Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

Kinkybyname said:
How do you know they did - you served?
Click to expand...
Well given that the alleged victim in all this has issued a statement stating that the story in The Sun was bollocks, it's a bit of a fucking stretch to say that that person was part of the family delegation who approached The Sun in the first place.

That person also insisted they had told the Sun prior to publication that the story was wrong and no illegal behaviour took place, yet your beloved gutter rag of a newspaper had failed to flag this denial in any of its reporting.
 
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...

What has he actually been accused of though? The police have already said no crime has been committed based on what they know so far so that basically debunks what the parents said (an account by people who weren't even involved and which the paper was told was untrue by the alleged victim before they even published).

The second accusation from someone complaining they received abusive messages when they threatened to out someone they met on a private dating site. What kind of reaction were they expecting? Unless there's more to it than we've been told I don't see he should have say anything.

Neither of these first two complaints appear to have come from people acting in good faith.

I can see why he didn't want to publicly defend himself just yet. Also, it sounds like he's possibly been busy dealing with some kind of mental breakdown. It would have meant outing himself and his sexual preferences being discussed in detail in public. I'm sure if there is anything serious though that The Sun are will be sure to find it in an effort to defend their own position after publishing the first disgraceful article. Until then I don't think anyone should be judging him or snarking about his mental health.

I'm sure there's loads of people on this forum who've watched porn and are into all kinds of weird shit in the bedroom. Nothing wrong with that but I'm sure they wouldn't want it publicly discussed in full view of their family and colleagues.
 
Mon Autre said:
What has he actually been accused of though? The police have already said no crime has been committed based on what they know so far so that basically debunks what the parents said (an account by people who weren't even involved and which the paper was told was untrue by the alleged victim before they even published).

The second accusation from someone complaining they received abusive messages when they threatened to out someone they met on a private dating site. What kind of reaction were they expecting? Unless there's more to it than we've been told I don't see he should have say anything.

Neither of these first two complaints appear to have come from people acting in good faith.

I can see why he didn't want to publicly defend himself just yet. Also, it sounds like he's possibly been busy dealing with some kind of mental breakdown. It would have meant outing himself and his sexual preferences being discussed in detail in public. I'm sure if there is anything serious though that The Sun are will be sure to find it in an effort to defend their own position after publishing the first disgraceful article. Until then I don't think anyone should be judging him or snarking about his mental health.

I'm sure there's loads of people on this forum who've watched porn and are into all kinds of weird shit in the bedroom. Nothing wrong with that but I'm sure they wouldn't want it publicly discussed in full view of their family and colleagues.
Click to expand...
The fact that The Sun are seriously backtracking and blaming other media outlets - even The Sunday Times - is telling.

As for Huw Edwards, well the police are saying no crime has been committed so for me the only person he really should be explaining anything to is his wife. You could argue that his employer should be included in that too, given that he is one of the most famous faces on the BBC but even if the allegations are true does it actually constitute a sackable offence?
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Older person enjoys pictures of younger person in underwear. Shock, fucking horror!

I suppose now there will be those vindictive bastards who will come out of the woodwork with, “I knew he was a bad un” and the ever-popular, “He once spoke to/looked at/walked by/was in the vicinity of me and made me feel uncomfortable/uneasy/ afraid/dirty/concerned for my safety.”

Meanwhile, his life and the lives of those close to him get dragged through the social media razor wire for kicks until everyone gets bored or the next “scandal” occurs.

This is what happens when your brain is turned to mush by Big Brother, Love Island, Kardashians, TOWIE, etc, etc, etc… and reading a book is considered old fashioned and boring!

Don’t know the man, don’t know if he’s a good un or a bad un, and it doesn’t really matter to those for whom this is their jolly for a few weeks. Talk shows will proselytize on the matter, there will be much hand wringing and internet-quality psycho-quackery, and many ad dollars will be reaped by the clickbait merchants.

Yea us. We should be so fucking proud of our supposed civilized society.
Click to expand...
Already started. BBC employees saying he sent flirtatious texts.

Unfortunately for Huw, the damage is now done.
 
M18CTID said:
The fact that The Sun are seriously backtracking and blaming other media outlets - even The Sunday Times - is telling.

As for Huw Edwards, well the police are saying no crime has been committed so for me the only person he really should be explaining anything to is his wife. You could argue that his employer should be included in that too, given that he is one of the most famous faces on the BBC but even if the allegations are true does it actually constitute a sackable offence?
Click to expand...

Same for Schofield.
 
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...

I saw that, and Liddle came across as a thug, and needed to be told to let others talk. But according to Liddle, it's all fine as the original story definitely wasn't about burying Edwards but about the BBC not reacting to a complaint in a way that the Sun thought they should. That was pretty laughable, and the 4-5 days they continued to produce stuff was also definitely not about the continuing vendetta against the BBC by some interests.
Sun hierarchy yet again refused to send someone.
 
M18CTID said:
The fact that The Sun are seriously backtracking and blaming other media outlets - even The Sunday Times - is telling.

As for Huw Edwards, well the police are saying no crime has been committed so for me the only person he really should be explaining anything to is his wife. You could argue that his employer should be included in that too, given that he is one of the most famous faces on the BBC but even if the allegations are true does it actually constitute a sackable offence?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Though maybe his wife already knows, maybe they're open, who knows? There's an argument that he might be expected to explain to his employer, but also I don't know why the public should be so judgemental about someone else's private life to the extent that their employer has to start worrying about optics. Would love someone to dig up all of the weird shit that some of these journalists have gotten up to and see how they like it.
 
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.