Good news if true. Feel horrible for the accused.
I think I have an idea who was accused, especially if it was fake because it would be an easy target to generate a story. I hope he isn’t too hurt by this
Detectives from the Met’s Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.
That says to me that either:
-
The young person involved voluntarily sent images of themself to Edwards, and he either did not respond to them, or responded passively or properly
-
The young person involved was solicited for messages, but no evidence to support this remains
-
This entire thing is a cockamamie bullshit piece dreamed up by a set of parents who are Very Angry that their son is gay, and decided to take things to the press to hit back at him for asserting his sexuality.
There is, of course, the matter of the second allegation - but copycat cases also exist, and it is hard to say whether or not the Met’s statement covers both allegations or merely the first.
It does confuse me, somewhat, that Edwards voluntarily offered his identity to the public. He was potentially entirely in the clear after the police statement, so he may either be considering the public interest angle (given he has worked in newscasting for a very long time), is attempting to curry public favour, or maybe just thinks its the right thing to do.
Problem with his revelation is the possibility of it being traced to the young person. It obviously sounds as though they want to remain anonymous and private - what are the chances of that happening now?
-
Hmm. Have to admit. From the beginning I questioned why the BBC seemed to be the target.
If the star broke the law. (And paying a 17yo for explicit pic def is). Then why the hell are the parents not calling the police.
If it’s not illegal then as scummy as it may be. It’s all consensual, adults make a choice.
As bad as I feel for younger people taken advantage of by older. The reason we have the 18 law. Is 18ys ha #ve a right to make their own choice. Good or bad ones.
No other employer would have the right or expectation to address a member of staff following the law. And the police would be involved if it’s a crime. So why an attack on the BBC rather than a call to the police.
To be honest, this is the whole reason I’ve been telling people that the story isn’t nearly what is being reported. If I was attacked by someone that I knew worked at Tesco, I wouldn’t write to Tesco to demand they investigate, I’d go to the police. So why involve the BBC? Why involve The Sun? If the “dossier” that The Sun has is so definitive, why are they not handing it over to the police like the BBC has with their evidence? Then, as the story developed: why did the step father change the complaint to the BBC after more than a month? And are we supposed to believe that this change just happened to occur less than 24 hours before The Sun’s front page headlines?
The problem is that the allegations are playing second fiddle to a dangerous, damaging witch-hunt clearly being played out to cause maximum damage to a public service broadcaster for the benefit of not just any tabloid, but a nasty, vindictive tabloid backed by one of the most sinister and manipulative people in the world. Murdoch will never face anything like justice for the evil he’s caused, but I seriously hope that this whole shitshow massively blows up in his face.