Fao Bbc Presenter Paying £35k For Photos

Vaguely serious point here but at what point do the BBC's responsibilities as an employer trump their need to salaciously speculate about this story in their news coverage?

I (like I'm sure many on here) have had to deal with people in various stages of performance measures or suffering personal issues before as a manager and if I hear others openly speculating about it I naturally tell them that's not appropriate. HR would be climbing the walls if that happened. Yet here we've got some journo, a colleague of his, sitting Huw's old desk literally saying 'Will he come back? We don't know...'

 

But has that even happened? The alleged victim says not. The police say no evidence of a crime and the Sun are focusing on other strands to fan the embers of the story.

 

This has smackering's of Lady Isobel Barnet stealing a can of tuna and a carton of cream worth 87p from her village grocer! a desperate cry for help! Poor chap lets hope he gets the help he requires and can live the rest of his live in peace!

 

This whole affair has echoes of another famous BBC TV Presenter being completely steam-rollered by a News International Rag.

 

Good job his surname isn’t Lewis, then he would have been:-

Huey Lewis and the News!

 

Beeb can't win either way. Cover it and they get criticised for openly piling on a current employee, don"t cover it and they get accused of covering it up.

 

Better still - imagine it was him, coke, a weatherman and purveyors of 'unnatural' sexual acts:

Hooty Fish and the Blowers.

 

I think it's even better that it's not Janus.

 

I take the point about what we do or do not know.

But assuming the original story is at least partially correct: it’s not just looking at porn, is it? That is what the “fairly average U.K. bloke” does.

 

Not quite the same but not that different either.

Most porn (unless you are into what Wayne Rooney likes) involves young people of around 18 to 30. They are consenting (hopefully) to have sexual images taken of them that men (and some women) of all ages will "get off" on.

All of them will have parents. Many of whom will not approve of what they do. And the proceeds of their "profession" will be used on everything and anything, including drug addictions.

The difference for me is the threats and abuse that were allegedly used against the young people and his colleagues. That should be enough for him to lose his job if true

 

If the original story is correct, it’s clearly not average as blokes in the UK don’t usually pay £35k for their titillation. I agree that all seems a bit rum (and if true entirely, then unacceptable), but the fact that it’s flatly denied by the alleged ‘victim’ puts a bit of a hole in that.

As for using other cam services being usual or not, there seem to be quite a lot of them and someone is using them.

 

I wasn’t referring to the cam services, I was referring to the payment to a particular individual.

To echo your point, we don’t know whether the denial is true either. It’s certainly plausible that what was originally reported took place, but that the “young person” (a) consented and (b) was over 18 at the time, in which case no offence has been committed.

If that is the case (Absolutely - IF), then I am not sure I agree with Sydney that it’s morally equivalent to using porn sites, even at a fee, because of the specific and presumably ongoing “relationship” with a particular individual which raises the prospect of exploitation.

Which is why, IF true, I feel the same way as @Halfwayline and would do so even if the child was over 18 (albeit acknowledging that I could do nothing about it). And that’s so even though I have no kids of my own.

 

That’s a difficult and complex point. I suppose the BBC not reporting it would simply become another story to fan the flames. It’s not a business like any other and there are benefits and overheads of that. It’s not as if Edwards has never broadcast anything salacious or uncomfortable about anyone else to the nation.

The story should simply have been he’s accused, denies it, is suspended and then we wait for the outcome. However, the BBC could not name him because of the health issues but the press and Government were never going to let it go. That is, in itself, a story.

I do look at the News these days all round and think, what is this week’s bs going to be? That’s the culture war effect.

 

It is a moral dilemma. You could argue though that paying someone directly for sexual images is less exploitative than porn, after all you are cutting out the "middle men".

After the producer of the porn and distributers have taken their "cut" how much does the young person get? And once the images have been sold to anonymous consumers how easy it for the young person to retain control of their distribution?

I do agree that the relationship could have developed into something more and could have become exploitative though. Having said that, as I understand it, they were on dating sites so were looking for a relationship and must have responded to Huw's advances.

 

I do agree that the behaviour, as described, is wrong and exploitative. I’d be angry too in those circumstances. I’m just very wary of people airing revenge fantasy when we don’t know the facts. Prove it all, that’s a different story and the opprobrium would be merited.

 

True.

Ultimately, if there is no breach of the law, then we are dealing in morals. And people have different moral positions. Several of us don’t think much is wrong, I’m just explaining that I feel differently and that I don’t buy the “average U.K. bloke” claim.

 

Agreed.

Just to add that “opprobrium” isn’t really accurate to describe my position - though clearly it is true of many out there - it’s more “discomfiture”.

 

Jesus...

 

Yes, discomfiture would be a good description of how I feel about what went on and how it's been handled by all the "players" involved.

 

I just had a bet with Mrs Moose that I would use it online today.

 

If social media is any guide, before Huw was outed as the mystery perv, most people were delighted by the prospect of the impending humiliation and downfall of every BBC presenter whose name was (wrongly as it turns out) linked with the Sun’s story.

So, I think one of the issues the BBC will have to address in the post-mortem of this affair is why it employs so many awful presenters who generate such feelings of loathing among the viewing public

 

The other 20 BBC broadcaster offenders simply haven't been uncovered yet.
#One it watch

 

No, most people like or have fairly neutral feelings about most of them. Presenters like Vine, Campbell, Norton etc are very popular. The salaries make some wince, fair enough.

So it’s a question for you and your political bedfellows. You know exactly why it is open season on the BBC, who is doing it and what their reasons are. At the moment, active conservatives seem very keen to play along, but you only represent yourselves in this.

 

I agree with @Lloyd. Let's start with Victoria Coren-Mitchell.

 

Behind Sandy Toksvig and Alan Davies in the queue surely?

 

The most critical comments on the BBC's performance throughout this farce that I've heard were made by your very own Rachel Reeves

 

I'd agree Sandy T certainly but be careful, you will upset @wfcmoog ....

 

I like Sandy Toksvig leave her alone

 

Not for me m8.

 

That’s the point. People have different tastes and they are catered for across the output.

I don’t like Mrs Brown’s Boys. I’d rather stick lit matches up my fingernails than watch it. But so what? Others do. Not a majority of people but it’s not an election.

I find the intolerance from people towards what I don’t like really ******* irritating. Dislike it for sure, but you don’t get to ban it.

 

And on that basis alone you can confidently dismiss them as having limited value.

 

I met one person, just the one, who liked that program. He was quite old.

 

Not keen on Reeves, Comrade?

 

Not massively, but she’s got an election to win, so everything she says is designed to appease Murdoch.

 

It's quite interesting that although nobody buys a newspaper anymore the Sun still has the ability to set the news agenda for a week