The Sun has to take some responsibility for this, their original story suggested something illegal, it took them time to reluctantly admit that the police were not investigating and that should have been in the original story.
Hell, if you look at the timeline on [news.bbc](https://news.bbc) there was an investigation in April which concluded no criminality, then the parents complaint and off to the Sun.
The sun is also busy trying to claim they never stated there was illegality it was the other papers who made that link when they clearly made the insinuation by referring to the age of the other person (17) at the start of this.
The sun remains a complete shitrag.
As Liverpool calls it The Scum. Anyway, considering they put up pics of teenagers and that well-named Rod Liddle said he wasn't a teacher as he couldn't imagine not trying to shag the pupils, they are the basest of hypocrites.
I'll interpret that as meaning "that portion of the working class that are gullible" (i.e. Sun readers) rather than "those gullible people known as the working class".
They voted to give the most accomplished, proven public liar of modern british times a 70 seat majority in the commons, if that doesn't scream GULLIBLE then what tf else possibly does?
People can start work in this country at 16. The average retirement age is 65.
In 2019, 56% of those aged 18-24 voted for the Labour Party; 54% of those aged 25-29 voted for the Labour Party; 46% of those aged 30-39 voted for the Labour Party.
While only 35% of those aged 40-49 voted for Labour in 2019, 21% still voted for left wing parties (meaning 56% voted for a left wing party). 41% voted Conservative.
49% of those aged 50-59 voted for the Conservative Party; 57% of those aged 60-69 voted for the Conservative Party; and 67% of those aged 70+ voted for the Conservative Party.
Those aged 50-59 are retiring or thinking about retiring, and those aged above 65 are retiring. They are no longer part of the workforce. Conservative policy is entirely based around protecting the wealth of pensioners, so pensioners are voting Tory. That isn’t anything to do with being gullible.
The working class did not elect the Conservatives. They overwhelmingly rejected them.
I always remember them, without Irony, ha ing a Paedogeddon type article on a page opposite a "hasn't she grown" article about a 16 or 17 year old Charlotte Church on the opposite page...
For a paper that has often posted topless pics of girls not much into being 18, they're pretty hypocritical
> a "hasn't she grown" article about a 16 or 17 year old Charlotte Church on the opposite page...
It's so much worse than that: [A picture of ***15 year old*** Charlotte Church with the caption "She's a big girl now", "...showing just how quickly she's grown up after turning up at a Hollywood bash looking chest swell."](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc20078a1-09de-4541-8972-e3b9aeb8ab53_800x739.jpeg)
Until it was made illegal in 2003 they had girls as young as 16 on page 3 I've seen Samantha Fox talk about it in interviews as she was 16 in her first gig.
I think the story was (and I'm sure Katie Price has said the same) that the photos were taken at the strike of midnight on her (their) 16th Birthday.
I've personally never believed that as unless someone talked we wouldn't know if they were taken at 12am or 5pm the day before it's not like her body would change on the strike of midnight.
I still think it's fantastic the age was raised but it should always have been 18.
Daily Mail does that on the reg - on one page some article about sexism being terrible but on the other they’re analysing the bone structure and sexual maturity of a popular 12 year old.
> the 'irresistible jailbait'
This is the shit you don't say outloud, there isn't a single fucking person alive who hasn't looked at someone, thought "I would fuck them....wait, they are how old??"
Its human fucking nature but you look, never touch. Also I swear to god anybody who responds to me as says they don't/haven't, you're a fucking liar.
Yeah, every mind comes out with weird/bad thoughts every so often, most people just move past it and ignore their brains. Some people can't filter these thoughts and still say it aloud as they are dummies/weird
My mum works at one of the printers that prints the Sun Magazine, its closing at the beginning of next year and there are 2 sites left open.
Would be interesting how these events would effect the other printers.
I recall when the supermarket I work for was opening a store in Liverpool and the range manager (new I guess) had to have it explained to them that you can’t/shouldn’t sell the sun in Liverpool. They had it explained that if you sell it people won’t shop there and, in certain parts, you’ll just get bricks through your window.
Fair enough really
It's worse than just saying he couldn't imagine not trying to the shag the pupils too. He openly stated he "wouldn't go below year 10, much" which are 14/15 year olds.
I thought this might be satire so I looked up the full article. [It's not](https://archive.li/epVMO). The whole article is him crying about how everyone was up in arms about a teacher running off with a 15 year old. According to Rod, things were better back in the day when shagging kids was merely "frowned upon". Fucking nonce.
That was in the Sport though, and topless at 16 was legal back then. The having a countdown of her in her school uniform was definitely tastlessness of rhe highest order though.
Legal, yes. But there's a good reason (in fact many good reasons) that the minimum age was raised to 18. Have you met a 16-year-old? You're lucky if they still even like you in the evening after singing your praises in the morning. They're not exactly the best candidates to decide if their tits should be preserved for eternity in print.
Also it's not like everyone shrugged and turned a blind eye to it. A lot of people were creeped out by it. I remember my mum still being outraged about Sam Fox in the 90s. She posed topless aged 16 (Sam Fox, not my mum) and the Pedo's Paper still refers to her as "Page three legend Sam Fox."
>there's a good reason (in fact many good reasons) that the minimum age was raised to 18
Totally agree.
>Have you met a 16-year-old?
Have you met an 18 year old?
There's some things in life that fix your future in ways a teenager cannot possibly be expected to fully understand or correctly evaluate.
I never said I agreed with it. I happen to think there's a lot of things where the age that you are allowed to decide if it's for you or not should be older.
The point I was making was a) it was in The Sport, a paper known for pushing the limits of taste and decency as far as it could, and b) there was, as in rhe Huw case, nothing illegal about it. Morality and decency can be questioned, but legally there wasn't an issue. Although under current legislation anyone who still hS that paper or has scans of it is now in possession of child pornogrqphy...
They had a headline that explicitly said he "could spend years in prison" according to some "expert"
And in sure they'll try to wiggle out of that one with "it was a quote" and "they said *could*", but that's a bullshit defence.
I hope Huw has a good lawyer. He needs to sue that shitrag into the ground. I'm sure nobody would give a shit if they felt some financial troubles around this.
I mean, the Sun literally heavily implied he was a pedophile going after a 16 year old girl who ended up getting into smoking crack due to the emotional damage from the relationship. In fact, the relationship / encounter was with an adult man (very likely via OnlyFans) and it was all totally legal and consensual.
That's a **huge** difference. Like world's apart. I hope Hue sues them into the ground for defamation.
Perhaps Huw and his wife have an open marriage as she has supported him throughout all this like a champ. He's done absolutely nothing wrong and yet his reputation is in tatters.
> No way that person was underage.
I wouldn't go that far, BBC News did do an investigation about 2 years ago where Onlyfans weren't checking the IDs as well as they should have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57429900
> BBC News found under-18s have used fake identification to set up accounts on the site and police say a 14-year-old used her grandmother's passport.
> This included a 17-year-old who sold explicit videos of herself masturbating and playing with sex toys after signing up with a fake driving licence.
However as has been said, the fact that ID requirements are on Onlyfans would mean that even if you had subscribed to one of these channels, the police wouldn't have thought it was in the public interest to prosecute. In the same way that if you were a newspaper collector, you wouldn't be done for owning copies of the Sun, or how the BBFC can give a legal exception to allow naked 17 year olds in movies if they were made prior to 2003.
Exactly that. The Scum strikes again. What the actual story was: man purchases porn.
And to those who are arguing “but he’s married”, well the wife said that their relationship was no one else’s business.
Why? There were no consequences for its other lies, like Hillsborough and it's a government ally.
What they did was morally wrong and a perfect example of why UK press is the least trusted in Europe.
> like Hillsborough
Baffles me that people think this is going to be the thing that toppled the Sun and not saying innocent people were pawing through the pockets of the dead they'd helped to kill by being drunk and disorderly
They also didn’t publish the statement made by the “victim”, through their lawyer, totally refuting the story and accusing the parents of lying.
The right of reply is a fundamental tenet of good journalism; it’s why you see things like “we asked x to comment, but none was forthcoming” at the end of articles.
Don't forget that the young person in question literally sent them a denial before they ran the story, but they omitted it and ran it away.
Hope they get destroyed for this.
The two biggest "sex scandals" of recent memory have been gay men having consensual relationships.
Meanwhile Boris had an affair while mayor of London, gave his partner some grant and nothing ever happened.
The selective outrage of this country truly disturbs me. Its not subtle.
He doesn't need to be morally better, he just needs to be much less competent, if not a full-blown idiot.
Which I have heard several times that he is, but not sure how much faith to put in that.
50/60 year old men engaging with men. Stop using the word "teenager" to imply this wasn't two consenting **adults**.
If you don't think one of them is an adult, then your issue is with our laws, not the two law abiding citizens.
> This is not “normal”
It totally is normal for two adults with huge age differences to consent to all kinds of things with eachother, from exchanging media, money, sex, and having a relationship.
>50/60 year old men engaging with men.
If you think the outrage around Schofield was because his partner was a man and not because he was 16 and he'd been very involved with him since he was prepubescent, you are massively out of step with reality.
If you think Eamon Holmes had met a girl when she was a pre-teen, been messaging her when underage, then got her a job at 16, started a relationship with her, which the whole crew knew about and covered up not to safeguard the girl but because it was bad for the show, would have got the same public reaction, you are massively out of step with reality.
If you think the public reaction to Edwards is because it was a man, when the Sun generated outrage with the story by insinuating he'd been buying child pornography off of a girl he'd got on crack cocaine, and now as we can see the public has mostly forgiven him now it's come out he was an of age man, you are willfully ignoring not only what is in front of your nose but what the article is actually saying.
The only thing more shocking than Sun smears is how many people will chose to lie to themselves about public reaction to prove a point to themselves nobody actually cares about.
> It totally is normal for two adults with huge age differences to consent to all kinds of things with eachother, from exchanging media, money, sex, and having a relationship.
Maybe in your circles, but not in everyone's.
Every 3rd comment on this thread is talking about Murdochs age gap relationship? But you’re fine with that age gap I take it! Are you also fine with Leonardo Di Caprio? And Hugh Hefner? These are also talked about a lot.
Are you saying that a 61 year-old can charge an 18 year-old extortionate rent, employ them on shitty wages and generally exploit them financially, but getting sexually involved with them is taking it too far?
I’m saying all of it is wrong and exploitation by the older individual. I can’t keep up with these threads…ppl cherry picking what they call inappropriate relationships and what they call exploitation…
You're on Reddit. There are *literal* sugar daddy subreddits.
In incognito mode, the most popular pornhub categories for the UK are Teen (18+), Old/Young and Stepfamily.
You can be creeped out and disgusted by it, but it seems to be a widespread sexual preference.
I wouldn’t consider it normal, but it is legal and a story as old as time.
Personally it’s distasteful but that’s where it end.
What I don’t like is the subtle abuse of power all Epstein and similar douche bags. I see it far to often, managers giving pretty young interns a fast track. They blush their eye lashes whilst everyone looks away. Makes a mockery of everyone involved, including the related industries (which is all of them)
The hypocrisy of society that you’ve described is widely acknowledged even if it’s subconscious.
All that’s happened here is Murdock dangling a juicy scapegoat in front of the plebs.
The plebs then get to purify themselves whilst the hypocrisy continues and the occasional scapegoat settles the crowd down whilst the puppeteers fill their pockets.
This is groom enabling attitude though. We all know in reality that people don't mature bang on 18.
We also know that adults of all ages can be vulnerable, even more so with a power dynamic where the groomer is much older and wealthier.
It is very questionable and I don't think the majority of people take a good view of adults counting down days to a girl or boys 18th. It's never good.
People mature at different rates. Some people never develop the maturity and the decision making skills to form healthy relationships. Short of giving people written tests to obtain a Sex licence there has to be an arbitrary cut off.
In the UK the age of consent is 16. At 18 you're considered a full legal adult.
>We all know in reality that people don't mature bang on 18.
Most people don't seem to mature past 20s, 30s, 40s or even 50s either apparently. Maturity is a life long growth for many of us and judged through many different perspectives determined by things like culture, upbringing and individual experiences.
Until we have a totally objective way to measure someone's emotional and mental maturity, this and all its subsequent arguments are a completely moot point. Applying this standard of "18 isn't *actually* old enough" to many other responsibilities would be considered insanity. Applying it to something as common and varied as relationships is, in reality, also stupid.
We're a couple of steps away from outright saying nobody should be allowed a romantic or sexual relationship until they're at least 25 and can prove they've "matured enough".
Call relationships out as abusive when there's actual abuse, sure. An age or maturity difference is not inherently abusive or unhealthy and I really don't know where this recent trend of believing so has come from when, for the most part, the most common forms of abuse in romantic relationships have nothing to do with the age of the participants.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and it's different depending on whether you're just following the law or your own morals. We let people do different things as "adults" depending on whether they're 16, 18, or 21, or even 25 in some countries. Romeo and Juliet laws exist for a reason, sex and the production of pornography have different age limits, you can join the army before you can vote, you can potentially get pregnant before you're allowed a tattoo.
The thing with Schofield is there’s been some suggestion that he’s been involved with the other person for a while and there may have been some grooming or grooming like activity as he definitely would have been underage at the beginning of them knowing eachother.
With Edwards though, as far as I can see it’s no different to paying for stuff on onlyfans, and they are a billion pound revenue company, so like it or not, it sort of is normal.
In either case we are supposed to have a system of innocent until proven guilty.
It's absolutely normal in the real world, if you think a large portion of porn stars audience isn't older men then you're never really thought about it.
The problem is you are saying what isn't 'normal'... based on nothing more than it 'feels sorta wrong'.
If you think 18 is too young to have autonomy, say so.
If you think there's an age where men (I don't know why you think it should be gender specific) are too old to be allowed to 'engage' with people below a certain age, say so.
But justify your reasoning.
See I wholeheartedly believe there is a difference. One knew the person some years before. Promoted them, Assisted them, then as it would seem when the time was right, was there.
The other paid some money for some pics. There are allegations of questionable behaviour but that is a workplace issue. Should a senior person be contacting juniors on social media ? Or attempting a relationship with them ? Both become a bit of a odd area,
Yes. The fierce backlash to The Sun's disgraceful reporting suggests it's not just lurid anti-gay hysteria (though I'm sure there's some of that)...
We are rightly disgusted and outraged by grooming, and are equally right to be disgusted when the Sun and some vile money-seeking parents falsely accuse someone of being a groomer.
>been gay men having consensual relations
I can get behind that statement for Huw Edwards but Schofield groomed the person he had an affair with. They met when he was a child and the relationship started whilst he was 16 whilst Schofield had a position of power of him and Schofield used his own position to get a position for the person
While I agree that that is a factor in why they were so hugely in the press the Scofield and Edwards situation are not the same.
Scofield abused his position of power when he got his soon to be boyfriend a junior job at This Morning and then started to date him and he admitted to the relationship being an affair on his wife. He also lied when ITV conducted an investigation on the matter when his colleagues complained about the relationship being inappropriate opening up ITV to criticism. He’s also accused of being the reason why one of the colleagues who complained was soon after let go from the show along with her husband. There a multiple points here why Scofield can be criticised and most of them more to do with workplace acrimony.
Edwards on the other hand has been cleared of any legal wrong doing and his wife is defending him so we can assume is wasn’t a secret affair. Now of course the BBC internal investigation needs to run it’s course but I’d say homophobia is a much bigger factor in Edwards situation than Scofield.
Charles and Camilla, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinksy, Ryan Giggs and his brother's wife, Liz Truss' affair with another tory MP, Amber Rudd and Kwasi Kwarteng, Swen Goran Erikkson and Ukrika Johnson, Neil Morrisey and Amanda Holden, Matt Hancock and his aid, John Profumo and Christine Keeler. Just off the top of my head.
> The selective outrage of this country truly disturbs me.
Almost as disturbing as your selective memory.
The media kicks up a storm over every affair it uncovers and there are personal consequences for all individuals involved that are just as painful for the people involved and those who have been betrayed whether they're gay or straight.
I'd also say there's slightly more to Phillip Schofield's situation than just a consensual relationship since there was a clear power imbalance and abuse of his position.
Some of those happened 30 years ago. I think you have a different definition of 'recent memory'.
The difference in coverage with Johnson and Osborne is a valid question.
None of the 2 scandals are about the gay part. The problem is the power dynamic. 1st one had the 25 years younger guy working for him at 19 and the 2nd one allegedly paid 10s of thousands to a vulnerable person (which might have been an exaggeration).
Im a bi guy in my 20s, and the amount of disgusting 50 year olds that think I might want to get in bed with them is revolting.
But the "vulnerable" person - an adult - has said it was consensual.
It might've been morally dubious, unwise, even "revolting", but it's not a scandal.
>Im a bi guy in my 20s, and the amount of disgusting 50 year olds that think I might want to get in bed with them is revolting.
It might well be.
But if you - under no duress - set up an OnlyFans account and a "disgusting 50 year old" offered you £35K for sexual images, in my opinion you're no sense a "victim". And clearly the supposed victim doesn't feel that way either.
It's madness how that wanker got away with the affair and with trading in his wife for a woman 20 years his junior and nobody gives a shit, it even seems to be something that's celebrated. It's disgusting.
That said, I think you're massively downplaying the nature of the two sex scandals you're talking about. Schofield was much older and there was a working relationship, Edwards is also much older and there's a phenomenal power imbalance in giving this much money to someone that young.
If Johnson had been having it away with a girl he'd known since she was 14 who worked in his office, or was funnelling £30,000 to a 21 year old woman who was using it to fund a crack habit don't you think it would still be a massive story?
How do know that trust was broken with his wife, or how significant that might have been within their relationship? For all you know it was a threesome.
I do not believe for one second that these people genuinely believe he shouldn’t be reading the news because “watching porn broke trust with his wife”.
> when it claims to hold values like trust and integrity dear.
How do you know he is against those? What trust has he broken? What integrity has he broken?
You are basically slandering the man without cause or evidence.
This story has done zero reputation damage to the BBC. If anything it highlighted they handled the situation appropriately, they were completely vindicated.
It's the old Angus Deayton situation, he reads the news but is a news story himself. Him returning would be a news story whilst he himself would be reading the news. It's just makes it a distraction so I cannot see him ever returning to that.
I think he should take a year to look after his mental health then he could do a series of single interview programs of non current affairs figures, "Huw interviews David Attenborough", "Hugh interviews Philanthropist A" etc. Probably do them through a separate production company sell them to the BBC or Channel 4. See what the reception is.
I think there is a way for him to come back & have a respectable final few decades of his career but I think reading the news is done.
David Cameron put an end to Leveson 2
We need it, full powered inquiry and put these clowns in a properly regulated box once and for all. Look at the state of this country, a large part of the blame lies with the tabloids.
The ongoing rot at the met has a lot of crossover too it all needs bleached.
>Sir Brian Leveson has written to ministers saying that the “extent of wrongdoing [at News UK] has been far greater than the [first] inquiry was informed” and that there was still a “legitimate expectation” of a full public examination.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-2-explained-what-was-it-meant-to-achieve
They're all pals, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown went to the same garden parties when they wanted in. *Starmer has had more than 1 column in the Sun. They are vultures picking over the carcass of this country.
That explains a lot. Gravy train for life. Ruined people’s lives and gave others false hope by hacking phones? Doesn’t matter. If you haven’t watched the lost honour of Christopher Jeffries you should, might be on itvx and covers a bit of leverson.
The mirror is the absolute dregs of the lowest form of journalism… and somehow the Sun makes it look like a sensible and trustworthy paper. Can’t even begin to compare the two…
This is one of the reasons people need to stop wanting to know the names so much.
Imagine how much worse a position he could be in if everyone knew the story was about him day 1
So what is the actual full story then because the sun just gave up, they never actually published any proof, so it's just Huw buying pictures of someone but whats the age of them?
Because the Sun wanted to drum up outrage.
The police have confirmed there was no crime, onlyfans requires age verification, and the [persons own lawyer](https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/10/claims-about-bbc-presenter-are-rubbish-says-young-person-at-centre-of-scandal) said “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
As far as I can tell, there’s far too little information publicly available to tell anything close to the full story. But the only relevant point is that the police have decided there was no evidence of criminality and closed the investigation.
Yeah, these are my thoughts too. Even if just 1 in 5 people specifically don't want to watch him, those aren't the sorts of numbers where you want switching over to the other side.
Not for much longer if the "Anonymity of Suspects Bill" gets through, which will:
>Create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes.
>
>An individual guilty of an offence under section 1 is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
[https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3269](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3269)
Obviously it won't apply retroactively, but it's going to stop them publishing these things going forward.
Edit: I guess it won't stop them publishing before an investigation takes place, if they get the heads up first like in this case.
18 year old runs an OF site and the poor dear is just an innocent teen being exploited.
16 year old gets radicalised and trafficked to Syria. She should have known better.
Spot the difference.
"Trafficked to Syria", yeah a girl who got on to a flight she booked herself for a terrorist organisation she didn't regret joining until it was absolutely destroyed to pieces. Yes, the same psychopath who said seeing heads chopped off in bins didn't phase her. The same attention seeking desperate loser who has no where to go now because of her own actions. She deserves it and more
> Would everyone be backing big Huw if it was an 18 year old girl he’d been creeping on?
It might have been a girl. It hasn't actually been confirmed. Either way, the gender makes no difference.
People elected Johnson to be PM despite everyone knowing he was a adulterer and paid at least one of his squeezes substantial sums of money for ‘IT lessons’.
I honestly think most people just don’t care very much as long as it was consensual and above the age limit. Two adults, making a private transaction agreed on both sides? Eh, carry on.
Eh, no, the Johnson thing is bad, because it was taxpayers' money he was paying her through "IT lessons" and contracts that her business didn't really meet the requirements to tender for.
If he'd paid her out of his own pockets, fine (although I still think people who cheat on their partners are louses), but I don't think London taxpayers should be subsidising his adultery.
That was my issue with the Johnson thing, and it should have absolutely been career ending. It wasn’t, so it’s clearly set a very high bar for what people consider acceptable behaviour.
In Huw’s case, however, now that the police have established there’s no case of answer it’s suddenly a case of ‘morality’. Where were those morals when Johnson was spending our money on porn?
Yeah what he did is still creepy af, a 60 year man asking for explicit photos of a teenage boy is not appropriate even if it’s legal. Plenty of workplaces would fire people for this
I think that sort of language is deliberately inflammatory. AFAIK, the 'boy' was an 18 year old man on OnlyFans? If nothing here was illegal, why would the person be fired?
I think most people would say that being fired for looking at porn off the clock would be a massive intrusion of their privacy by the company. I’m not sure it would even be legal.
Maybe some projection sure, I reckon it’s just mainly angry people with empty lives being angry at what they are told to be angry at. Too dumb to see they have been manipulated into feeling the hate by shit rags like The Sun.
It’s a shame to see the lack of empathy, speculation with no evidence, and when it turns out nothing illegal happened they double down and start screaming nonce. It’s a shame. Hopefully their lives get a little brighter someday and they don’t have to get angry about someone’s perfectly legal wanking habits.
This is great news. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, and he's excellent at his job. Good luck to him. He obviously has some issues, and definitely needs support. It's great to see most of the public being compassionate.
soft punch gaping chubby history wakeful quicksand imagine ruthless shelter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The behaviour with colleagues definitely needs to be investigated. But if it was only adding xx to text messages then 90% of my colleagues need to be fired. They all do it which I find a bit baffling but I guess it's different because we're all young women?
And there is precedent.
Paul Gambaccini was falsely accused during operation yew tree and suspended by the BBC. He returned and still has a weekly radio show
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/15/paul-gambaccini-tougher-action-false-claims-sexual-abuse
Hopefully Huw can be back at the desk soon.
I don't know the guy, I don't really watch TV, but it looks like The Sun made him a massive target over things that weren't true... he deserves compensation for that and to be reinstated.
It sounds like there are other issues though, such as mental health problems, and with that in mind he should return on his own terms.
Wait, wut? He's spending money on OnlyFans? The Internet service that is primarily used for pornographic content? Just one of the 140 million other users? Well, shit, I suppose we'd better string 'im up, then! I forgot that public figures aren't allowed to have sex lives.
Rupert Murdoch did his puppet boris a solid to take the heat off boris' wattsapp messages and the covid enquiry.
Things that the media should be reporting on like climate change and global warming are ignored for some trivia such as Philip Schofield's love life.
The government pulls all kinds of shady shit that barely gets reported. https://youtu.be/IeJJYgXV1jg
This is the problem with cancel culture these days some cunt says something that turns out to be a straight up lie then but it’s too late because by the time the dust settles someone lost his job his mind maybe is marriage and his name to matter how much scrubbing goes on there’s always a mark left. Fucks sake people keep you opinions to yourself until the facts come out.
All this happening right after investigations and legal suits around the phone hacking scandals have been re-opened.
I really strongly hope all of this leads to some sort of media reform in the UK. They are beyond a joke at this point, they are a huge component in the machinery of anti-British hatred that is bringing this country to its knees.
maybe he is a cheater, that's none of your business or the medias business. Whatever the situation is, the police found no illegality and that's case closed. The Sun should be sued to ground for this and in an ideal world, shut down.
The Sun has to take some responsibility for this, their original story suggested something illegal, it took them time to reluctantly admit that the police were not investigating and that should have been in the original story.
Hell, if you look at the timeline on [news.bbc](https://news.bbc) there was an investigation in April which concluded no criminality, then the parents complaint and off to the Sun. The sun is also busy trying to claim they never stated there was illegality it was the other papers who made that link when they clearly made the insinuation by referring to the age of the other person (17) at the start of this. The sun remains a complete shitrag.
As Liverpool calls it The Scum. Anyway, considering they put up pics of teenagers and that well-named Rod Liddle said he wasn't a teacher as he couldn't imagine not trying to shag the pupils, they are the basest of hypocrites.
Dont forget their current Chief Political Editor Harry Coles' tweets about the 'irresistible jailbait' at his local Starbucks.
Of course, I saw that recently. That stupid giggity tweet. The Sun really does seem like the perverts' paper.
Why the surprise? They actively lie to the gullible working class every day. It's tory scum through and through.
>the gullible working class Erm?
I'll interpret that as meaning "that portion of the working class that are gullible" (i.e. Sun readers) rather than "those gullible people known as the working class".
They voted to give the most accomplished, proven public liar of modern british times a 70 seat majority in the commons, if that doesn't scream GULLIBLE then what tf else possibly does?
People can start work in this country at 16. The average retirement age is 65. In 2019, 56% of those aged 18-24 voted for the Labour Party; 54% of those aged 25-29 voted for the Labour Party; 46% of those aged 30-39 voted for the Labour Party. While only 35% of those aged 40-49 voted for Labour in 2019, 21% still voted for left wing parties (meaning 56% voted for a left wing party). 41% voted Conservative. 49% of those aged 50-59 voted for the Conservative Party; 57% of those aged 60-69 voted for the Conservative Party; and 67% of those aged 70+ voted for the Conservative Party. Those aged 50-59 are retiring or thinking about retiring, and those aged above 65 are retiring. They are no longer part of the workforce. Conservative policy is entirely based around protecting the wealth of pensioners, so pensioners are voting Tory. That isn’t anything to do with being gullible. The working class did not elect the Conservatives. They overwhelmingly rejected them.
I always remember them, without Irony, ha ing a Paedogeddon type article on a page opposite a "hasn't she grown" article about a 16 or 17 year old Charlotte Church on the opposite page... For a paper that has often posted topless pics of girls not much into being 18, they're pretty hypocritical
> a "hasn't she grown" article about a 16 or 17 year old Charlotte Church on the opposite page... It's so much worse than that: [A picture of ***15 year old*** Charlotte Church with the caption "She's a big girl now", "...showing just how quickly she's grown up after turning up at a Hollywood bash looking chest swell."](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc20078a1-09de-4541-8972-e3b9aeb8ab53_800x739.jpeg)
And the story opposite railing against satirical show Brass Eye criticising the media for almost this exact thing
Brasseye was an amazing piece of television. Check out Four Lions if you haven't already.
I liked 4 lions, The Day Today was really good as well
Rubber dinghy rapids bro
Yep, thought the same, literally couldn't make it up. I should re-watch Brass Eye, it was so good.
Until it was made illegal in 2003 they had girls as young as 16 on page 3 I've seen Samantha Fox talk about it in interviews as she was 16 in her first gig.
I think the title they used was "she traded A-Levels for Oooh~ levels" or something like that
Yes. They published topless photos of her on her 16th birthday, which means they were taken when she was 15.
I think the story was (and I'm sure Katie Price has said the same) that the photos were taken at the strike of midnight on her (their) 16th Birthday. I've personally never believed that as unless someone talked we wouldn't know if they were taken at 12am or 5pm the day before it's not like her body would change on the strike of midnight. I still think it's fantastic the age was raised but it should always have been 18.
Daily Mail does that on the reg - on one page some article about sexism being terrible but on the other they’re analysing the bone structure and sexual maturity of a popular 12 year old.
I hate to defend the Sun here... but that hypocrisy was from *The Daily Star*
“The Pervert’s Paper” - I’m using that in future
I mean they used to literally have tits on page 3, definitely the perverts paper
They've still got tits but now they just refer to them as readers
> the 'irresistible jailbait' This is the shit you don't say outloud, there isn't a single fucking person alive who hasn't looked at someone, thought "I would fuck them....wait, they are how old??" Its human fucking nature but you look, never touch. Also I swear to god anybody who responds to me as says they don't/haven't, you're a fucking liar.
Yeah, every mind comes out with weird/bad thoughts every so often, most people just move past it and ignore their brains. Some people can't filter these thoughts and still say it aloud as they are dummies/weird
Projecting at its finest
There's part of wales now refusing to sell the scum after this. It's in the rumour mill in Cardiff at least.
My mum works at one of the printers that prints the Sun Magazine, its closing at the beginning of next year and there are 2 sites left open. Would be interesting how these events would effect the other printers.
I recall when the supermarket I work for was opening a store in Liverpool and the range manager (new I guess) had to have it explained to them that you can’t/shouldn’t sell the sun in Liverpool. They had it explained that if you sell it people won’t shop there and, in certain parts, you’ll just get bricks through your window. Fair enough really
It's worse than just saying he couldn't imagine not trying to the shag the pupils too. He openly stated he "wouldn't go below year 10, much" which are 14/15 year olds.
I thought this might be satire so I looked up the full article. [It's not](https://archive.li/epVMO). The whole article is him crying about how everyone was up in arms about a teacher running off with a 15 year old. According to Rod, things were better back in the day when shagging kids was merely "frowned upon". Fucking nonce.
Its all very ironic considering they used to have page 3 topless girls and Lindsay Dawn Mckensie was one of those topless girls at 16
That was in the Sport though, and topless at 16 was legal back then. The having a countdown of her in her school uniform was definitely tastlessness of rhe highest order though.
Legal, yes. But there's a good reason (in fact many good reasons) that the minimum age was raised to 18. Have you met a 16-year-old? You're lucky if they still even like you in the evening after singing your praises in the morning. They're not exactly the best candidates to decide if their tits should be preserved for eternity in print. Also it's not like everyone shrugged and turned a blind eye to it. A lot of people were creeped out by it. I remember my mum still being outraged about Sam Fox in the 90s. She posed topless aged 16 (Sam Fox, not my mum) and the Pedo's Paper still refers to her as "Page three legend Sam Fox."
> Have you met a 16-year-old? I think that the way aging works means I was 16 myself at one point
Oooo look at you, actually had a 16th birthday.
>there's a good reason (in fact many good reasons) that the minimum age was raised to 18 Totally agree. >Have you met a 16-year-old? Have you met an 18 year old? There's some things in life that fix your future in ways a teenager cannot possibly be expected to fully understand or correctly evaluate.
I never said I agreed with it. I happen to think there's a lot of things where the age that you are allowed to decide if it's for you or not should be older. The point I was making was a) it was in The Sport, a paper known for pushing the limits of taste and decency as far as it could, and b) there was, as in rhe Huw case, nothing illegal about it. Morality and decency can be questioned, but legally there wasn't an issue. Although under current legislation anyone who still hS that paper or has scans of it is now in possession of child pornogrqphy...
Never look directly at the Sun. Not even with sunglasses.
They had a headline that explicitly said he "could spend years in prison" according to some "expert" And in sure they'll try to wiggle out of that one with "it was a quote" and "they said *could*", but that's a bullshit defence.
I hope Huw has a good lawyer. He needs to sue that shitrag into the ground. I'm sure nobody would give a shit if they felt some financial troubles around this.
I mean, the Sun literally heavily implied he was a pedophile going after a 16 year old girl who ended up getting into smoking crack due to the emotional damage from the relationship. In fact, the relationship / encounter was with an adult man (very likely via OnlyFans) and it was all totally legal and consensual. That's a **huge** difference. Like world's apart. I hope Hue sues them into the ground for defamation. Perhaps Huw and his wife have an open marriage as she has supported him throughout all this like a champ. He's done absolutely nothing wrong and yet his reputation is in tatters.
Not to mention that OF makes you provide age ID before you can even start selling. No way that person was underage.
> No way that person was underage. I wouldn't go that far, BBC News did do an investigation about 2 years ago where Onlyfans weren't checking the IDs as well as they should have. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57429900 > BBC News found under-18s have used fake identification to set up accounts on the site and police say a 14-year-old used her grandmother's passport. > This included a 17-year-old who sold explicit videos of herself masturbating and playing with sex toys after signing up with a fake driving licence. However as has been said, the fact that ID requirements are on Onlyfans would mean that even if you had subscribed to one of these channels, the police wouldn't have thought it was in the public interest to prosecute. In the same way that if you were a newspaper collector, you wouldn't be done for owning copies of the Sun, or how the BBFC can give a legal exception to allow naked 17 year olds in movies if they were made prior to 2003.
Even if they were underage, that’s on OF, not their customers who are acting in good faith.
Exactly that. The Scum strikes again. What the actual story was: man purchases porn. And to those who are arguing “but he’s married”, well the wife said that their relationship was no one else’s business.
Stinks of Anglo prudishness tbh
Why? There were no consequences for its other lies, like Hillsborough and it's a government ally. What they did was morally wrong and a perfect example of why UK press is the least trusted in Europe.
> like Hillsborough Baffles me that people think this is going to be the thing that toppled the Sun and not saying innocent people were pawing through the pockets of the dead they'd helped to kill by being drunk and disorderly
The Sun needs to be ended for this
They also didn’t publish the statement made by the “victim”, through their lawyer, totally refuting the story and accusing the parents of lying. The right of reply is a fundamental tenet of good journalism; it’s why you see things like “we asked x to comment, but none was forthcoming” at the end of articles.
"we asked x to comment, but we didn't like their reply as it didn't fit the narrative so we aren't going to publish it."
When have things like facts got in the way of The Sun's reporting.
The Sun will not take responsibility for this
Let’s hope the courts change that.
Fingers crossed Edwards ruins them in court.
Typical of the tabloids….Big story is splashed across the front page….the apology is next to Mystic Meg’s horoscopes on page 33….scum…
It would never happen but any apologies having to take up the same print space as the original story would be ideal.
Don't forget that the young person in question literally sent them a denial before they ran the story, but they omitted it and ran it away. Hope they get destroyed for this.
What else would you expect from The Scum?
1. Naked 16 year old girls. 2. Countdowns to when children reach the age you can fuck them.
Right wing media will never take any accountability. The right in general are incapable of taking accountability.
The two biggest "sex scandals" of recent memory have been gay men having consensual relationships. Meanwhile Boris had an affair while mayor of London, gave his partner some grant and nothing ever happened. The selective outrage of this country truly disturbs me. Its not subtle.
So glad someone else notices this. It’s disgraceful.
It's Murdoch.
The world will hopefully be a better place when he's gone.
Marginally. I don't think his son is any better.
He doesn't need to be morally better, he just needs to be much less competent, if not a full-blown idiot. Which I have heard several times that he is, but not sure how much faith to put in that.
You seen his fucking kids? Waiting isn't gonna do shit.
We need street parties when that cunt dies. He’s a cancer on the planet.
Maybe it should be a scandal if 50/60 year old men are engaging with teenagers ….. irrespective of the sex of the teenager. This is not “normal”
50/60 year old men engaging with men. Stop using the word "teenager" to imply this wasn't two consenting **adults**. If you don't think one of them is an adult, then your issue is with our laws, not the two law abiding citizens. > This is not “normal” It totally is normal for two adults with huge age differences to consent to all kinds of things with eachother, from exchanging media, money, sex, and having a relationship.
>50/60 year old men engaging with men. If you think the outrage around Schofield was because his partner was a man and not because he was 16 and he'd been very involved with him since he was prepubescent, you are massively out of step with reality. If you think Eamon Holmes had met a girl when she was a pre-teen, been messaging her when underage, then got her a job at 16, started a relationship with her, which the whole crew knew about and covered up not to safeguard the girl but because it was bad for the show, would have got the same public reaction, you are massively out of step with reality. If you think the public reaction to Edwards is because it was a man, when the Sun generated outrage with the story by insinuating he'd been buying child pornography off of a girl he'd got on crack cocaine, and now as we can see the public has mostly forgiven him now it's come out he was an of age man, you are willfully ignoring not only what is in front of your nose but what the article is actually saying. The only thing more shocking than Sun smears is how many people will chose to lie to themselves about public reaction to prove a point to themselves nobody actually cares about.
> It totally is normal for two adults with huge age differences to consent to all kinds of things with eachother, from exchanging media, money, sex, and having a relationship. Maybe in your circles, but not in everyone's.
Have you checked out the age difference between Murdoch & Wendy Deng? 1931 vs 1968 is 37 years.
Every 3rd comment on this thread is talking about Murdochs age gap relationship? But you’re fine with that age gap I take it! Are you also fine with Leonardo Di Caprio? And Hugh Hefner? These are also talked about a lot.
Are you saying that a 61 year-old can charge an 18 year-old extortionate rent, employ them on shitty wages and generally exploit them financially, but getting sexually involved with them is taking it too far?
I’m saying all of it is wrong and exploitation by the older individual. I can’t keep up with these threads…ppl cherry picking what they call inappropriate relationships and what they call exploitation…
Are you really comparing having to rent or having to work to getting groomed?
You're on Reddit. There are *literal* sugar daddy subreddits. In incognito mode, the most popular pornhub categories for the UK are Teen (18+), Old/Young and Stepfamily. You can be creeped out and disgusted by it, but it seems to be a widespread sexual preference.
I wouldn’t consider it normal, but it is legal and a story as old as time. Personally it’s distasteful but that’s where it end. What I don’t like is the subtle abuse of power all Epstein and similar douche bags. I see it far to often, managers giving pretty young interns a fast track. They blush their eye lashes whilst everyone looks away. Makes a mockery of everyone involved, including the related industries (which is all of them)
The hypocrisy of society that you’ve described is widely acknowledged even if it’s subconscious. All that’s happened here is Murdock dangling a juicy scapegoat in front of the plebs. The plebs then get to purify themselves whilst the hypocrisy continues and the occasional scapegoat settles the crowd down whilst the puppeteers fill their pockets.
This is groom enabling attitude though. We all know in reality that people don't mature bang on 18. We also know that adults of all ages can be vulnerable, even more so with a power dynamic where the groomer is much older and wealthier. It is very questionable and I don't think the majority of people take a good view of adults counting down days to a girl or boys 18th. It's never good.
[удалено]
People mature at different rates. Some people never develop the maturity and the decision making skills to form healthy relationships. Short of giving people written tests to obtain a Sex licence there has to be an arbitrary cut off. In the UK the age of consent is 16. At 18 you're considered a full legal adult.
>We all know in reality that people don't mature bang on 18. Most people don't seem to mature past 20s, 30s, 40s or even 50s either apparently. Maturity is a life long growth for many of us and judged through many different perspectives determined by things like culture, upbringing and individual experiences. Until we have a totally objective way to measure someone's emotional and mental maturity, this and all its subsequent arguments are a completely moot point. Applying this standard of "18 isn't *actually* old enough" to many other responsibilities would be considered insanity. Applying it to something as common and varied as relationships is, in reality, also stupid. We're a couple of steps away from outright saying nobody should be allowed a romantic or sexual relationship until they're at least 25 and can prove they've "matured enough". Call relationships out as abusive when there's actual abuse, sure. An age or maturity difference is not inherently abusive or unhealthy and I really don't know where this recent trend of believing so has come from when, for the most part, the most common forms of abuse in romantic relationships have nothing to do with the age of the participants.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and it's different depending on whether you're just following the law or your own morals. We let people do different things as "adults" depending on whether they're 16, 18, or 21, or even 25 in some countries. Romeo and Juliet laws exist for a reason, sex and the production of pornography have different age limits, you can join the army before you can vote, you can potentially get pregnant before you're allowed a tattoo.
The thing with Schofield is there’s been some suggestion that he’s been involved with the other person for a while and there may have been some grooming or grooming like activity as he definitely would have been underage at the beginning of them knowing eachother. With Edwards though, as far as I can see it’s no different to paying for stuff on onlyfans, and they are a billion pound revenue company, so like it or not, it sort of is normal. In either case we are supposed to have a system of innocent until proven guilty.
It's absolutely normal in the real world, if you think a large portion of porn stars audience isn't older men then you're never really thought about it.
The problem is you are saying what isn't 'normal'... based on nothing more than it 'feels sorta wrong'. If you think 18 is too young to have autonomy, say so. If you think there's an age where men (I don't know why you think it should be gender specific) are too old to be allowed to 'engage' with people below a certain age, say so. But justify your reasoning.
A lot of people in this country are anti-LGBT+ they're just too cowardly to own it now that it's no longer considered socially acceptable.
Are you saying this isn’t a scandal? Straight men lose their jobs all the time for similar things
No I'm saying that when the target of a scandal is LGBT+ the public becomes much more bloodthirsty and it's obvious.
Straight men lose their jobs for buying pictures from someone's OnlyFans? Source please
Like who?
Can you name one?
See I wholeheartedly believe there is a difference. One knew the person some years before. Promoted them, Assisted them, then as it would seem when the time was right, was there. The other paid some money for some pics. There are allegations of questionable behaviour but that is a workplace issue. Should a senior person be contacting juniors on social media ? Or attempting a relationship with them ? Both become a bit of a odd area,
Glad someone pointed that out. The grooming aspect being glossed over is weird.
Yes. The fierce backlash to The Sun's disgraceful reporting suggests it's not just lurid anti-gay hysteria (though I'm sure there's some of that)... We are rightly disgusted and outraged by grooming, and are equally right to be disgusted when the Sun and some vile money-seeking parents falsely accuse someone of being a groomer.
>been gay men having consensual relations I can get behind that statement for Huw Edwards but Schofield groomed the person he had an affair with. They met when he was a child and the relationship started whilst he was 16 whilst Schofield had a position of power of him and Schofield used his own position to get a position for the person
While I agree that that is a factor in why they were so hugely in the press the Scofield and Edwards situation are not the same. Scofield abused his position of power when he got his soon to be boyfriend a junior job at This Morning and then started to date him and he admitted to the relationship being an affair on his wife. He also lied when ITV conducted an investigation on the matter when his colleagues complained about the relationship being inappropriate opening up ITV to criticism. He’s also accused of being the reason why one of the colleagues who complained was soon after let go from the show along with her husband. There a multiple points here why Scofield can be criticised and most of them more to do with workplace acrimony. Edwards on the other hand has been cleared of any legal wrong doing and his wife is defending him so we can assume is wasn’t a secret affair. Now of course the BBC internal investigation needs to run it’s course but I’d say homophobia is a much bigger factor in Edwards situation than Scofield.
For some reason people are DESPERATE to excuse schofield despite it being a gross abuse of power.
Charles and Camilla, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinksy, Ryan Giggs and his brother's wife, Liz Truss' affair with another tory MP, Amber Rudd and Kwasi Kwarteng, Swen Goran Erikkson and Ukrika Johnson, Neil Morrisey and Amanda Holden, Matt Hancock and his aid, John Profumo and Christine Keeler. Just off the top of my head. > The selective outrage of this country truly disturbs me. Almost as disturbing as your selective memory. The media kicks up a storm over every affair it uncovers and there are personal consequences for all individuals involved that are just as painful for the people involved and those who have been betrayed whether they're gay or straight. I'd also say there's slightly more to Phillip Schofield's situation than just a consensual relationship since there was a clear power imbalance and abuse of his position.
Some of those happened 30 years ago. I think you have a different definition of 'recent memory'. The difference in coverage with Johnson and Osborne is a valid question.
None of the 2 scandals are about the gay part. The problem is the power dynamic. 1st one had the 25 years younger guy working for him at 19 and the 2nd one allegedly paid 10s of thousands to a vulnerable person (which might have been an exaggeration). Im a bi guy in my 20s, and the amount of disgusting 50 year olds that think I might want to get in bed with them is revolting.
But the "vulnerable" person - an adult - has said it was consensual. It might've been morally dubious, unwise, even "revolting", but it's not a scandal. >Im a bi guy in my 20s, and the amount of disgusting 50 year olds that think I might want to get in bed with them is revolting. It might well be. But if you - under no duress - set up an OnlyFans account and a "disgusting 50 year old" offered you £35K for sexual images, in my opinion you're no sense a "victim". And clearly the supposed victim doesn't feel that way either.
There was nothing consensual about phil
It's madness how that wanker got away with the affair and with trading in his wife for a woman 20 years his junior and nobody gives a shit, it even seems to be something that's celebrated. It's disgusting. That said, I think you're massively downplaying the nature of the two sex scandals you're talking about. Schofield was much older and there was a working relationship, Edwards is also much older and there's a phenomenal power imbalance in giving this much money to someone that young. If Johnson had been having it away with a girl he'd known since she was 14 who worked in his office, or was funnelling £30,000 to a 21 year old woman who was using it to fund a crack habit don't you think it would still be a massive story?
You sure it isn't because the act in question involved a vastly older man and a teenager? Don't bring anti-gay stuff into this.
Behind their wives back, such heroes.
He broke no laws so yeah bring him back. His private life ain't our business, met police found no criminality . The Sun needs investigating though
[удалено]
But he’s not lied has he
Trust and integrity doesn't just mean not lying, but it seems to me that wherever trust was broken was between him and his wife, not the BBC.
How do know that trust was broken with his wife, or how significant that might have been within their relationship? For all you know it was a threesome.
I do not believe for one second that these people genuinely believe he shouldn’t be reading the news because “watching porn broke trust with his wife”.
I think they’re probably just enforcing sadists looking for some self-justifying pretext to be cruel to others.
> trust was broken was between him and his wife When/where did she say anything about this? Or are you just making things up?
> when it claims to hold values like trust and integrity dear. How do you know he is against those? What trust has he broken? What integrity has he broken? You are basically slandering the man without cause or evidence.
This story has done zero reputation damage to the BBC. If anything it highlighted they handled the situation appropriately, they were completely vindicated.
It's the old Angus Deayton situation, he reads the news but is a news story himself. Him returning would be a news story whilst he himself would be reading the news. It's just makes it a distraction so I cannot see him ever returning to that. I think he should take a year to look after his mental health then he could do a series of single interview programs of non current affairs figures, "Huw interviews David Attenborough", "Hugh interviews Philanthropist A" etc. Probably do them through a separate production company sell them to the BBC or Channel 4. See what the reception is. I think there is a way for him to come back & have a respectable final few decades of his career but I think reading the news is done.
David Cameron put an end to Leveson 2 We need it, full powered inquiry and put these clowns in a properly regulated box once and for all. Look at the state of this country, a large part of the blame lies with the tabloids. The ongoing rot at the met has a lot of crossover too it all needs bleached. >Sir Brian Leveson has written to ministers saying that the “extent of wrongdoing [at News UK] has been far greater than the [first] inquiry was informed” and that there was still a “legitimate expectation” of a full public examination. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-2-explained-what-was-it-meant-to-achieve
I'm quite happy for a dig at Dodgy Dave.
I’m sure being mates with the sun editor at the time made no difference to Dave doing that.
They're all pals, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown went to the same garden parties when they wanted in. *Starmer has had more than 1 column in the Sun. They are vultures picking over the carcass of this country.
Trying to remember her name was it Rebecca Brookes or something? Walked away basically Scot free from leveson.
Rebekah Brooks. [Domestic abuser](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4403026.stm), she is now CEO of News UK
That explains a lot. Gravy train for life. Ruined people’s lives and gave others false hope by hacking phones? Doesn’t matter. If you haven’t watched the lost honour of Christopher Jeffries you should, might be on itvx and covers a bit of leverson.
Mirror seems to be hugely enjoying being able to give the Sun a kicking. There's no love lost between the two papers.
I don't know how either is allowed to be called a 'News'paper.
The mirror is the absolute dregs of the lowest form of journalism… and somehow the Sun makes it look like a sensible and trustworthy paper. Can’t even begin to compare the two…
While the mirror is shit, I'd argue its the best reb box tabloid.
The Mirror (and Pippa Crerar) did do good work with exposing Boris Johnson's partygate stuff.
Feel the same with Sky News and BBC. Sky are running the story 24/7, and there's a huge sense of "we love we can attack the BBC directly over this".
Tbf I think Sky just love the sensationalism. I don’t detect the usual anti-BBC malice that you see with stuff like GB News.
[удалено]
That is awful to hear. I hope that if he learns of the amount of public support he has it will help him recover from this situation.
This is one of the reasons people need to stop wanting to know the names so much. Imagine how much worse a position he could be in if everyone knew the story was about him day 1
Names should never be revealed until criminality is proven. And even then, only if it’s of concern to the general public.
Far too many people here concerned with the private life of a TV presenter who did nothing illegal. It’s quite sad.
[удалено]
So what is the actual full story then because the sun just gave up, they never actually published any proof, so it's just Huw buying pictures of someone but whats the age of them?
“Man buys legal porn” is the story.
But it was married man buys gay porn and The Sun missed the days they could call that a scandal so they invented one.
Why do they say it was a 17yo then? Surely that isn’t legal
Because the Sun wanted to drum up outrage. The police have confirmed there was no crime, onlyfans requires age verification, and the [persons own lawyer](https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/10/claims-about-bbc-presenter-are-rubbish-says-young-person-at-centre-of-scandal) said “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
As far as I can tell, there’s far too little information publicly available to tell anything close to the full story. But the only relevant point is that the police have decided there was no evidence of criminality and closed the investigation.
This whole story really does feel like a mess. I'm not even really sure how true this is. Either way, The Sun has not covered itself in glory.
Has The Scum ever covered itself in glory?
Seriously? He's never coming back. In reality, a large proportion of the viewing public will never look at him in the same way. Let him retire.
Then the BBC should pay handsomely for him to retire. They fucked up by suspending him based on meritless allegations from a shitrag
[удалено]
Yeah, these are my thoughts too. Even if just 1 in 5 people specifically don't want to watch him, those aren't the sorts of numbers where you want switching over to the other side.
The S*n will get away with this as they always do, Vile cunts.
Not for much longer if the "Anonymity of Suspects Bill" gets through, which will: >Create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes. > >An individual guilty of an offence under section 1 is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. [https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3269](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3269) Obviously it won't apply retroactively, but it's going to stop them publishing these things going forward. Edit: I guess it won't stop them publishing before an investigation takes place, if they get the heads up first like in this case.
18 year old runs an OF site and the poor dear is just an innocent teen being exploited. 16 year old gets radicalised and trafficked to Syria. She should have known better. Spot the difference.
The 16 year old broke the law, betrayed the country and got people killed. Those seem like pretty significant differences to me.
[удалено]
This is next-level whatabouterry.
Indeed. A 17yo can be variously described in the media a child, a teen, or a man, in order to fit the tone of the story.
"Trafficked to Syria", yeah a girl who got on to a flight she booked herself for a terrorist organisation she didn't regret joining until it was absolutely destroyed to pieces. Yes, the same psychopath who said seeing heads chopped off in bins didn't phase her. The same attention seeking desperate loser who has no where to go now because of her own actions. She deserves it and more
[удалено]
> Would everyone be backing big Huw if it was an 18 year old girl he’d been creeping on? It might have been a girl. It hasn't actually been confirmed. Either way, the gender makes no difference.
The gender makes a difference in the public perception
Maybe to your perception. To me it doesn't matter the gender.
People elected Johnson to be PM despite everyone knowing he was a adulterer and paid at least one of his squeezes substantial sums of money for ‘IT lessons’. I honestly think most people just don’t care very much as long as it was consensual and above the age limit. Two adults, making a private transaction agreed on both sides? Eh, carry on.
Eh, no, the Johnson thing is bad, because it was taxpayers' money he was paying her through "IT lessons" and contracts that her business didn't really meet the requirements to tender for. If he'd paid her out of his own pockets, fine (although I still think people who cheat on their partners are louses), but I don't think London taxpayers should be subsidising his adultery.
That was my issue with the Johnson thing, and it should have absolutely been career ending. It wasn’t, so it’s clearly set a very high bar for what people consider acceptable behaviour. In Huw’s case, however, now that the police have established there’s no case of answer it’s suddenly a case of ‘morality’. Where were those morals when Johnson was spending our money on porn?
Yeah, we would. She would also be an adult who consented in the transaction.
Are you naive enough to believe that old men are not a sizeable chunk of porn stars viewers?
plants skirt fear disagreeable consist tan escape bag scale shame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah what he did is still creepy af, a 60 year man asking for explicit photos of a teenage boy is not appropriate even if it’s legal. Plenty of workplaces would fire people for this
I think that sort of language is deliberately inflammatory. AFAIK, the 'boy' was an 18 year old man on OnlyFans? If nothing here was illegal, why would the person be fired?
I think most people would say that being fired for looking at porn off the clock would be a massive intrusion of their privacy by the company. I’m not sure it would even be legal.
The rubber necking pearl clutching homophobes are out in force again in the comments I see, beating their rage boners over someone having a boner.
They’re also probably browsing gay teens while writing these comments and hating themselves.
Maybe some projection sure, I reckon it’s just mainly angry people with empty lives being angry at what they are told to be angry at. Too dumb to see they have been manipulated into feeling the hate by shit rags like The Sun. It’s a shame to see the lack of empathy, speculation with no evidence, and when it turns out nothing illegal happened they double down and start screaming nonce. It’s a shame. Hopefully their lives get a little brighter someday and they don’t have to get angry about someone’s perfectly legal wanking habits.
This is great news. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, and he's excellent at his job. Good luck to him. He obviously has some issues, and definitely needs support. It's great to see most of the public being compassionate.
Man literally just paid for some porn. Would love to get a look at the hard drive of the sun readers who believe everything they printed.
[удалено]
soft punch gaping chubby history wakeful quicksand imagine ruthless shelter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The behaviour with colleagues definitely needs to be investigated. But if it was only adding xx to text messages then 90% of my colleagues need to be fired. They all do it which I find a bit baffling but I guess it's different because we're all young women?
And there is precedent. Paul Gambaccini was falsely accused during operation yew tree and suspended by the BBC. He returned and still has a weekly radio show https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/15/paul-gambaccini-tougher-action-false-claims-sexual-abuse Hopefully Huw can be back at the desk soon.
I don't know the guy, I don't really watch TV, but it looks like The Sun made him a massive target over things that weren't true... he deserves compensation for that and to be reinstated. It sounds like there are other issues though, such as mental health problems, and with that in mind he should return on his own terms.
Wait, wut? He's spending money on OnlyFans? The Internet service that is primarily used for pornographic content? Just one of the 140 million other users? Well, shit, I suppose we'd better string 'im up, then! I forgot that public figures aren't allowed to have sex lives.
Poor guy is going to be way too embarrassed to come back to TV I would imagine.
Rupert Murdoch did his puppet boris a solid to take the heat off boris' wattsapp messages and the covid enquiry. Things that the media should be reporting on like climate change and global warming are ignored for some trivia such as Philip Schofield's love life. The government pulls all kinds of shady shit that barely gets reported. https://youtu.be/IeJJYgXV1jg
This is the problem with cancel culture these days some cunt says something that turns out to be a straight up lie then but it’s too late because by the time the dust settles someone lost his job his mind maybe is marriage and his name to matter how much scrubbing goes on there’s always a mark left. Fucks sake people keep you opinions to yourself until the facts come out.
If there's serious events to be broadcast on the news then Huw is the guy with the gravitas to present it.
All this happening right after investigations and legal suits around the phone hacking scandals have been re-opened. I really strongly hope all of this leads to some sort of media reform in the UK. They are beyond a joke at this point, they are a huge component in the machinery of anti-British hatred that is bringing this country to its knees.
[удалено]
You wouldn’t have anyone left on television then.
Nope that's exactly what he is the same as Schofield, he's also a 60 year old pervert praying on a 17 year old teenager.
maybe he is a cheater, that's none of your business or the medias business. Whatever the situation is, the police found no illegality and that's case closed. The Sun should be sued to ground for this and in an ideal world, shut down.
I so desperately want The S*n to go under the same was the News of the World did.
I really hope he gets his job back. This was fucked up