The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Interesting stuff on BBc (link came from a law teacher who said it was a good summary)

"Anyone speculating today on social media about the identity of the presenter should think very, very carefully about the consequences. They could be sued for the harm they cause and financially ruined.
An innuendo can be just as catastrophic to reputation.
Ten years ago, Sally Bercow, wife of the then Speaker of the House of Commons, had to pay damages to the late Lord Robert McAlpine, a Conservative peer.
The High Court ruled that one of her tweets - which did not name the peer - had wrongly suggested he was a paedophile.
The risks don't end there, thanks to a 1986 case that leaves bona fide trained journalists with the shivers.
Back then, a newspaper reported an allegation that a detective in Banbury's CID unit had raped a woman.
It did not name the detective. But the unit only comprised 12 officers. Members of that group successfully sued, saying enough people knew who they were to assume that they might be the guilty party.
So even if a news organisation chooses not to name the presenter, they could inadvertently implicate an entirely innocent colleague."

www.bbc.co.uk

Why isn't BBC presenter being named by the media?

The corporation is investigating claims a presenter paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Lots of sites are making it very plain that there should be no names, or even hints. I'm quite surprised this thread is still open tbh.
 
Participant said:
Might have already been said, but on Twitter there's one name being mentioned noticeably more than any other, with people saying he's recently stopped tweeting, hasn't denied anything, was at the award ceremony in question, and hasn't been on air recently.
Click to expand...

If it's the same person whose name I've been seeing, they're not even employed by the BBC AFAIK.

Edit: Never mind, I see a new name has overtaken the name I had seen trending :cry:
 
Last edited:
Imagine the current name has had an early night and wakes up tomorrow morning casually checking their phone..

Its def not him - photo is fake.
 
Quite a bit of noncesense in the thread it seems.

Werewolf said:
NO NAMES.

If names are mentioned it can prove a legal issue for OCUK (and you as the poster). Anyone who mentions names will find themselves having their post deleted and a thread ban issued.
The risk is small, but it is there.
Click to expand...
Gotta risk it for a biscuit.

It's definitely him.
 
Last edited:
Dirk Diggler said:
How could anyone reach a point in their life where they experience disappointment in the knowledge that a person on the TV wasn't outed as a sexual predator - and then proceed to "out" that person as a homosexual in some sort of chronically outdated form of solace.

Jesus wept. :p
Click to expand...
For the same reason you have 2 pcs & a PS5 listed in your signature, people are weird and he also might have been joking with some dark humour and not expected somebody to turn it into something it isn't
 
It's pretty bad the way the press handled it, like it's not a certain former reality star and he was quick to issue a denial... which is quite understandable and fair enough.

Then multiple media outlets run the story with this poor bloke's picture associated with the headline... obs in the story they write that he's issued a denial, but by including his picture with the headline they've then gone and associated him with a story that he's got nothing to do with at all other than having issues a denial because he's a presenter... which is a kinda farcical situation as people who don't read the details then think there is some insinuation that it's him!

Also, I can assume that every newspaper editor knows exactly who the real person is so it's pretty careless of them to put others into the firing line.
 
dowie said:
It's pretty bad the way the press handled it, like it's not a certain former reality star and he was quick to issue a denial... which is quite understandable and fair enough.

Then multiple media outlets run the story with this poor bloke's picture associated with the headline... obs in the story they write that he's issued a denial, but by including his picture with the headline they've then gone and associated him with a story that he's got nothing to do with at all other than having issues a denial because he's a presenter... which is a kinda farcical situation as people who don't read the details then think there is some insinuation that it's him!

Also, I can assume that every newspaper editor knows exactly who the real person is so it's pretty careless of them to put others into the firing line.
Click to expand...
That's journalism now.

Endless drama.
 
dowie said:
It's pretty bad the way the press handled it, like it's not a certain former reality star and he was quick to issue a denial... which is quite understandable and fair enough.

Then multiple media outlets run the story with this poor bloke's picture associated with the headline... obs in the story they write that he's issued a denial, but by including his picture with the headline they've then gone and associated him with a story that he's got nothing to do with at all other than having issues a denial because he's a presenter... which is a kinda farcical situation as people who don't read the details then think there is some insinuation that it's him!

Also, I can assume that every newspaper editor knows exactly who the real person is so it's pretty careless of them to put others into the firing line.
Click to expand...

That was a farce if it's who I think it was. Really poor editing.

I suspect pretty much every paper knows who it actually is but, like I've pointed out, have chosen their language with intent and don't actually state what a lot of people are assuming because the evidence hasn't been seen by them. People are adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 11.

The answer may well be 11 but without the actual sums behind it it's meaningless.
 
The BBC presenter who is alleged to have paid a 17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually explicit images reportedly made two "panicked" calls to the young person after the story broke last week
Click to expand...

Interesting use of wording there, considering the person involved with this is now in their 20s - I wouldn't call that a young person by any definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom