Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

[jimharri]

Yes people take the risk. And it's on them.
But do you think they deserve to be hounded to death by national media?

Deserve? Probably not. But that's the downside to being in the public eye. The adulation/money is great, but you're living in a fish bowl. The plebs lap up this whole celebrity culture (look at some of the celebrity reality TV shows). I can't understand why they're so popular with so many, but they are. Watching some z list celeb eating kangaroo's testicles is not my idea of entertainment. But the flip side to the aforementioned fame and money is the vultures circling overhead, waiting for you to be caught with your pants down. Is it fair? No, probably not. But it goes with the territory. Hey ho.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I wonder if the pervy 61 yr old neighbour dropping his Keks at your teenage daughter/son, then paying them for a few naughty Polaroids would be met quite so tolerantly and compassionately. I assume he would. No crime committed. We have certainly moved on as an understanding society. Nobody wants a tar and feathering in the pillory - perhaps some acknowledgement at some point - will probably be forthcoming when he's feeling better. If indeed it happened of course.

 

[jma]

Yes people take the risk. And it's on them.
But do you think they deserve to be hounded to death by national media?

It is quite an odd position to take that any reporting on a celebrity's reckless behaviour is 'hounding them to death'.

Yes, the Sun is a rag that I wouldn't wipe my arse with, and so are many tabloids, and their methods are often not to be applauded or encouraged.

But the BBC and every other more reputable organisation have also been, in your words, hounding to death this story because they know it is legitimately newsworthy and not just a 'man buys/watches porn' story.

 

[BigJoe#1]

What do you think he meant when, on the Saturday, he alegedly sent a text to this person asking "what the hell have you done"? What did he not know before that he had suddenly became aware of?

 

[TinFoilHat]

Does the Bbc have a nonces room where they all get together.Wierd that a lot of people who worked for them are wrong uns.

Plenty at other organisations being covered up because they keep the ratings up.

There's a Presenter on a news channel who's bullying and harassment of staff is buried deep in that organisation because they "Have high ad revenue qualities"

The *** and Daily Heil have their fair share of wrong un's protected by their masters.

But they aren't a state broadcaster envied by the right so it's ok.

 

[PPT]

doubt you'll find any organisation that employs over 24,000 to not have one to many 'wrong uns'

We will agree to disagree. The culture at the BBC is rancid. That’s what happens when there is zero accountability. No performance measurement and a constant supply of licence fee payers money. But hey, it’s all about opinions.

 

[TinFoilHat]

We will agree to disagree. The culture at the BBC is rancid. That’s what happens when there is zero accountability. No performance measurement and a constant supply of licence fee payers money. But hey, it’s all about opinions.

You are Mike Graham and I claim my £5 sir!


:)

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It is quite an odd position to take that any reporting on a celebrity's reckless behaviour is 'hounding them to death'.

Yes, the Sun is a rag that I wouldn't wipe my arse with, and so are many tabloids, and their methods are often not to be applauded or encouraged.

But the BBC and every other more reputable organisation have also been, in your words, hounding to death this story because they know it is legitimately newsworthy and not just a 'man buys/watches porn' story.

Well tbh that is what they've done previously. It is true. Not sure why you'd even argue that simple fact. They literally hound people to death, they hack phones etc, but I am sure you know this and have still weighed up that the BBC are much worse. Fair enough, you hate the bbc and everyone who works there.

 

[jma]

Well tbh that is what they've done previously. It is true. Not sure why you'd even argue that simple fact. They literally hound people to death, they hack phones etc, but I am sure you know this and have still weighed up that the BBC are much worse. Fair enough, you hate the bbc and everyone who works there.

Not sure what you are on about. I think the BBC is brilliant, unique and well worth the licence fee (and more).

That doesn't stop me from seeing the blindingly obvious - that he has done stuff, or is accused of stuff that hasnt been denied that is always going to be reported on.

And you are still trying to equate reporting on ridiculousl celebrity behaviour as hounding people to death. Apart from it being statistically absurd, it could be used to argue against the reporting of anything that isn't a flowery praise piece and, again, is usually (rightly) nowhere to be seen or considered in the reporting of other celebrity wrongdoings (Walker, Prince Andrew, hundreds of others, etc)

Also, phone hacking and other dubious journalistic behaviour is scandalous but totally different than many more respected news outlets reporting that Huw Edwards is accused of stupid behaviour.

 

[Stoned Rose]

All these kind of stories tell me is that we’re all human and we’ve all got a rum side.

Just cos some **** is on the telly doesn’t mean they should get burnt at the stake for it.