Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

[M18CTID]

I never said anything to the contrary. I asked a question after a poster made a statement as a matter of fact. It remains unanswered.

Still waiting for you to show me where I said they sold the story......

 

[M18CTID]

I'm not sure that's true TBH.

That said you've not quoted anyone so I may be wrong.

He's chatting shit and making stuff up as per usual

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

That's an extreme statement and you could state that about any news story where someone has been caught out, if you wish to.

Surely you are not suggesting that his behaviour is the sort of thing that you wouldn't expect to be reported?

Or that he wouldn't be aware of the shitstorm it would cause when rumbled when he was behaving as such?

I'm not suggesting that there should be a witch-hunt but it is naive in the extreme for him or anyone else to think it wouldn't be reported and that it wouldn't cause all sorts of untold stress for him and his family (as with many, many news stories - not just sleaze ones - on public figures that aren't afforded the same sympathetic focus from large sections of the media)

It's a fair argument to make if you think such stories should never be reported at all.

But if you recognise that this type of story will always be of interest to the press then surely you can see that, say, politicians (and many others) for example, are not afforded the same 'concern' when in comparable circumstances. Fair enough if you think they should be - and I might not disagree- but that's not a commonly held view.

That's my point. The speed with which a story on a media figure in the wrong has switched to concern for him, when non media figures would not get that at all.

So you're answer is to treat him like Caroline Flack.

My pov is that no one should be treated like that by our national media. Its not normal, no matter how you paint it as in the public interest.

 

[Centurions]

He's chatting shit and making stuff up as per usual

Yes, I went back a page or two and can see what they're referring to now. The phrase "you can stop digging now..." comes to mind.

 

[hammocity]

Like Schofield this **** has been living a lie if he gets his rocks off by fantasising over young boys regardless of age. If someone is gay that’s not a problem but he’s married to the mother of his five kids, not many take her or Schofield’s wife position into account. She should fuck him off, what an absolute thunder ****, perverted twat.

 

[jma]

So you're answer is to treat him like Caroline Flack.

My pov is that no one should be treated like that by our national media. Its not normal, no matter how you paint it as in the public interest.

You are using the most extreme outcome of news reporting as a reason to argue that no dodgy behaviour should ever be reported on. And that's not a viable position in the real world.

Unless you are making a more nuanced point about the style of reporting of the story. In which case, I would probably agree with you but you haven't come anywhere close to describing that.

 

[Centurions]

It strikes me that the coverage of this story is now - and has been for the majority of the time - dominated by different media camps arguing their own positions.

On one side, you have The Sun (a shit rag of the highest order) who have jumped the gun somewhat in some of the manner of their reporting (implying criminality, splashing the words of what seems to be estranged parents without the confirmation of the young man, etc). They are also, like many cranks completely obsessed with the BBC and trying to discredit it, as part of a nuts culture war.

On the other side, you have the BBC (that I think is a great provider of media, by the way) and most if the rest of the media focusing on what a disgrace The Sun is in the way they broke the story.

However, that's all minor detail, in my opinion and is really media navel gazing. Such discussions should not be dominating the media.

It always has been and always will be a big news story if a 'hetrosexual' married, 60 odd year old, is attempting to meet up with/ sending money to/asking for pictures of young men (and also potentially conducting other unwise interactions with young men in and out of the work place).

There is always going to be huge interest from the general public in such stories and there is a pretty reasonable argument that reporting that is in the public interest. If anyone, including Hugh Edwards, thinks otherwise, they are deluding themselves.

Famous, powerful figure acts in sleazy and deceitful way is a news story and always will be.

Also, as an aside, I imagine that being in Edward's position over the last few days is absolutely horrible and would cause anyone to suffer from severe mental turmoil and, as a statement of fact, describing that in the statement is almost certainly an accurate description of how he feels and is suffering.

However, when he was engaging in this activity, especially as a public figure, what the fuck did he think it would be like if/when he was rumbled. Something doesn't quite sit right with me with this attempt to make the main focus of the story about the impact on his mental health, rather than 'powerful media figure caught leading double life and acting in a sleazy manner towards people a third his age'. I'm not sure other people in the same position, who are not entrenched in and friends with many in the media, would be afforded such sympathetic (or any) focusing on their mental health as an angle.

I've not bothered with other media outlets so couldn't comment but Sky News have been absolutely revelling in the BBCs discomfiture. Their glee has been palpable.

"there is a pretty reasonable argument that reporting that is in the public interest", that is something I will never agree with. Pre-internet I wouldn't even be aware of this but the monster has to be fed apparently.

 

[Centurions]

Like Schofield this **** has been living a lie if he gets his rocks off by fantasising over young boys regardless of age. If someone is gay that’s not a problem but he’s married to the mother of his five kids, not many take her or Schofield’s wife position into account. She should fuck him off, what an absolute thunder ****, perverted twat.

FFS, judgemental or what? Do you have your own supply of feathers and tar or do you need someone to supply them? You presumably have your own signature pitchfork?

 

[KPXBLN]

Can anyone explain why this was a story to start with or is it all part of a Murdoch agenda to try and ruin the BBC? I am pretty sure that there are plenty of married men who are doing exactly what Edwards has be accused of, it may be immoral and ethically wrong but it isn't illegal and the other party seemed to be very happy to receive the money.

100% this, plus a massive whiff of homophobia

 

[west didsblue]

It strikes me that the coverage of this story is now - and has been for the majority of the time - dominated by different media camps arguing their own positions.

On one side, you have The Sun (a shit rag of the highest order) who have jumped the gun somewhat in some of the manner of their reporting (implying criminality, splashing the words of what seems to be estranged parents without the confirmation of the young man, etc). They are also, like many cranks completely obsessed with the BBC and trying to discredit it, as part of a nuts culture war.

On the other side, you have the BBC (that I think is a great provider of media, by the way) and most if the rest of the media focusing on what a disgrace The Sun is in the way they broke the story.

However, that's all minor detail, in my opinion and is really media navel gazing. Such discussions should not be dominating the media.

It always has been and always will be a big news story if a 'hetrosexual' married, 60 odd year old, is attempting to meet up with/ sending money to/asking for pictures of young men (and also potentially conducting other unwise interactions with young men in and out of the work place).

There is always going to be huge interest from the general public in such stories and there is a pretty reasonable argument that reporting that is in the public interest. If anyone, including Hugh Edwards, thinks otherwise, they are deluding themselves.

Famous, powerful figure acts in sleazy and deceitful way is a news story and always will be.

Also, as an aside, I imagine that being in Edward's position over the last few days is absolutely horrible and would cause anyone to suffer from severe mental turmoil and, as a statement of fact, describing that in the statement is almost certainly an accurate description of how he feels and is suffering.

However, when he was engaging in this activity, especially as a public figure, what the fuck did he think it would be like if/when he was rumbled. Something doesn't quite sit right with me with this attempt to make the main focus of the story about the impact on his mental health, rather than 'powerful media figure caught leading double life and acting in a sleazy manner towards people a third his age'. I'm not sure other people in the same position, who are not entrenched in and friends with many in the media, would be afforded such sympathetic (or any) focusing on their mental health as an angle.

Seems there’s a few assumptions in there.

The only thing that seems to be fact is that he’s legally paid for some erotic pictures off the internet of an adult that could be male or female.

A little bit seedy but is it really anyone else’s business other than his missus?