Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

hammocity said:
If that’s the case I’ve no sympathy for either of them but the collateral damage here is a kid who got his hands on a substantial amount of money and developed a very expensive and damaging drug habit, Edwards is an absolute wanker.
Click to expand...
Except the police have established it wasn’t a kid and the person himself has denied the rest. It’s an uncorroborated story provided by his/her estranged family. It might be true but that’s as much as we actually know.
 
hammocity said:
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.
Click to expand...
But as I posted earlier it was fine for the Sun to have a sixteen year old girl on page three for every bloke to leer at .
 
Centurions said:
You call it sleaze but surely it's a private matter between two consenting adults with no criminality involved?

Anything between their employers and themselves is most definitely not "in the public interest".

I just think there is a line (there has to be) but everyone has trampled all over it in order to sell column inches.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying.

However, would your 'it's no-one else's business' opinion still be the same if your local councillor or head teacher was found to be paying thousands to young men whilst married (with suggestions of trying to meet during lockdown, etc)?

I imagine most would consider that behaviour to be incompatible with their position and they'd be expected to resign. They are also people who could easily be argued to be trying to do more for the public good and not enjoying anything like the fame and rewards that Edward's public position affords him.
 
west didsblue said:
Except the police have established it wasn’t a kid and the person himself has denied the rest. It’s an uncorroborated story provided by his/her estranged family. It might be true but that’s as much as we actually know.
Click to expand...
17 year old when it started, technically not a kid ad you say but how would he have known? Could have been 15, don’t think that would have made any difference to Edwards, it’s not like he’d ask for his birth certificate is it?
 
When news of this story broke, I clearly wrongly assumed it would be a bbc household name, someone portraying themselves as a stalwart of scrutiny, above suspicion, a paragon of values, a family man, a christian church goer, someone paid by the public, someone who'd in effect then paid for illicit photographs of a person over forty years younger (presumably with that salary) for £35K , someone the bbc had trusted and promoted, someone who should have known better given the scandals they themselves had reported upon, someone entrusted with the most important and solemn occasions in the country's history.
Turns out I appear to have been wrong. It was Rod Liddle.
 
Last edited:
So, the Sun now claim to be acting as moral arbiters on our behalf by inferring that Huw Edwards' relationship with a person when they were aged 17 was inappropriate (and perhaps illegal); this, the same 'newspaper' which thought it perfectly acceptable to feature a semi-naked Sam Fox in a provocative pose on page three at the age of sixteen back in the eighties. You really couldn't make it up (but they could).
 
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.