Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

[Mon Autre]

Same for Schofield.

I think it's a little bit different for Schofield in that he embarked on a relationship with a workplace subordinate who he first met as a child. That's a world away from paying for content on OnlyFans or exchanging mucky messages on dating apps which sounds more like the case with Edwards (so far).

 

[Mon Autre]

I know the BBC tends to self flagellate in instances like this but having Rod fucking Liddle as the moral arbiter is something else.

This is completely fucking wild!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I know the BBC tends to self flagellate in instances like this but having Rod fucking Liddle as the moral arbiter is something else.

That **** should be on a register for that.

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

That **** should be on a register for that.

What a bizarre thing to think never mind write.
Who thinks I couldn't work in a school I might shag the kids.
Lock that **** up.
He works for the right paper anyway

 

[RACHACE]

Scandal like this getting the traction and coverage it gets only reaffirms my general belief that society is full of boring, knuckle dragging no marks that love nothing more than putting other people down in a sad attempt to enhance their unfulfilled, pathetic lives.

 

[Postman Pep]

This is completely fucking wild!

That **** should be on a register for that.

And this

 

[Vic]

there was no libel by the Sun - if they had have named him, you night have a case for some form of defamation
the alleged criminal behaviour - has not been "disproved" - police say they have seen "no evidence"
I find your imagined line of defence to be extremely implausible

The defence that they didn't name the person they accused of criminality may or may not get tested in court. The law re identifying who they're talking about may need a rethink in the era of social media (was it someone from the Sun who put Edwards name out there?).

I'm glad your criminality has not been disproved.

Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 creates the new requirement that a statement must have caused or would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. If serious harm to the reputation of the client cannot be established then that statement is not deemed to be defamatory.

(Anyway, I suspect that Edwards is unlikely to sue but the reputation most sullied by this is the Sun's.)

 

[BlueHammer85]

I think it's a little bit different for Schofield in that he embarked on a relationship with a workplace subordinate who he first met as a child. That's a world away from paying for content on OnlyFans or exchanging mucky messages on dating apps which sounds more like the case with Edwards (so far).

I’m not so sure.
He done nothing illegal.
He had a workplace affair.
that’s all there really is to it. He got absolutely hounded and pillared by the Media and Social Media to the point of suicide. You’d think we’d learn as a society but the reaction was the same for this case. so many lapping up the Suns ‘who is it’ campaign and relishing the downfall of someone mainly because they work on television.

 

[Vic]

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.

That's because he is a thug.

(Fair comment on a matter of public interest.)

 

[Eds]

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.