FabSwingers.com forum: Defending Hew Edwards

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Liverpool

Woah Woah Woah.

Is that new info I have missed or are you misinformed?

Dating? Thought it was just pics?

Not that I'm defending or taking a stance either way on that, just enquiring about correct facts.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense "

….,

*Woody rethinks his career options…

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The difficulty is that we have laws (which have a founding in societal morality) and outside of that we have a sliding scale of what people’s personal views are on matters which don’t concern them. Also, when we start judging people who “sin differently” where will the morality position end?

Personally I think that there is no public interests in being a gossip whore and that unless a criminal offence has been committed it shouldn’t be reported in the media

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers"
Unless you are Bill Wyman I guess and he was fucking Mandy Smith when she was 15, allegedly,

Mrs xxx

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ose-tinted GlassesMan
over a year ago

Glasgow / London

"35k just for pics,"

"*Woody rethinks his career options"

Shit, I post pics on here for free.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers"

Not a pensioner though is he

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *londebiguyMan
over a year ago

Southport

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers"

I've not seen anyone describe it as dating.

Personally I do not see the 16 year old as Completely innocent in this and I'm certainly getting a picture of the parents as out for the money too.

It's not right that he is the only one judged and vilified.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *eally_RosieWoman
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If you work in an influential position, taking a massive salary funded by a fee that ordinary people are forced to pay for, whether they want your shitty biased media or not, then you should damn well be held accountable for immoral and irresponsible actions.

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Because of the law involving photography/pornography of those under 18 he has broken the law. Some might say it is a stupid law as he could have sex with that person legally once they have turned 16.

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it."

Agreed!!!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Because of the law involving photography/pornography of those under 18 he has broken the law. Some might say it is a stupid law as he could have sex with that person legally once they have turned 16.

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it. "

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

I for one would be horrified to find you, and others in that position, facing criminal proceedings. You have a defence that you did not know and could not reasonably have expected to know. Hew has that defence too.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *oggoneMan
over a year ago

Derry

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it."

Mobs are never the way to go. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are.

And the sun leading the charge is rank hypocrisy. The idea of them being arbiters of public morality isn't even funny. It's a sick joke.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *weetiepie99Woman
over a year ago

cardiff

Huw

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it."

What is at play here is the balancing of an individual’s right to a private life and the public interest in knowing about that private life

I do not see any public interest in gossip mongering that should be above someone’s right to a private life if they have not engaged in i criminal activity

I don’t consider that what someone is paid should have any bearing on that analysis

I certainly see there is a valid public interest in reporting on the criminal activity of high profile individuals. Anything less than criminal activity is nothing more than gossip IMO

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it.

Mobs are never the way to go. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are.

And the sun leading the charge is rank hypocrisy. The idea of them being arbiters of public morality isn't even funny. It's a sick joke."

I agree that it is laughable that the sun is the morality yardstick !

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

The Met have come out and given a statement that after looking at the evidence and speaking to the young person and his family that no criminal offence has been committed and that they are not continuing with this at this time.

They did say the Beeb could continue with their own internal investigations,

Mrs xxx

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it."

Correct.Its absolutely astounding that organisations and large numbers of the public have learned nothing from how Saville and his chums operated and got away with it for so long.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don’t really care too much about this story but I did read somewhere that the boy went to the sun and/or the police and said he was never underage and was 18 the whole time. Is that lies? And is him being 17 verified?

Hew is a nonce if true

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 14/07/23 19:23:44]

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

This is a site for over adults over 18. Anyone under that age should not be on this site. If someone randomly sends me a cock pic when I have not requested one then I have done nothing wrong. Anyone on this site can send photos without getting the recipients permission. Fabswingers should be a safe space for adults that enjoy a liberated lifestyle. "

Agreed and Hew came to this particular person via only fans with the same criteria

If someone strains their every nerve to deceive others as to their real age then I don’t see how it can be right that the unwitting recipient does not have a valid defence

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

It would even be a defence to receive a solicited image.

A defence is made out or it isn’t. In each case it would be a matter of fact.

Your analogy is flawed and conflates three different criminal issues

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *oggoneMan
over a year ago

Derry

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

And people here could have their lives destroyed by the Sun. Fab has been targeted by the tabloids before. It's not a safe space in any sense of the word.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Just because someone has a "defence" does not mean that defence is lawful or that the CPS or a jury will accept it.Having a physically violent ex partner who has made threats is not a lawful defence for carrying a knife with a blade exceeding 3 inches in public."
He has not committed a crime, MET have said there is no evidence of criminality, so he won't be arrested, it won't go to CPS and he doesn't need a defence,

Mrs xxx

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *d4fun73Man
over a year ago

Shipley

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense "

What does it have to do with you?!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

It would even be a defence to receive a solicited image.

A defence is made out or it isn’t. In each case it would be a matter of fact.

Your analogy is flawed and conflates three different criminal issues "

I was pointing out the difference between defence,lawful defence and in the knife example what people call "good reason" which is neither a defence or lawful defence.It not flawed it is legal fact.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

It would even be a defence to receive a solicited image.

A defence is made out or it isn’t. In each case it would be a matter of fact.

Your analogy is flawed and conflates three different criminal issues

I was pointing out the difference between defence,lawful defence and in the knife example what people call "good reason" which is neither a defence or lawful defence.It not flawed it is legal fact."

I respectfully dissent

In the knife example. That was said to be in public etc. when read with the section before it it was taken to be tied into the defence of self defence in a domestic abuse setting. It didn’t even set out the proper test of self defence. It is quite a lot to unravel and really has just veered off course. Good reason doesn’t come into self defence. I really am struggling to undo the threads of confusion. There is a statutory *knowledge* defence which applies to possessing indecent images of a 17 year old. I think that is the point which is being missed in your comment and analogy.

As to whether or not the knowledge defence is invoked that is fact specific just like the good reason for carrying a blade is fact specific (eg just bought a kitchen set and taking it home from the shops)

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anyway, my fella has told me to “pack it in” commenting on controversial posts because he doesn’t want us to be removed and lose the opportunity to explore what we came here for so this is my last comment on this topic.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense

What does it have to do with you?!"

I’m concerned about the welfare of our young adults from predatory old men, disappointed 35k of taxpayers money went on class A drugs. Imagine you had a 17 year old son and Hews sliding in the DMs sending him ass pics

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

It would even be a defence to receive a solicited image.

A defence is made out or it isn’t. In each case it would be a matter of fact.

Your analogy is flawed and conflates three different criminal issues

I was pointing out the difference between defence,lawful defence and in the knife example what people call "good reason" which is neither a defence or lawful defence.It not flawed it is legal fact.

I respectfully dissent

Taking a set of knives home from the shops is not "good reason" it is lawful defence,in other words a specific circumstance that removes illegality from a situation.The knife example I used was carrying in public,not being confronted or having a fight,therefore self defence does not enter into it.The offence would be carrying only,not intent or possibility of use.I was pointing out the difference between defence,something you can argue in court to persuade a not guilty,lawful defence which stops something from being an offence and good reason which is nothing except something to be put forward to reduce sentence after conviction.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *arlequin_tearsMan
over a year ago

Sheffield

"The Met have come out and given a statement that after looking at the evidence and speaking to the young person and his family that no criminal offence has been committed and that they are not continuing with this at this time.

They did say the Beeb could continue with their own internal investigations,

Mrs xxx"

Matter was also investigated by South Wales police who found nothing to act on.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If that’s in the form of being vilified in the media because there is no legal recourse, then so be it."

^^^ This

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers

I've not seen anyone describe it as dating.

Personally I do not see the 16 year old as Completely innocent in this and I'm certainly getting a picture of the parents as out for the money too.

It's not right that he is the only one judged and vilified. "

You don't see a 16yo as innocent? Twas a 17yo, but...wow. Did he lure HE into depravity (allegedly)?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers

I've not seen anyone describe it as dating.

Personally I do not see the 16 year old as Completely innocent in this and I'm certainly getting a picture of the parents as out for the money too.

It's not right that he is the only one judged and vilified.

You don't see a 16yo as innocent? Twas a 17yo, but...wow. Did he lure HE into depravity (allegedly)? "

A young adult can easily be manipulated/controlled/groomed by a older adult, especially when they are giving them money to feed their addiction to class a drugs. The fact the person is on class a drugs at that age suggests they are troubled

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense

What does it have to do with you?!

Do you consider Huw Edwards' salary to be taxpayers money? Are taxpayers entitled to scrutinise the personal spending habits of those employed in the public sector with a fine tooth comb? What are public sector workers allowed to spend their salaries on? And should teachers, nurses, and other public sector employees be denounced for spending some of their salaries on porn, Fab membership, club entry etc??

Once the salary is given to the person, it is their right to spend it how they so wish, so long as its lawful. We don't know if Huw knew about the drug purchases and even if he did, technically, Huw hasn't directly purchased them (if he'd been buying drugs and handing them over, the Police would be investigating).

So, whatever we think about the moral rights and wrongs of older people buying sexual content from younger people, I don't think we can specify what a public sector employee chooses to spend their salary on. Also on the topic of older people buying sexual content from younger people, presumably you would consider any other man in his 60s buying pornographic content of people aged 18 to be problematic? Because there are literally millions of men, including many on here, buying/consuming porn with actors aged 18, 19 etc.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense

What does it have to do with you?!

Crack is illegal last time I checked. I’m not sure if we’ve got any dealers on here but I’d imagine 35k would buy you a lot. People are going to food banks in this country, meanwhile they pay for tv license they prob don’t even want

There’s a BIG difference between watching young adults in porn and approaching them, interacting with them, having sex with them and giving them thousands of pounds

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers

I've not seen anyone describe it as dating.

Personally I do not see the 16 year old as Completely innocent in this and I'm certainly getting a picture of the parents as out for the money too.

It's not right that he is the only one judged and vilified.

You don't see a 16yo as innocent? Twas a 17yo, but...wow. Did he lure HE into depravity (allegedly)?

Absolutely. It bothers me so much that this kid is vulnerable yet it's suggested he wasn't innocent. He was a CHILD when it started.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *al kalMan
over a year ago

london

"It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers"

Do we know he slid into DMs?

There are numerous sugardaddy seeking sugarbaby (or vica versa) “dating” sites across the web.

Also perhaps someone already had an Only Fans (or something similar) account. It’s easy enough to get around 18y age restriction on sites.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *arlequin_tearsMan
over a year ago

Sheffield

"Absolutely. It bothers me so much that this kid is vulnerable yet it's suggested he wasn't innocent. He was a CHILD when it started.

Then original claims were made by the 17-year-old's estranged Mum & Step-Dad.

Claims the 17-year-old has denied via their lawyer.

Currently, Edwards is accused of:

- Inappropriate messages being sent to colleagues late at night.

- Soliciting images from a 17-year-old over a period of 3 years. Which the teenager involved denies

- Having me a couple of 20 something's off a dating app

- Sent messages via Instagram to a 17-year-old that they found 'creepy'

BBC is dealing with the internal stuff.

2 Police forces have investigated and found nothing to act on.

Currently we have little if any reliable information about any of this.

Yes, paedophilia is awful.

As someone who knows victims of child sex abuse, officers who have to investigate child porn and seen cases of families pumping out their kids it's genuinely hideous.

But I'm not crucifying someone on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations and the word of the current bun.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *onnydayzMan
over a year ago

preston

The weird thing is he could of had sex and married the 17 year old but can't swap naked pictures.

The law isn't consistent and creates a loophole where 2 out of the above 3 things are perfectly legal.

Moral law doesn't exist. You can ask 1000 people their views and you'll get 1000 different answers.

I get the feeling that The Sun is going to be settling out of court a very large sum of money, certainly substantially larger than the £35K he's allegedly paid the 17 year old.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The weird thing is he could of had sex and married the 17 year old but can't swap naked pictures.

The law isn't consistent and creates a loophole where 2 out of the above 3 things are perfectly legal.

Moral law doesn't exist. You can ask 1000 people their views and you'll get 1000 different answers.

I get the feeling that The Sun is going to be settling out of court a very large sum of money, certainly substantially larger than the £35K he's allegedly paid the 17 year old. "

Fully agree with this. I personally don't understand the laws and they seem to be very conflicting. No wonder people get into trouble!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Absolutely. It bothers me so much that this kid is vulnerable yet it's suggested he wasn't innocent. He was a CHILD when it started.

Then original claims were made by the 17-year-old's estranged Mum & Step-Dad.

Claims the 17-year-old has denied via their lawyer.

Currently, Edwards is accused of:

- Inappropriate messages being sent to colleagues late at night.

- Soliciting images from a 17-year-old over a period of 3 years. Which the teenager involved denies

- Having me a couple of 20 something's off a dating app

- Sent messages via Instagram to a 17-year-old that they found 'creepy'

BBC is dealing with the internal stuff.

2 Police forces have investigated and found nothing to act on.

Currently we have little if any reliable information about any of this.

Yes, paedophilia is awful.

As someone who knows victims of child sex abuse, officers who have to investigate child porn and seen cases of families pumping out their kids it's genuinely hideous.

But I'm not crucifying someone on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations and the word of the current bun.

I don't think I am crucifying him. Ive never accused him of being a p@dophile nor shall I. I shall wait to see the final outcome like everyone else. I find myself responding more to the attitudes here more than anything else.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers"

Legally its fine but ethically it's really really not

People are defending but would have something different to say if it was their 16 year old daughter

Plus he is married and it was done behind the wives back

Nothing to defend as far as I'm concerned

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So a 17 year old sent some pics to a 60 year old, wasnt illigal so only the same as what all these horrid only fans girls are doing to the horrid 60 year olds everyday all over the world and knowone bats an eye because there empowered young women taking charge of there lives or what ever crap they spout.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Sending unsolicited nudes is an offence in Scotland and will soon be one in England as well

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So a 17 year old sent some pics to a 60 year old, wasnt illigal so only the same as what all these horrid only fans girls are doing to the horrid 60 year olds everyday all over the world and knowone bats an eye because there empowered young women taking charge of there lives or what ever crap they spout. "

I was saying this the other day. If when I was 17, a older women wanted to pay me for pics in my underwear I'd have not thought anything of it other than what a "naughty woman."

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"Forget the Sun aspect. They are a trash newspaper

I’ve seen people defending Hew Edwards saying it was a consensual relationship between two adults

Hew is 61 years old dating a 17 year old. People saying this is ok because not illegal. By that logic is it ok to date a 16 year old? Some 16 year year olds go to school

It’s not and never will be ok for pensioners to slide in the DMs of year elevens and sixth formers

Legally its fine but ethically it's really really not

People are defending but would have something different to say if it was their 16 year old daughter

Plus he is married and it was done behind the wives back

Nothing to defend as far as I'm concerned "

and as I have said before without response,it seems very few people have learnt from Saville and his chums.Edwards and Schofield had red flags all over them.Is it not possible that these stories breaking stopped their behaviour from escalating? Even a first year psychology student can tell you sexual predators escalate.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *batMan
over a year ago

Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales)

"Crack is illegal last time I checked."

It is. But that's on the young person, not Huw Edwards. If you buy stuff, it's not your fault if the person uses the money to buy drugs.

"People are going to food banks in this country, meanwhile they pay for tv license they prob don’t even want."

Again, Huw Edwards isn't the problem here. He's not the reason that people need food banks. He doesn't set the licence fee and I don't know if he even supports it. Do you?

"There’s a BIG difference between watching young adults in porn and approaching them, interacting with them, having sex with them and giving them thousands of pounds"

If my profile said I liked women of all different ages and said I was seeking 18 year old women (18 to 99), then I'd be careful pointing the finger at other people who interact with young adults.

There's a lot of people on here who are pontificating.

Two separate police forces have said there's no evidence of any crime committed. Not that there's no point in prosecuting, not that he has a defence in law, not that he's too powerful and untouchable. He hasn't broken the law. It's got nothing to do with the police.

If you don't like Huw's moral choices, that's your view. Nothing more. I imagine a lot of people you know don't agree with your swinging lifestyle choices and would be equally outraged. That's their view.

Who is right?

Gbat

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Apparently he’s met with them. It sounds like he’s sugar daddy. 35k just for pics, doesn’t make sense

What does it have to do with you?!

There’s a BIG difference between watching young adults in porn and approaching them, interacting with them, having sex with them and giving them thousands of pounds

And yet, you're nearly 40 but according to you, youd meet an 18yr old via a swingers site.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *reat me rightWoman
over a year ago

Rotherham

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it. "

Police have said there is no crime to answer to though

Over the age of consent (whether out for money or not)

Man who "should" know better but has cash to pay for the pics

Young person poses for pics and pockets cash

All round not particularly savoury but "consenting" played a part - no worse than Schofield

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Sending unsolicited nudes is an offence in Scotland and will soon be one in England as well "

This is getting weird though. So sending a pic of a certain part of your body is now illegal. Not only do I find that weird, your potentially going to find yourself later defending the fact you were "allowed" to send a certain type of picture. Scottish law makers scare me before I "just" found out this law

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"I’m so sick of people getting off the hook because they ‘technically did nothing illegal’

If there are explicit photos, then they have both broken laws.

- It IS illegal to take sexually explicit photos of anyone under the age of 18... even if you are the person.

- It IS illegal to distribute sexual images of anyone under the age of 18.

- It IS illegal to be in possession of sexually explicit images of Anyone under the age of 18.

I also believe that both The Sun & The Parents, have also broken the law. If you "know" about any form of sexual exploitation of a minor & fail to report it to the police, I think that is also an offence (it certainly is for school staff, social workers, etc...)

I can only assume that there is no proof of the existence of photos, which is why the police are not interested.

Cal

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Sending unsolicited nudes is an offence in Scotland and will soon be one in England as well

Technically you have not been allowed to send “obscene or indecent” pictures via the post for years so it is not completely weird that the internet is catching up (section 85 of the Postal Services Act if you fancy a bit of light bed time reading)

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a matter of interest only, has anyone seen any evidence of this 35k?

I've looked at the reports and every one I've seen has allegedly in front of 'paid 35k'.

I also wonder why some keep saying the young person was 17. Surely if they were, and as has been discussed, it would be illegal to have images of a 17yr old then police would have brought charges but they didnt. They said there had been no criminality which therefore implies they weren't 17....I'm not defending Edward's actions and as someone said, if it had been my son or daughter I'd have gone ballistic but whatever you or I think, nothing illegal has taken place.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Sending unsolicited nudes is an offence in Scotland and will soon be one in England as well

Nothing weird about tbh

Try being a women who randomly gets sent pictures of dicks from men 1 you don't have a sexual relationship with and 2 you don't even like

That's the weird part

Plus it's gross

Obviously if you're having a sexual conversation with someone it's different but plenty of times I've met guys in real life and they've randomly sent me dicks pics

I'm glad it's going to be made illegal on due course

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've talked to people on here that have sent photos and had nudes on their profile then it turns out they are 16. I've had to block people because of it.

On this point - do you think you, and others in that same position, are to be taken to court for being in receipt of the offending image?

Receiving an unsolicited image is not an offence.

Sending unsolicited nudes is an offence in Scotland and will soon be one in England as well

Haha I'll have to deal with the laws that were used against me and those lying about it before I have any "light" reading on this subject.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *xxblackcatxxxMan
over a year ago

NEWBURY

I think the really sad thing here is , what ever he did he choose to hide & in the end his wife had to stand up & speak for him , Absolutely disgraceful

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03 OP Man
over a year ago

Manchester

Does anyone know how a crack addicted young adult can afford to hire some of London’s top lawyers at short notice?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *aturechapMan
over a year ago

leeds

Well we all look at free pics on here how do we know it’s consensual …do you know?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the really sad thing here is , what ever he did he choose to hide & in the end his wife had to stand up & speak for him , Absolutely disgraceful "

You're 66 looking to meet 18yr olds

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the really sad thing here is , what ever he did he choose to hide & in the end his wife had to stand up & speak for him , Absolutely disgraceful

You're 66 looking to meet 18yr olds"

Literally everyone is a hypocrite... Worryingly I'm starting to think they don't realise it though

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"As a matter of interest only, has anyone seen any evidence of this 35k?

I've looked at the reports and every one I've seen has allegedly in front of 'paid 35k'.

If someone makes an allegation,another person denies it and there is no other evidence/witness to break the deadlock,the Police have no option but to drop it.That does not mean an offence has not taken place,it simply means that if it were to go to court there is no balance of probability in favour of a conviction.It is not an appropriate use of public money to bring the case to court. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

"Does anyone know how a crack addicted young adult can afford to hire some of London’s top lawyers at short notice?"

If said individual had lots of money then it would be very easy for them. I am sure it happens all the time with the drug addicted offspring of the rich so it is not a particularly uncommon thing.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"Does anyone know how a crack addicted young adult can afford to hire some of London’s top lawyers at short notice?"

good question that no one is asking.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As a matter of interest only, has anyone seen any evidence of this 35k?

I've looked at the reports and every one I've seen has allegedly in front of 'paid 35k'.

Oh shut up

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

There's no victim by the individual's own admission. The age difference isn't for me but they'll never know the truth and since nothing illegal has transpired, let it go

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"Does anyone know how a crack addicted young adult can afford to hire some of London’s top lawyers at short notice?

If said individual had lots of money then it would be very easy for them. I am sure it happens all the time with the drug addicted offspring of the rich so it is not a particularly uncommon thing."

Nothing to suggest this kid is rich or from a rich family.If they Were isn't it more likely the parents would get the kid in somewhere like The Priory?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't give enough of a crap about Huw Edwards to either defend or condemn him, but I don't believe for one second that he paid out £35k and just got pictures in return.

Bess x

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

"Does anyone know how a crack addicted young adult can afford to hire some of London’s top lawyers at short notice?

If said individual had lots of money then it would be very easy for them. I am sure it happens all the time with the drug addicted offspring of the rich so it is not a particularly uncommon thing.

Nothing to suggest this kid is rich or from a rich family.If they Were isn't it more likely the parents would get the kid in somewhere like The Priory?"

I was merely putting forward an answer to the question asked and observing it is not an uncommon occurrence so that people don’t go haring down the path that young people hiring lawyers is an unusual activity and thus indicative of something scandalous.

If I had made a lot of cash via unorthodox activities and I was being pursued by the Sun then I would make sure I had the best lawyers I could afford - irrespective of my age.

One of the points about top law firms is that they can be hired very quickly - they tend to be needed when the shit hits the fan and they are needed to clean it up.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the really sad thing here is , what ever he did he choose to hide & in the end his wife had to stand up & speak for him , Absolutely disgraceful

You're 66 looking to meet 18yr olds

Literally everyone is a hypocrite... Worryingly I'm starting to think they don't realise it though"

Im actively looking for 18 year old unfortunately there defiantly not looking for me

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately