getting affected by
His wife and children must be devastated.
Yup. wow man
Who cares
She must have known
@@michellebacchus9845how?
The wife likely knew all along
I appreciate the summarisation of this, it’s so hard to keep up with all the chatter about this. I just wanted the facts about it to know where I stand on it.
That you will never properly know as Huw has a lot of media friends and even on GB News! That’s saying something . Had he been an MP there would have been a call for his resignation whether or not a crime has been committed. In Huw’s case it becomes a private matter - and only a tumble from grace!
You won’t get facts as this is left leaning nonsense channel. Woke AF channel that got no shame.
Say you have a mental problem. That will get you off. Even if you are a pervert.
Just sack the waste of space. He does not have mental health issues the bbc are just using it so he can go back to work in a few weeks
NO.
@@op-xv3ui YES!
The fact is that back in 2021 he opened up about bouts of depression he has been suffering since 2002 in a Welsh documentary. He isn't suddenly making them up because he has been accused of something.
@Gmackematix don't believe him it's just excuses to get out of it. With the amount of idiots that use mental health as the reason for everything is pathetic, just like you and anyone else who stands for this pathetic piece of scum, reminds me of Prince Andrew
I hope he gets sacked. Phillip Schofield got sacked, so tbf Huw should too.
My dad was right.he said it was huw edwards when this story first came out. I thought it was guna be a bigger name tbh
Bigger than the Number 1 news presenter for the BBC?
Bigger?
There is noone bigger.
Yh that’s a good point actually, just Ignore my comment lol. I just meant more of a household name cos someone told me that it was Jeremy clarkson lol, so I expected it to be a presenter like that, just more well known and a more familiar face. I didn’t Believe for a second that it was Jeremy clarkson though, I no he’s got a reputation for being an arrogant bastard but I didn’t think he would be capable of this type of scandal x
@@alexcoupe. good point lol x
@@theblitz9 good point lol x
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong, but the Sun still isn't sold in Liverpool. To this day. Their track record Mirrors the News of the World. What's referred to as the British press is simply yellow journalism. However, the Beeb can kiss the license fees goodbye and figure out how to jockey amongst much faster horses. If they didn't misstep and cover for the upper class, a la Saville, they'd have no purpose at all...other than pay Lineker et al.
It's sold in some places but very few people will purchase it. The S*n us considered a swearword here.
I do hope the Sun gets shut down - I mean look what it did to Hillsborough all those years ago, it should have been shut down then! I've always hated them for that!
I've been depressed in the past but never felt the need to pay £35,000 for dirty pictures of teenage boys. Oh well.
He could have more cheaply spent his time in the Renaissance rooms at the National or the British museums!
who ever said it was male?
What’s even worse is that he didn’t offer me £35 grand!
IMO Mr Edwards didn't pay the young person 35K for the explicit images. If, as stated the young person used it to pay for drugs then it's more likely Mr Edwards paid gradual amounts up to 35K for that person's silence. Otherwise known as blackmail.
@@TheLadyfocus Now that is illegal! Not sure the Courts will see it that way given the age difference, the vulnerability of the boy ( most likely he has mental health issues ) and the routine payments or what, let’s face it, was a pathetic amount!
So he didnt break any laws.....was he groomed by the teenager? Or blackmailed? ...wow thats a huge amount of money?
Under UK law it's an offence to send/receive explicit pictures with someone under the age of 18
@@jasonjames6870 so basically he did nothing wrong in real life 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The Met Police have pored over all the evidence and concluded that there is no criminality whatsoever, from anyone allegedly involved. There was a suspicion that Huw was perhaps being blackmailed by one of the others. That doesn't appear to be the case.
Huw appears to have been using Grindr and quite likely something else paid such as OnlyFans or a specific gay equivalent. The age of consent is 16, but you do need to be 18 to appear in or share pornographic images.
What Huw appears to have done is pretty sordid, pretty grubby, hugely embarrassing, quite probably career and marriage ending... but absolutely not illegal.
Have you two had a serious bang on the head or something
@MAl-eo2cx Where is the evidence that the money was sent? If it was there would be evidence and the police could step in and investigate. However, there is no evidence.
One needs to take a step back before rushing to a judgment or draw conclusions. Anyone will be affected mentally when these sort of allegations are made publicly. Every one should hold their tongue until all investigations are completed.
I don’t like Andrew Tate but the bbc haven’t giving shit about his mental health. Hypocrisy at its finest lol
Bollocks. He’s been at it for years, the rumours about him have going around for ages!!! Which particular bubble have you been living in??🤮🤮
I will rush to judgement when it involves the sh*trag that's The S*n. I don't know if Huw broke the law or not, but if the police cannot find enough to say he did, then The S*n certainly didn't have enough to run with thar story. Nobody should believe a word printed by that rag.
As someone at the age of 56 yrs old who has suffered from depression from my early 20's I can understand the hole that draws you into an abyss of deep n dark thoughts n self harm.
But to harm ,manipulate, abuse others to your own satisfaction is something I have never done.
Shame on the BBC n all those that support such deviant behaviour swathed under the a mental health issue. Abuse and deviences cannot all be blamed on mental health. Joe blogs would not get away with such disgusting behaviour and as such I call for all privileged individuals be named ,shamed and treated as any member of society would be. Fame and money is not a rite of passage to anonymity or prosecution.
Well said! 👏👏👏👏
He was the man who announced the Queen’s death. There’s just no accountability anymore 😢
bet he is edited out.
People ragging on Huw while forgetting that this was started by the Sun, who literally make their name lying to people.
But was this true though? It’s like you would trust Epstein despite the evidence just because the story originally came from Alex Jones. Don’t be a moron.
Indeed. I'm no fan of Huw or the BBC but The S*n is an absolute sh*trag and should be held to account for their actions. Why anyone still believes a single thing they print I have no idea.
The wife's response LOOKS like admission of guilt and trying to get ahead of the narrative.
Also LOOKS like trying to gain sympathy by having the wife make the announcement...couple that with the mental health and hospital angle.
If one is innocent,why not come out like the other reporters and say it's not you or that it's all lies??
Should be sacked
Innocent until proven guilty. That’s how it works.
Worked for Savile too, great having corrupt police when you're rich.
Well, yeah.
Unless you're a Tory MP, in which case you eat babies and need to be jailed immediately
How it's supposed to work...
it's still not appropriate when he is on 6 fig salary.
Innocent until proven guilty is silly, because that does not always work. For example, OJ Simpson was found to be not guilty at his trial of murder, but most sensible people know that the evidence says that OJ Simpson is 100 percent guilty of murdering those two people. Also, there are people who are found to be guilty in court who later turn out to be innocent due to new DNA evidence that exonerates them. So the courts don't always get the correct verdicts. You should not always trust what the courts say. Sometimes the courts get the correct verdicts, sometimes they don't.
You have got to be quite happy that The Sun isn't running British courts.
My understanding is that a person must be 18 years of age and over for someone to receive dirty pics from especially if the pay for them. So, as far as I'm concerned, Edwards is guilty and should be locked up.
If he put his own pictures for sale on an adult site it is perfectly reasonable to believe the person is over 18. How many men do the same for female pictures ?
I HATE the sun propaganda and lies rag!FCOL the Sun paid Samantha Fox to leave school at the age of16 to be their page 3 girl - bare tits and ALL!! Oh the hypocrisy😅 Anyone who works for the Sun and anyone who buys it are sick human beings.
Did he know he was under 18? Is there any proof that he was under 18 at the time? Is there any proof to the claims that he did pay for these pictures?
You shouldn't rush to judgement if you don't know all the facts.
This is why we have police investigations, trials, judges and a jury. And so far this has gone as far as the police who said no laws have been broken. How can you possibly know more than they do?
The only true victims in this whole sordid affair are his wife and children. Being married to a bisexual leading a double life, that must be so humiliating for them.
True.
We'll see soon enough.
What makes you think he’s Bi?
Don't think he is Bi - he paid a 17 year old girl, not a boy.
@@macstyle2012 What makes you say it was a girl?
@@closethedoornow7538 because that is what was reported, the mum of a 17 year old girl made the complaint.
Depression ??????? OH ! That Old Chestnut, works everytime. Does,nt it Huw ?
Leave the Huw alone!!!
I mean, who's Huw hurt ??
Focus on people who cause harm in this world not people who display human tendencies that cause no harm.
SIMPLE
If he hasn't done anything wrong - what's all the fuss about? Oh! All the fuss is because he's been dong stuff most people think is wrong.
How would you feel if your dad had paid for pictures of 17 year old boy. Would you wonder what else was going on......? Would you be upset, would you feel a breach of trust.
Huw Edwards, as a newsreader, the National newsreader, has established a relationship of trust with millions of people. But he is not what he seems, and many people quite rightly feel a breach of trust. Many people, including me, are disturbed (or even a level of revulsion) by suposedly mature people exploiting young people, even if the young person voluntarily participates at the time. Ofter young people, get caught up in sex exploits, and later regret their actions.
It is wrong he has committed multiple crimes sending indecent images of children & breaking the rules of lockdown by going to another city when that was made clear to all that was not allowed. During a time where people could not see ill relatives in hospital etc.
@@r4h4alou know more than the police then, uh? How does it feel to be all knowing, judge and jury?
Why do people trust the sun?
The abused teens mother went to the police and the BBC - nothing
So she tried the Sun
We don't.
But we trust the BBC even less.
He's obviously batting for both teams.
Wales and England.
Not obvious. Could just be gay & married like Phil Schofield.
@@thejoin4687 👍😂
@@r4h4alyeah, that’s batting for both sides bro
@@s0n0n35 No he wasn't, he came out as gay.
And there's me thinking it was mr blobby
Mr. Blobby's time will come. He always was a creepy fucker.
Operation Yewtree are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the warrant.
I,m not condoning what Huw Edwards did if it's proven true but how much did the Sun pay for explicit photos of Sam Fox page 3 ? She was only Sixteen wasn't she ? Explicit meaning,Containing overt sexual material (e.g. language or pictures) that might be deemed offensive.
Unfortunately the law was different back then. The age threshold of 18 was introduced in 2003 when sexual offence laws were overhauled.
Before 2003, gay men had a higher age of consent than straight couples (18 instead of 16). Gay group sex was illegal, as was anal sex between two people of opposite gender. Yes, that's right - a straight man consensually taking his girlfriend up the arse was technically a crime.
Huw Edwards has had mental health issues in the past, so those who say he doesn’t are wrong. He has publicly stated his depression he has suffered has been debilitating . Also the police have said there are no criminal charges against huw Edwards. What Mr Edwards can possibly be accused of is a terrible lack of judgment. Unfortunately mental health issues can lead us into situations where we can’t get out of. Being famous doesn’t preclude any one person from being perfect. No one is perfect. We can just listen without judgement to each of the stories that are presented here.
thank god... somebody with common sense. Yes he has made poor choices but he has done nothing wrong. There are thousands of people out there famous or otherwise who will have done similar or worse.
@@elizabethrobertson2045he's a man married with children you wet wipe. Dirty pervert who likes young even if barley over the legal age. You fucking lefties would probably stick up for Saville if he was alive
Oh please playing victim while seven people now came forward and more to come probably. They haven’t cleared him of criminal charges yet. Ridiculous.
Anybody who watches legal porn is equally reprehensible. He or she is contributing financially to over 18 actors and actresses who are each someone's child.
@@elizabethrobertson2045Threatening people who refuse to meet up with you is wrong.
A grey area that has amplified this controversy is that in the UK it is possible and legal to have sexual relationships with people at ages of 16+ while technically adulthood in the UK is seen to be 18+. From the very start the mother of the teenager involved have hammered down on the word "child". The celebrity did this or that with their "child", that their child did this or that in response. All the while this "child" was technically able to have sexual relations with whoever they wanted that was 16+. The teenager is apparently happy with their relationship. The celebrity is seemingly satisfied with their relationship and nothing illegal has happened. Move on.
Join the depraved perverts club then if you think it’s acceptable behaviour by a 61 yr old man.
Yeah a powerful 61 year old man grooming the 17 year old boy and funding his drug habits. Are you nuts? So wrong on so many levels what he was doing. When the boys mother went to BBC for Huw to stop funding her son of drug habits by buying sexually explicit photos for £35000, BBC ignored. FOR two freaking months they sat on that facts. Oh until Sun came out. Thank you Sun for exposing the child exploiter and the corrupt media organization who extorts money from the public via licensing fees. You must not have any children. You should be ashamed of yourself for protecting a pedophile. Disgusting.
@bewlaybrother4460 🤮
Wow are you a spin Doctor for Huw, its wrong on so many levels !
@@lucius4556 oh don’t get me wrong - what’s right and what’s legal don’t always align well - just in this case it doesn’t seem illegal but that doesn’t make it right.
I feel fir people with true depression, but it is an out and a poor excuse for wrong doings
I find it particularly confusing and unnerving, that they call this a scandal (correctly so) but are demanding that kids far younger than 17 are taught about all types of porn sites, that they can consent to adults touching them (the book "Consent" for kiddies), and all manner of other non-academic invasion of their psyche to create sexual obsession in them. But that's not a scandal putting all that in their minds so they'll be available for people like Huw?? The whole thing is twisted. It's about time schools, and TV, cleaned up their act.
So let me get this right you are blaming sex Ed and online safety for this
@@xtroguyver Obviously not. If you reread it you will see that I'm co fused why they are calling it a scandal one minute and yet teaching kids it's all fine the next. The school system is overstepping the mark in order to promote thinking that encourages kids to be victims to people like this man. So they need to think about the mixed messages. They are not helpful are they?
@@Samua3 sounds like you are ranting nonsense there. School focus on teaching kids to not be idiots online not the other way around but you really don't sound like you have any clue what goes on in schools
Considering that children as young as 8 (& probably younger) are watching porn these days, you really don't want them to be educated about how unrealistic & damaging it can be? I'm in my 30s now & the sex education my school provided me with was heteronormative & focused only on reproduction. I wish that it had covered LGBTQIA+ relationships, porn & consent - maybe my teens & twenties wouldn't have involved so much sexual assault & unhappiness. I put up with so much pain because porn normalised it, & I'm not alone.
@@socialmoon ludicrous to think that feeding the mind on more would make it less. The biggest problem is that they don't teach abstinence as an option. They are not allowed to. Yet in an experiment in this they showed that it led to less unwanted babies, more successful and happier adults, and strangely less porn led to less crime.
I think kids should be kids while they can. But no one cares about that anymore. Sad. So don't worry about some older guy asking for photos if you're teaching the kids to give more than that. Worry about the mental state of the kids who are not taught to respect their own bodies, to not respect the beautiful gender they were born as, to view puberty blockers as a path to happiness, to consent...
Oh why bother. Deaf ears.
Forget it.
iam shocked that huw edwards the best news reporter on bbc
It was really obvious.
Maybe the pics were of feet or something benign? Thats why the police aren't going after him? If they were explicit they'd have arrested him by now.
Very true
I thought we didn’t know if it was a girl or boy, so that bit is news to me.
No one is talking about this story, apart from Media.
I’m just glad the previously unnamed BBC presenter wasn’t Graham Norton. Otherwise, my whole world would’ve gone crashing down.
I must admit, Graham Norton was one of my guesses. My other guess I don’t want to name, because I feel like I’d be betraying my admiration and respect for him and quite frankly he doesn’t deserve to even be considered
I knew it was hew edwards as I read it on Google very days back but BBC radio Merseyside refused to say his name at first
@@JayJay-ib6cr aw you read it on Google did you? Clown, that’s never a source. You’re talking out your backside.
I’m glad it wasn’t David Attenborough.
Knew it wasn't Graham because although he appears on BBC he's not a BBC employee and they said it was a BBC employee
As a married man getting sexual with some guys in their early 20s is a bit messed up but it's definitely not illegal
It is in normal countries
@@F80.M3 how? The age of consent in most countries is at most 18
An adult on an adult legal sxx worker site (like OF etc) that is meant to be age verified (so not his fault if OF didn’t check) and the sxx worker uploaded their own self made content and added it onto the payment system and took the payment, isn’t any type of grooming or predatory behaviour. Unpleasant for his family but it was a fair swap. Millions of adults use adult content sites, many are married, and none of it is any of our business.
@@AlD180 So?
@@AlD180 Is that really actual fact or what’s just being said, with no proof yet? We’d need to see receipts on that to be sure. Andrew Tate and his brother do things like that, messaging young girls on Insta to lure them in, so I guess that’s possible.
But if you’re on dating apps, then you’re looking for something, and it’s easy to ignore messages from a man you don’t want to meet. If it’s Grinddrr or such like, then the young guy is no naive innocent. It really is up to the site to be checking age. Paying for photos and such, I wonder if the young guys were doing that elsewhere, with others. It’s a common thing now, online sxx work, like OF, especially in the lockdown when people couldn’t work at all, it was how bills were getting paid. Just wondering if these guys were already offering it up first. Some straight guys will be ‘gay for pay’ online, as they know they won’t be meeting, it’s just photos and cam stuff. It’s all possible.
It's sad that the majority of replies I've read are angry at Huw and want him locked up, yet don't even mention how a national newspaper has printed stories that have destroyed lives without a care other than selling more copies. That rag lies for a living and the public just lap it up.
At least he won't have to present the news about his own scandal 🤷♂️
I doubt if he’s only just started his behaviour, could be the tip of the iceberg
Could be 100's of victims, drawing a parallel to Savile.
@@r4h4al exactly but the police aren’t looking
He obviously didn't just start this behaviour, he has obviously been doing this for decades.
Breaking Huws
Clever 😂
No one knew? Or no one was supposed to know? That's what I'd like to know 😄
Remember, it's the same BBC who did a full helicopter camera coverage of the raid on cliff Richard's property, sparing no privacy for that man.
What did he do?
He did what everyone in the upper levels of BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and TYT does. They all do it.
Are you saying everyone on MSM is a pedophile? Ludicrous. And BBC is NOT at all the same as any American channels you mentioned. It’s a publicly funded national channel. You must be American. No clue. Not the same.
On this we can agree, but others seem to be better at keeping it under wraps
I'm sorry, he only has himself to blame and be angry at. What he did might not have been illegal, only just!, but it was morally wrong and arguably exploitative not to mention highly embarrassing to him and his family.
It was illegal. He also broke the rules of lockdown which was illegal.
Sir Norman Fry: 'I was off to see my tie maker, when....''
For a bit of light relief check out:
Does Huw Edwards Use the 'Evil Eye' on his Work Colleagues? on Would I Lie to You
After watching this, he sounds innocent as fuck.
Sounds to me his parents have said sexual images, to fuel the story and get some money from a paper.
Almost like they saw the kick off over Phillip Schofield and thought they could use this situation to their advantage.
THere is quite a lot not adding up. That's for sure.
So if you were innocent of these abuses you'd run to rehab and let your wife and family face the music ? No chance , more than one accuser and photographic evidence, he's definitely immortal at least .
Until he issues a denial, I'm gonna assume he's as GUILTY as fuck.
this is correct coverage of this event
Doesn't he know onlyfans is a lot cheaper
fetlife is the best one.
that is one expensive kid, holy shit!😂😂😂
If he has not broken any laws………. Then truly his only crime is cheating on his wife !!!!!! Is your private life not private??????
Are we now saying that mental health people are immoral? What nonsense is that.
Using that Jimmy Savile mating call paid off nicely 😉
Uhuhuhuhuhuhuh now then, now then !
Anyone asked if he is in a private hospital under a paid for doctor on his own request ?
Sexual,perversions are not a crime between two consenting adults but, didn’t Prince Andrew have his reputation ruined for having under age sex with a 17 year old in London ?
talk about burying the lead! The story as it stands here is "The Sun possibly defamed again" yet we go through 4 minutes stoking up the sexual "scandal".
I’ve been suffering from depression since the coof plandemic. Not once did I feel the need to pay a young person for naked pictures.
And rightly, you have not been charged or convicted of such actctivity. Nor has Edwards.
@@moggpiano8043 so, what you’re saying is that if it isn’t criminal then it isn’t a crime? My moral stance on life must be higher than yours and Huw. At least his loving wife did the right thing and told the world about her dodgy, dirty HUSBAND and FATHER.
@@pampennyworth she didn't have much choice.
"Flimsy at best, and nonexistent at most" - does anyone proof read the scripts?
Anybody who watches legal porn is equally reprehensible. He or she is contributing financially to over 18 actors and actresses who are each someone's child.
£35K. That's more than I have to live on over 3 YEARS !!
Become a news reader then and stop moaning
Lmao has he heard of only fans why pay £35k for nudes
I’m straight but I would send anything for 35 k
@@Bickle121😂😂😂😝
so your jealous ? 🤣🤣🤣lets tear someone day because we are jealous 🤣🤣🤣
The explanation for this is that this story is intended to distract attention away from George Osborne's wedding email.
I was deeply shocked about it
I've seen some people say he's done nothing wrong? Is that true I don't know what to belive
Probably because age of consent in the UK is 16 but that shouldn’t matter.
Only if you're fine with a closeted married cheat chasing teen boys.
As of the time of me posting this (things may change following the BBC's internal investigation) Based on the original alligations brought up by "the sun" newspaper - which was investigated by the London MET and South Wales Police, no criminal acts were committed (and no it's not because the age of consent in the UK is 16, as mentioned in the video having any illicit images of an individual younger than 18 is illegal in the UK - Juliet laws do not apply her). As the story written by "the sun" only took the comments if the 20yo's nother and step-father, whom the 20yo is currently estranged from plus the 20 year old's comments to the sun that no illegal activities were undertaken (a comment reinforced by the MET and SW police investigations) being ignored by publication this reads more like an attempt at a character assassination through selective "journalism" by the sun. Did Edwards pay the 20yo for pictures? Likely, however as no criminality was proven it's likely that the person in question may have been at least 18 at the time with the mother and step father either misleading the sun or their comments to the paper being delibaretley skewed. Was this a direct messaging to a known person by edwards or an onlyfans like situation? Who knows - all that's been mentioned are "innapropriate photos".
As mentioned by another journalist this reads more like the sun delibaretley attacking the BBC (whom the sun's owner rupert Murdock dispises) by airing out a families personal dramas out into the public with a microphone under the guise of "public interest" but which may actually be a Trojan horse story - with further allegations about Edwards, and soon possibly other BBC presenters, coming out which may not have gained the same level of notice without the microphone provided by the sun story.
@@depreseoHuw Edwards bought sexual images of a boy under 18 so yeah he has done something illegal
He allegedly gave money to an adult to send him d*ck pics. I'm not sure that's illegal. The police investigated and appear to agree at the moment
We took down Boris so taking down a journalist is fair play.
Im going to say something controvercial.
A 17 year old, who is taking their clothes off online for money is making a bad decision.
Most wouldnt be doing that because previous years online would have been under the supervision of a parent, until the parent allows the child to be quite autonomous, as the parent is paying, usually for the internet.
On top of that, most people are taught stranger danger and most schools teach cyber security and about sharing photos online.
Im going to put it out there, that most people offered money for photos are faced with a choice...do it, or not do it...connect with others, or not and this person made a choice at 17, while also happening to have a drug habit...another bad decision...!!! A 17 year old is old enough to pay tax, drive, work, complete high school, but at the same time...remain completely unable to make reasonable decisions on their own.
I dont buy it.
This news reader....is a little pervy, but at the same time...... why is this not a question about childrens security online. Who Else is responsible is what I am trying to say.
Really dont want to believe this but in the back of my mind where theres smoke theres fire
Another pampered entitled privileged MAN commits crime and plays the victim. End of story
In the Box ticking world , they must ask even more questions including peoples' deviant proclivities. Any subsequent enquiry reveals dishonesty , instant dismissal just like Banking used to be.
"What did Huw do"? He let down the Welsh people.
Every company has problems
At this point the police have not charged this man with any crime. Is this a case of guilty until proven innocent??? I thought it was the other way round
Never sure why he was in the top position at BBC. BBC needs to clean out all top people very soon
They were sent to him. He himself has done nothing wrong. Innocent until proven guilty.
When the news about this broke, it took me 2 minutes to find out who it was. I thought most knew also. The amount of times you'd read "Huw is it?" as well in the comment sections. Why was people shocked? Still, Am very split about this story. But glad I dont buy the Sun or watch the BBC
For once own up ,tell the truth instead of hiding, nothing wrong with him till found out.
What's he done wrong?
@@joshuaparrott2458 read the news, if you can read
Jimmy Savile Lite.
He used our TV license money to feed his disgusting obsession.
Youd think after Jimmy Saville the BBC would have learnt.
Excellent encapsulation; The Sewage - sorry, The Sun - are the villains of this piece, as their recent back-tracking demonstrates. Yes, Huw Edwards has been a fool - but not a knave. Who can truly say that they have no (perfectly legal) skeleton in their private life cupboard that they would hate to become public knowledge? Prurient and salacious stories could be concocted about many of us - unless we are God’s cousin Alf.
I still dont get it
Did or didnt Huw Edwards admit to these allegations of requesting sexually explicit images of a teenager?
One of the cornerstones of our very way of life , champion of all that is high and moraly right , it is Edwards own failure to distance himself from having anything to do with anything seedy like sending explicit photo's from a young teenager to a man in his sixties . is reprehansible and Edwards should be sacked immediately and never talk about moral issues ever again . The dirty old hypocrit .
Well....
yeah... this definitely needs an update.
Makes me laugh how because its Huw hes not done anything wrong yet with Philip Schofield everyone was going mad saying what wrong hed done! If you work for the bbc you can do what you want 😡
His wife must be pissed off.
Probably as creepy as him.
I never heard of Huw Edwards until now.
Have you been living under a rock all this time? He was the guy who read the news when the queen passed away. Get with it.
Has he broken the law? Err..no...so what is all the fuss about?
Who'd of thought
I'm depressed and I don't use it as an excuse
Rupert M is the villain of the peace.
Gutted it wasn't Vine that would have been awesome.
If he’s getting paid £35k to send photos Ofc he’s gonna shut up 🤣💀
It’s mad how these big companies are riddled with pedos