B.B.C.

[ShootingEgg]

43 minutes ago, London Best said:

The BBC should not be investigating anything and should stick to their job, which is broadcasting

You do know they will have an HR and professional standards dept right. So people in the organisation are employed to carry out these things 

[JohnfromUK]

He has been named on the Six O'Clock news on Radio 4.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469

Edited July 12, 2023 by JohnfromUK

[humperdingle]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

He has been named on the Six O'Clock news on Radio 4.

By his wife!

[ShootingEgg]

6 minutes ago, humperdingle said:

By his wife!

I'd imagine his family are going through hell at the moment.

But the police have now said no criminal activity to investigate. If this comes out as a nothing story his career and life will never be the same 

[millrace]

Yet again the country bows to the "facebook he who shouts loudest" generation who are offended by everything that anyone does that is none of their buisness!!!!!........

[Newbie to this]

5 hours ago, Scully said:

Regards your last paragraph, it is the family which has made the original complaint, rather than the young man involved, so just who is the perceived victim? 

According to the family, the victim is their child, who is now claiming not to be a victim (via a solicitor who the family, have no idea how they are being paid).

Either way, I stand by my original comment.

[London Best]

27 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

You do know they will have an HR and professional standards dept right. So people in the organisation are employed to carry out these things 

Internally.

But have you noticed how often they ‘investigate’ other people’s business?

[Scully]

14 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

According to the family, the victim is their child, who is now claiming not to be a victim (via a solicitor who the family, have no idea how they are being paid).

Either way, I stand by my original comment.

According to the family (‘estranged’) the ‘child’ was a victim; the child himself however, has NEVER claimed to be a victim. 

[MirokuMK70]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

According to the family (‘estranged’) the ‘child’ was a victim; the child himself however, has NEVER claimed to be a victim. 

To be honest if he/she is using Huw Jardons perversions to fund a crack habit, why would they? If you were their parent - estranged or not -wouldn't you intervene?

[Scully]

54 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As I said, the potential criminality is not the issue here, it is his personal conduct that falls far below the standard expected of someone in 'public life' whose (exceedingly generous) salary is picked up by the tax payer.

They're only investigating the poor personal conduct of one of their employees who is currently trashing their brand, same as any other employer.

Absolutely, so as he hasn't had the good grace to fall on his sword, he should be out.

 

 

It has now transpired that there are no charges to answer to, so unless something else comes to light he has done nothing illegal. 
I have no idea what criteria the BBC’s employment policy or terms of behaviour include, although I’m sure they are many and lengthy, but he hasn’t been sacked by them, and the rozzers are satisfied (currently) that there are no criminal charges to answer, but he’s now in hospital quite possibly in the process of a nervous breakdown. 
So just what is it he is guilty of, apart from a severe case of bad judgement? 

41 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

I'd imagine his family are going through hell at the moment.

But the police have now said no criminal activity to investigate. If this comes out as a nothing story his career and life will never be the same 

This….

35 minutes ago, millrace said:

Yet again the country bows to the "facebook he who shouts loudest" generation who are offended by everything that anyone does that is none of their buisness!!!!!........

….and this. 

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, MirokuMK70 said:

To be honest if he/she is using Huw Jardons perversions to fund a crack habit, why would they? If you were their parent - estranged or not -wouldn't you intervene?

It’s only a ‘perversion’ from your perspective, and not unlawful.
Of course I would have intervened; but I would have gone to the police, not his employer, and certainly not the newspapers. 🤷‍♂️
 

[Minky]

18 hours ago, Minky said:

Obviously.   All of this malarkey just don't sit right.   Why didnt the parents go directly to the police.?  Why haven't plod gone and had a word in this  individuals ear..? Whats it really got to do with the bbc.?  They should have said right from the start "what xy or z do out of work ain't nutting to do with us".  Then if this turns out to be illegal let plod deal with it.

This is a big problem with the bbc.  It's operated by weakling lefty, effeminate woke sorts.

As i  previously wrote above,.  And now it's .. oh dear... how sad.. never mind..  with the amount of money he has received and the age, if and when he recovers or gets well it will be a case of doing the garden.  Hopefully his wife and family stand by him in his time of need to cope with this complete blow up and melt down. 

[Newbie to this]

He has now been named by his wife

Edit - just seen that it was alredy posted.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Newbie to this

[Newbie to this]

40 minutes ago, Scully said:

According to the family (‘estranged’) the ‘child’ was a victim; the child himself however, has NEVER claimed to be a victim. 

I know.

[ditchman]

stand by my statement 5 hours ago....it was a tacky legal happening............

i know the papers are just winding everything up.....but they are answering the clarion call of the angry people who feel they are being constantly let down by the woke ...ball-less spineless establishment

30 years ago this would have been reported......papers would have sucked up the scandle.....the presenter would have been let go fired ....and by wednesday it would have been off the front pages.......end of

there is alot of hate going round....and people are wanting to vent their fury....and poor old Huw is in the firing line and gets both barrels...........

and the worse thing...they are out there looking for the next pervert story.....who will be next ?....dear oh dear

[Agriv8]

 morally unacceptable to some and breaking the law are different. he has not broken the law AFAIK ! But has been tried by the media on a headline that he has. 

 To put this in context should we name and shame everyone who has driven at 80 miles an hour on a motorway ?

he paid a lad who he assumed was over age of 18 via a website for those wishing to do that sort of thing . 

Agriv8

 

 

[Rewulf]

Well there you go boys, next time you get caught sending nudes to teenage girls, or caught with the farmers wife, hell, just go out and buy that new gun your wife has told you 'we' can't afford.... 

Just do whatever you want, and when you get caught, blame it on a 'serious mental issue' for which you are receiving 'help' 

Not only do YOU then become the victim, everybody has to leave you alone then, cos you're 'ill'. 

Sorted. 

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Well there you go boys, next time you get caught sending nudes to teenage girls, or caught with the farmers wife, hell, just go out and buy that new gun your wife has told you 'we' can't afford.... 

Just do whatever you want, and when you get caught, blame it on a 'serious mental issue' for which you are receiving 'help' 

Not only do YOU then become the victim, everybody has to leave you alone then, cos you're 'ill'. 

Sorted. 

But he wasn’t ‘caught’ doing any of those things. As far as the police are concerned nothing illegal has occurred ( so far ) so what’s your point? 
For all we know he may have been struggling with his sexuality his entire life and his marriage is a sham, undertook to hide his shame and guilt from a world all too ready to point fingers? Who knows? 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

But he wasn’t ‘caught’ doing any of those things. As far as the police are concerned nothing illegal has occurred ( so far ) so what’s your point? 
For all we know he may have been struggling with his sexuality his entire life and his marriage is a sham, undertook to hide his shame and guilt from a world all too ready to point fingers? Who knows? 

I'm not saying he's done anything illegal, he's perfectly entitled to spend his money on whatever he wants, and if that means paying for nudes that's fine. I'm not so sure his wife is on board with it, but who knows? Hence the 'caught' comment. 

As far as his sexuality goes, that's his business too, but there are certain costs to being a member of the media/celebrity, one is your private life, for whoever is interested. 

What annoys me is hiding behind mental illness to negate the attention, like celebs when they get into trouble, go into rehab to sort their 'demons' 

It just seems funny that he's been fine reading the news for the last 3 years, but once his err, issues come to light, he's now mentally ill? 

Convenient. 

[ShootingEgg]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It just seems funny that he's been fine reading the news for the last 3 years, but once his err, issues come to light, he's now mentally ill? 

That's the issue though, he has not been "fine" he has had depression and openly admitted to it over the last few years. As I stated not an hour ago, his life now will never be the same. Yet in the eyes of the law he actually did nothing illegal. 

People do this every day ( pay for explicit content ) and their are far worse people than him in this world, but because he is on TV he gets his named spread all over the rags and he is branded a dirty old man before any investigation or police involvement.

Now it's too late to change this even after the police doing their investigation and finding now criminal activity.

[Scully]

20 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

That's the issue though, he has not been "fine" he has had depression and openly admitted to it over the last few years. As I stated not an hour ago, his life now will never be the same. Yet in the eyes of the law he actually did nothing illegal. 

People do this every day ( pay for explicit content ) and their are far worse people than him in this world, but because he is on TV he gets his named spread all over the rags and he is branded a dirty old man before any investigation or police involvement.

Now it's too late to change this even after the police doing their investigation and finding now criminal activity.

 

32 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I'm not saying he's done anything illegal, he's perfectly entitled to spend his money on whatever he wants, and if that means paying for nudes that's fine. I'm not so sure his wife is on board with it, but who knows? Hence the 'caught' comment. 

As far as his sexuality goes, that's his business too, but there are certain costs to being a member of the media/celebrity, one is your private life, for whoever is interested. 

What annoys me is hiding behind mental illness to negate the attention, like celebs when they get into trouble, go into rehab to sort their 'demons' 

It just seems funny that he's been fine reading the news for the last 3 years, but once his err, issues come to light, he's now mentally ill? 

Convenient. 

As Shootingegg has said, he has a history of mental health issues; it’s not a recent thing. 
As you’ll know, there are many many examples throughout history of people suffering mental health problems due to hiding their true sexuality, for whatever reason: ridicule, shame, guilt, fear of persecution or worse. 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

As you’ll know, there are many many examples throughout history of people suffering mental health problems due to hiding their true sexuality, for whatever reason: ridicule, shame, guilt, fear of persecution or worse

He was apparently 'angry' when the Sun broke the story, it's also alleged he spoke to alleged person{s} who he was sending money to. 

Like I've said, it appears he has done nothing wrong, legally or morally, except for the fact he was OK with other presents names being put forward as the alleged person involved? 

I'll be honest, someone told me last week it was him, and I thought they were joking... I am surprised, and rather disappointed it wasn't Packham or Lineker. 

[udderlyoffroad]

None of this excuses extremely poor judgement & exposing himself to blackmail.

This kind of behaviour would get you thrown out of, say, the police force or the armed forces as you’re a liability. Or a large corporate, come to that.

Similar applies to broadcasters, and frankly I’m less than convinced on the playing of the mental health card.

The fact that the Met considers no crime has been committed (or more likely because the alleged victim presumably didn’t want take things further) is a win all round & will at least speed up the glacial BBC HR department wonks.

[Weihrauch17]

10 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

None of this excuses extremely poor judgement & exposing himself to blackmail.

This kind of behaviour would get you thrown out of, say, the police force or the armed forces as you’re a liability. Or a large corporate, come to that.

Similar applies to broadcasters, and frankly I’m less than convinced on the playing of the mental health card.

The fact that the Met considers no crime has been committed (or more likely because the alleged victim presumably didn’t want take things further) is a win all round & will at least speed up the glacial BBC HR department wonks.

The Met have proven time and again that they are totally unfit for purpose, I wouldn't believe a word they say or trust them to do a thorough accurate investigation.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Newbie to this]

1 minute ago, Weihrauch17 said:

The Met have proven time and again that they are totally unfit for purpose, I wouldn't believe a word they say or trust them to do a thorough accurate investigation.

Agreed, it's a bigger cesspit than the BBC.