Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

Blue and true said:
Of course not. But the claims haven't been denied, neither by himself or through his wife's statement; that in itself is telling. Anyone accused of claims of such gravity would surely rebut them immediately.
Click to expand...
never overplay your hand - stepping stones to a more dignified exit with head held high (well, slightly inclined)
 
BBC News had to report the story. And probably reported it at greater depth than needed just to demonstrate BBC News' independence from BBC management.

On News at Ten tonight they did a career retrospective that looked like they'd mined the material already compiled for Edwards' obituary, and then they wanted to go after The Sun, but had to be aware of the other "abuse of power" allegations.

Then Newsnight actually had Rod Liddle, ex-BBC news editor and now Sun columnist, pretending that the allegations of criminal behaviour weren't allegations of criminal behaviour because they hadn't actually said that the accusations of criminal behaviour weren't criminal behaviour. (As in "You've murdered someone but I'm not saying murder is a crime.")

Bottom line - you're a juror in a libel trial, the plaintiff has been publicly (in print) accused of criminal behaviour which has been disproved. The defendant's only line of defence is that the plaintiff's reputation has been so sullied by revelations of his private lifestyle and other behaviours that their libel would not actually diminish his reputation, to the extent that the false allegations of illegal activity with a child will not ruin his reputation. (Then imagine you're the one who's been accused of criminal behaviour and the defence goes trawling through what you thought was your private life.)
 
Vic said:
BBC News had to report the story. And probably reported it at greater depth than needed just to demonstrate BBC News' independence from BBC management.

On News at Ten tonight they did a career retrospective that looked like they'd mined the material already compiled for Edwards' obituary, and then they wanted to go after The Sun, but had to be aware of the other "abuse of power" allegations.

Then Newsnight actually had Rod Liddle, ex-BBC news editor and now Sun columnist, pretending that the allegations of criminal behaviour weren't allegations of criminal behaviour because they hadn't actually said that the accusations of criminal behaviour weren't criminal behaviour. (As in "You've murdered someone but I'm not saying murder is a crime.")

Bottom line - you're a juror in a libel trial, the plaintiff has been publicly (in print) accused of criminal behaviour which has been disproved. The defendant's only line of defence is that the plaintiff's reputation has been so sullied by revelations of his private lifestyle and other behaviours that their libel would not actually diminish his reputation, to the extent that the false allegations of illegal activity with a child will not ruin his reputation. (Then imagine you're the one who's been accused of criminal behaviour and the defence goes trawling through what you thought was your private life.)
Click to expand...
The whole thing has a whiff of homophobia around it, with a dash of vigilante paedo hunter thrown in for good measure - very like the Philip Schofield thing which also turned out to be a non story really.
 
Vic said:
BBC News had to report the story. And probably reported it at greater depth than needed just to demonstrate BBC News' independence from BBC management.

On News at Ten tonight they did a career retrospective that looked like they'd mined the material already compiled for Edwards' obituary, and then they wanted to go after The Sun, but had to be aware of the other "abuse of power" allegations.

Then Newsnight actually had Rod Liddle, ex-BBC news editor and now Sun columnist, pretending that the allegations of criminal behaviour weren't allegations of criminal behaviour because they hadn't actually said that the accusations of criminal behaviour weren't criminal behaviour. (As in "You've murdered someone but I'm not saying murder is a crime.")

Bottom line - you're a juror in a libel trial, the plaintiff has been publicly (in print) accused of criminal behaviour which has been disproved. The defendant's only line of defence is that the plaintiff's reputation has been so sullied by revelations of his private lifestyle and other behaviours that their libel would not actually diminish his reputation, to the extent that the false allegations of illegal activity with a child will not ruin his reputation. (Then imagine you're the one who's been accused of criminal behaviour and the defence goes trawling through what you thought was your private life.)
Click to expand...
there was no libel by the Sun - if they had have named him, you night have a case for some form of defamation
the alleged criminal behaviour - has not been "disproved" - police say they have seen "no evidence"
I find your imagined line of defence to be extremely implausible
 
RiversideBlue said:
The Sun newspaper outting someone for paying for pictures of a 17 year old in their underwear has to be the biggest piece of hypocrisy ever, considering that's what they were doing with page 3 girls.
Click to expand...
was it not Huw in his undercrackers, the nature of the photographs of the "youth" have nor been made public, have they?

If what the Sun did with page 3 models was illegal (as opposed to "immoral") it would (surely) have been subjected to the same lines of inquiry by plod at the time?

Anyway, plenty of popcorn to be consumed on this one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.