One of Britain's leading television news anchors, Huw Edwards, was identified by his wife on Wednesday as the BBC presenter facing allegations he paid a young person thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photos, the broadcaster reported.
It’s not clear from the news articles whether any pictures were even sent, let alone paid for.
The police determining there’s no crime doesn’t tell us that either.
For all we know, the whole thing is a dead cat to distract from other, more serious (or genuine) scandals that might be going on. Or to keep them out of the news cycle altogether.
Even if the allegations are true, and he’s paid a ridiculous sum for some illicit filth, he really only has to explain his behaviour to his wife and family.
I was with you untill that last paragraph. If he solicited explicit photos from a minor, he has a lot more explaining to do than just to his wife and family.
It’s not clear from the news articles whether any pictures were even sent, let alone paid for.
The police determining there’s no crime doesn’t tell us that either.
For all we know, the whole thing is a dead cat to distract from other, more serious (or genuine) scandals that might be going on. Or to keep them out of the news cycle altogether.
Even if the allegations are true, and he’s paid a ridiculous sum for some illicit filth, he really only has to explain his behaviour to his wife and family.
It’s a dead cat.
On the same day this news dropped, Boris Johnson failed to turn his phone in to the police.
I was with you untill that last paragraph. If he solicited explicit photos from a minor, he has a lot more explaining to do than just to his wife and family.
The sun is now saying that they never claimed that he requested photos whilst he was a minor
I was working on the assumption that if he solicited photos from a minor, that would have been a crime. Since no crime was found, … etc.
Okay, that meaning didn’t get across because illicit means illegal.
I just think it’s funny.