Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

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.
I haven't read a single piece quoting the sun article where the gender has been said, or anywhere else, also if his wife knew he was going on what seems to be an onlyfans/chat/cam type account

It seems the court of twitter decided it was male and he was hiding being gay from his wife, becasue it a suits a narrative long established.

I could be wrong as I won't click on a sun article so can only go off the quotes in other papers that alway say young person

Personally though I think this differs a bit from schofield in some ways
 
I haven't read a single piece quoting the sun article where the gender has been said, or anywhere else, also if his wife knew he was going on what seems to be an onlyfans/chat/cam type account

It seems the court of twitter decided it was male and he was hiding being gay from his wife, becasue it a suits a narrative long established.

I could be wrong as I won't click on a sun article so can only go off the quotes in other papers that alway say young person

Personally though I think this differs a bit from schofield in some ways

A woman talking to Lorraine the other morning said it was a girl, and when Lorraine said well we don't know the gender. The woman apologised and still referred to them as her haha.
 
Thank god does that mean now the BBC and the rest of the media can go back to saying that Manchester City are guilty of the 10000000000000000 charges…
There is a serious point there though about how the media can tread a very narrow line staying just on the right side of defamation/liable laws, but at the same time loading the gun for social media to do the dirty work.
Exactly what's happened here and with the PL charges against city.
 
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

If that was the case, they wouldn’t be backtracking as much as they have done already.
 

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.