Deano & Dalian's Umbrella

2 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

 

 

 

I don't think we should be signing someone who can't get it up. He can't be that healthy.

Sky and the Guardian are both saying that the BBC have this evening reported that:

" Huw Edwards is facing “yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour” this evening.

The new accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC."

But I can't find this on the BBC

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

You have to say it The Sun are SO sure of their ground, and they've got this "extra" evidence...Why haven't THEY named him?

And why is everyone going out of their way to not mention the gender of the 4 "complainants"?  (I know one isn't complaining)

Where I've seen incidents of people accidentally letting it slip, they've immediately jumped to correct themselves and say "or young woman".

9 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Is there anyone at this stage who hasn’t clocked who it is?

My point wasn't that you could find out who it was this way, but rather that someone in the "press" had actually taken the plunge, even though widely-held opinion is that the person has only been named on social media and not by any media outlets (if you count a political website as "media outlet").

But you'd be surprised.

Yesterday, I saw an AI-generated youtube video of the person in question talking about the story,  which even included the arse photo, and from some of the comments, it was clear that people were still asking who it was and some people even thought the video was real. It did look real.

Guido Fawkes did an article yesterday where they as good as named them.  

11 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I mean we all know the star’s identity ffs, that still means absolutely **** nothing in the context of whether he’s allowed to pay for gay porn and present the thing that rhymes with the plural form of his name.

Ok. I'm a married man and I work in a position of responsibility and I'm a buddhist.

So if screenshots of me on a webcam appeared with me naked and apparently wanking over a young lad, I'm sure my wife and employer would consider my actions immoral.

And many people would consider me a hypocrite if I'd been expounding buddhist teachings.

And my employer wouldn't want me to continue leading big events where we open our doors to the public.

I think I'm going to go back to the Villa pages now. I'm not sure why I got drawn into this. I think I'm having a crazy day.

Just now, KentVillan said:

That’s because The Sun has a version of morality that is hypocritical horse shit, and the BBC are terrified of the Tories.

Do we really think people in the media aren’t allowed to look at paid-for gay porn? Or are they suggesting a much more serious offence has happened? I’m really confused by what the accusation is here. The police don’t appear to have seen anything untoward so far.

I can't answer this without pointing to the star's identity.  

6 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

 

 it’s hard to see what the public interest case is, nor really what the star has done wrong morally or legally besides an interest in gay porn.

 

As the former editor of the Sun just said on the TV, given the particular position that this person holds at the BBC, they will never appear on air again because it will be deemed that they have acted immorally.

They also let slip that this is not a daughter.

I was also surprised that they said the Sun's biggest mistake was not printing the webcam screenshot many of us have seen. They must think it isn't fake.

31 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

Even if they had the evidence which they clearly don't 

 

The Sun have said: "We have seen evidence that supports their concerns"

Just now, tomav84 said:

that's not really evidence is it

  

not seen this and i just trawled through the various sun stories about it...you'd think with the latest comments from the person's lawyers that they'd be shouting this from the rooftops?

Have you read the current main story on the Sun website titled "the BBC are liars"?

3 hours ago, tomav84 said:

 

"and you have that bank statement right?"

 

The parents are claiming they do and that they showed these to the BBC.

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

my bad, thought they had been referred to as she...interesting that they're going with the "them/they/their" pronouns. like they deliberately are avoiding genering them

I was watching a news channel earlier where someone said "this young man"

5 minutes ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said:

The parents claim that they saw the presenter on a video call in his underpants.  

The Sun say they have seen evidence to support their story so I'm guessing there could be some image evidence.

 

The parents have now stated they DO have screenshot evidence.

It does not seem their angle is to prosecute the presenter for doing something illegal - I am not convinced they even knew it was iilegal at 17.

It seems they just want the presenter to stop giving money to their child and funding an alleged drug habit.

You also have to wonder who paid for the solicitor.

The Sun are really doubling-down on this which makes me think they are on the right side of this.

3 hours ago, tomav84 said:

 

"and what evidence do you have to back up these accusations madam?"

 

The parents claim that they saw the presenter on a video call in his underpants.  

The Sun say they have seen evidence to support their story so I'm guessing there could be some image evidence.

3 hours ago, tomav84 said:

but what were they to look into? some batshit crazy mum complains to the bbc that her crackhead daughter got her drug money off a bbc presenter.

 

I think it might be a son and not a daughter

Somebody has posted the arse pic of the presenter as a reply on the presenter's own twitter page.

23 hours ago, Genie said:

Lots of people on Twitter speculating on Huw is could be.

This reminded me of this Curb Your Enthusiasm episode.

I only went into this thread to see if everyone else knew who it was and had seen the arse photo!

I do know private modes don't hide your IP address and you need a VPN for that!

Got to go, the police have just knocked at my door.

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

and now your google search history is looking for nude photos of a guy's 16 year old wife 

I already thought of that and did it in Private Mode!

It's not something Hyou'd want everyone knowing about.

Also, I did a news search rather than a plain google search to make sure nothing came up like that!

On 09/07/2023 at 08:42, StefanAVFC said:

Can be married at 16 legally with parental consent so you can be arrested for filming having legal sex with your wife 

 

There was a case in America where this actually happened about 10 years ago.

The guy's wife was 16 and he was 18 and he got done for having nude photos of her which were classified as indecent images of a child.

I just tried to find it with a google news search but there have been so many sex offender news articles since then it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I still can't believe that this was sustained in the video of that tackle where it looked like he got stamped on above the ankle and nowhere near the metatarsals.

Not that it really matters now.

do they do flights from Birmingham every day or only on certain days?

19 minutes ago, blunther said:

Couldn't get on last night due to the volume, and now it's under maintenance. I did actually manage to order something once, a villa hoodie. But had to pick it up from the club shop and never got round to it. 

Exactly what happened to me - I ordered it before the Chelsea game was cancelled and we went into Lockdown.

If that video is the injury and he did require surgery, it would be bad luck, and it could be  a fracture of his medial malleolus (the bony lump on the inside of his tibia) which would need pinning and that could be several months out.

Although I thought he would have been in more pain after the game for that.

A few days ago, Twitter put a block on people seeing tweets if you don't have an account. That includes me.

But if someone posts a tweet in this forum then I can see it (in the forum only - not if i click on it) 

Why is that?