Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

[inbetween]

She’s said herself that she’s been watching Schofield every day for 20 years so probably feels a closer connection to him. The fact is most of what Schofield has said or done on screen was highly scripted and was a projection put across to the viewer of what the stations wanted them to see. It’s all manufactured shite wrapped up in a neat parcel designed to keep the masses entertained.
I’ll never understand those who get too emotionally attached to people they see on TV.

The worse thing about that is when Holly came on TV the week after and said I hope you're all okay and we'll get through this together. Get through what?? A multi-millionaire who got caught (literally) with his pants down, it's pathetic.

As for Huw Edwards, the truth will come out and really it should remain a private affair unless he did something criminal. Whether he's mentally ill or not doesn't really matter in either case.

The newspapers and media are naturally the only ones really bothered in any of this. The BBC has at least responded well by saying nothing despite it being one of their own and especially given it was caught out when it slandered and hounded Cliff Richards who then successfully sued them.

There's already a handful of people like Rylan who were wrongfully accused and could argue a case for defamation or slander.

 

[domalino]

So the parents worry that their child had received 35k (debatably part of it when he was seventeen) and was using it to feed a drug addiction is of no concern? Fair enough.

And that when it was first reported to the local police they did nothing, so was then reported directly to the BBC who sat on it for six weeks and did next to nothing, never made a real effort to investigate seems okay with you?

Don't get me wrong the Sun is a shit newspaper but what did you expect them to do with it given the BBC had failed to act? I would be livid if that was my kids caught up in this.

I'm afraid for me, the blame her lays squarely at the feet of the BBC and Huw Edwards and I don't think allowing your personal opinion of the Sun newspaper to affect you judgement does you any justice.

The problem with your argument is that it relies entirely on the idea that the person was 17. But that would be a crime, and the police have investigated and said there's no crime. So immediately remove that whole underage element from the story because it's not true.


So rephrase it correctly. Parents upset their adult son has made 35k off online sex work with a famous person. They go to the police, who do nothing because it's not a crime. They go to the BBC who do nothing because it's not a crime.

Then they sell the story to The Sun, who run it despite the young man telling them his parent's story is wrong, because it's a scandalous gay sex story.


The Sun have known they've got this wrong from day 1, and if you paid attention to the story from Thursday-yesterday you would have heard various experts intimate that.

For starters. The Sun claimed to have proof of criminality. But if they had proof, then they could have named Huw Edwards straight away - the ultimate defence against defamation of course is the truth. See the Daily Mail and Scofield. They had proof that stood up, so they named him and got a massive exclusive story.

So day one, massive red flag that the Sun doesn't believe it's own proof will stand up under defamation scrutiny.

Next we hear that the Sun has made the parents sign affadavits that their story is true. Again, if they've provided proof then why do you need lower quality evidence to back it up? That doesn't add up.

Then, they don't publish the 'proof'. Why not? It's certainly not off limits for them to publish photos of bank statements.

Finally, the police say there's nothing criminal, and The Sun can either put up it's evidence to clear its own name and bring in a coverup conspiracy angle, or caught out on a limb with legal defences vanishing, it can melt away and say they're done with the story, which is what they did.

So at this point we can confidently say the Sun doesn't have any proof of anything criminal, so the public interest angle which justified their story is bullshit.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Id be depressed aswell if I paid 35k for a wank

 

[BigJoe#1]

The problem with your "argument" is that it relies entirely on the idea that the person was 17. But that would be a crime, and the police have investigated and said there's no crime. So immediately remove that whole underage element from the story because it's not true.


So rephrase it correctly. Parents upset their adult son has made 35k off online sex work. They go to the police, who do nothing because it's not a crime. They go to the BBC who do nothing because it's not a crime.

Then they sell the story to The Sun, who run it despite the young man telling them his parent's story is wrong.


The Sun have known they've got this wrong from day 1, and if you paid attention to the story from Thursday-yesterday you would have heard various experts intimate that.

For starters. The Sun claimed to have proof of criminality. But if they had proof, then they could have named Huw Edwards straight away - the ultimate defence against defamation of course is the truth.

So day one, massive red flag that the Sun doesn't believe it's own proof.

Next we hear that the Sun has made the parents sign affadavits that their story is true. Again, if they've provided proof then why do you need lower quality evidence to back it up? That doesn't add up.

Then, they don't publish the 'proof'. Why not? It's certainly not off limits for them to publish photos of bank statements.

Finally, the police say there's nothing criminal, and The Sun can either put up it's evidence to clear its own name and bring in a coverup conspiracy angle, or caught out on a limb with legal defences vanishing, it can melt away and say they're done with the story, which is what they did.

Accept that except that feeding someone's drug addiction is of significance to me. Also you seem to be conveniently side stepping the fact that the BBC had been sitting on this for ages.

I have followed the story quite closely and am aware that the statement from the "young persons lawyer" came out after the Sun had first published of Friday... Monday I think was when these powerful lawyers came onto the scene

For me the massive red flag that you mention should have been hoisted by the BBC back in May and it wasn't, had it been we may never have gotten to be here?

The debate about the person being 17 or not is very valid, however, in no circumstances would I be holding Edwards accountable for that as I believe they initially met through an adult website and on this basis, Edwards would be quite in order to assume to necessary checks had been done and the person was legitimate,

The Sun is doing what the Sun does.... producing shit but the BBC did not do what it should have done and for me should be very thoroughly looked at.

My point is yes, the Sun is a shit publication but for me, had the BBC done its job correctly which they should have done for numerous; duty of care to an employee or a gross misconduct on the grounds of damage to its own reputation. They really should have done better and should be held to account for this mess.

If it was your child would you have expected the BBC to have taken it more seriously back in May? I would have.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

For the last time, "public interest" is not dependent upon criminality.

 

[mcfcphil]

So the parents worry that their child had received 35k (debatably part of it when he was seventeen) and was using it to feed a drug addiction is of no concern? Fair enough.

And that when it was first reported to the local police they did nothing, so was then reported directly to the BBC who sat on it for six weeks and did next to nothing, never made a real effort to investigate seems okay with you?

Don't get me wrong the Sun is a shit newspaper but what did you expect them to do with it given the BBC had failed to act? I would be livid if that was my kids caught up in this.

I'm afraid for me, the blame her lays squarely at the feet of the BBC and Huw Edwards and I don't think allowing your personal opinion of the Sun newspaper to affect you judgement does you any justice.

Of concern to who? The parents obviously yes, but that does mean it’s in the public interest to publish a story.

 

[domalino]

Accept that except that feeding someone's drug addiction is of significance to me. Also you seem to be conveniently side stepping the fact that the BBC had been sitting on this for ages.

Giving someone money for a service isn't feeding their addiction. If I pay my gardener and he spends all that money on heroin, I've not done anything wrong. It's his life, it's his money, it's his decision.

So unless there's some sort of proof that Edwards knew he was directly funding this man's addiction, that part of the story is a complete red herring.

Secondly, the BBC hadn't been sitting on it for ages. They were first contacted 7 weeks ago, which is not a long time for a compmany the size of the BBC to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing.

I have followed the story quite closely and am aware that the statement from the "young persons lawyer" came out after the Sun had first published of Friday... Monday I think was when these powerful lawyers came onto the scene

The lawyers confirmed the Sun was told directly by the person involved that the story they were publishing was not true, before they published it.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Of concern to who? The parents obviously yes, but that does mean it’s in the public interest to publish a story.

Agreed if the Police in the first instance and the BBC in the second instance had dealt with it

 

[I'm With Stupid]

 

[BigJoe#1]

Giving someone money for a service isn't feeding their addiction. If I pay my gardener and he spends all that money on heroin, I've not done anything wrong. It's his life, it's his money, it's his decision.

So unless there's some sort of proof that Edwards knew he was directly funding this man's addiction, that part of the story is a complete red herring.

Secondly, the BBC hadn't been sitting on it for ages. They were first contacted 7 weeks ago, which is not a long time for a compmany the size of the BBC to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing.




The lawyers confirmed the Sun was told directly by the person involved that the story they were publishing was not true, before they published it.

Was that after Edwards had contacted him asking "what the hell have you done"? I think it was.

Like I say I am not defending the Sun - far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what I consider to be the BBC's ineptitude.