The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
thenewoc said:
When Savile and similar happened weren't their names made public because it enabled others to then come forward and a case to be built?

Why don't they just say for example Mr Blobby has been suspended whilst an alleged set of incidents are investigated. The matter is in the early stages of being investigated by the police who will announce when applicable if Mr Blobby is being charged.
Click to expand...

Yes.
But they need to get to a credible point before they will do so.
At that point however its a police matter not a BBC HR matter.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Because I suspect all those who know are vastly more sensible than this.

They may know the person, but whether they know all the relevant facts...

Lets say its Mr Blobby and Mr Blobby turns round and gives evidence the person lied to him about their age, what they were using the money for etc.
Someone "outing" him could be in for a world of pain in court.
Click to expand...
It would still be a charge and up to Blobby to make his defence in court.

We're in a situation were most people know who it is yet nobody wants to name them.

I guess we should praise the bbc for not sending the helicopter around or stalking his house like they did with Cliff. Though this person is one of their own.

Someone at the bbc has breached the rules by allowing the story to become semi public.
 
TheOracle said:
Twitter really is a cesspit. There is a certain persons name flying around, with pics. I'm sure you have all seen them by now (the one with his trousers round his ankles).
If it turns out to be a fake, damn! The comments are unreal.

How long until the BBC mafias control of central government weakens?
Click to expand...

Participant said:
If incorrect then yes, awful, but all the signs and behaviour patterns are strongly pointing to this individual.
Click to expand...

I doubt it as apparently the accused is also a BBC radio presenter.

People like Graham Norton, Chris Evans, or even Dermot Oleary are presenters who cross both media's.
 
If I was being sued by Vine I would blame the bbc for creating at atmosphere that left a certain number of male presenters at risk of being accused.

The presenters themselves should complain to for being put in that situation.
 
thenewoc said:
Seems odd they've had around 2 months to establish whether the bank statement of the alleged victim has payments from the alleged presenter.
Click to expand...
The BBC said that new claims about this came to light on Thursday.

If prior to this they were only told one of their presenters was paying for photos from somebody who was 18+, what would you expect them to investigate exactly?
 
thenewoc said:
Seems odd they've had around 2 months to establish whether the bank statement of the alleged victim has payments from the alleged presenter.
Click to expand...

Again as Dis says people are missing facts.

This STARTED when the person was 17, which depending what happened could have been illegal.
The moment they turned 18 it was 100% not.

The timeline is very critical in this case.
 
VincentHanna said:
The BBC said that new claims about this came to light on Thursday.

If prior to this they were only told one of their presenters was paying for photos from somebody who was 18+, what would you expect them to investigate exactly?
Click to expand...

Whether the conduct was knowingly exploiting a very vulnerable person and encouraging them to engage in damaging behaviour, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
It would still be a charge and up to Blobby to make his defence in court.

We're in a situation were most people know who it is yet nobody wants to name them.

I guess we should praise the bbc for not sending the helicopter around or stalking his house like they did with Cliff. Though this person is one of their own.

Someone at the bbc has breached the rules by allowing the story to become semi public.
Click to expand...

The police decide the charges, and if there is evidence then they will do so.

You as far off piste here as you were with N Bulley at this point IMO.

The BBC didnt breach the rules at all.
The Sun published it.
 
VincentHanna said:
The BBC said that new claims about this came to light on Thursday.

If prior to this they were only told one of their presenters was paying for photos from somebody who was 18+, what would you expect them to investigate exactly?
Click to expand...
Whether the claims were true, e.g. what evidence did the reporter have to collaborate their claims.

Seems like the initial complaint wasn't taken seriously for the alleged to have continued in post or for some reason it's taken a long time for the evidence to have been shared with the BBC. Something seems odd about the mother's reporting of it directly to the BBC rather than the police.
 
thenewoc said:
Whether the claims were true, e.g. what evidence did the reporter have to collaborate their claims.

Seems like the initial complaint wasn't taken seriously for the alleged to have continued in post or for some reason it's taken a long time for the evidence to have been shared with the BBC. Something seems odd about the mother's reporting of it directly to the BBC rather than the police.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

But every mother thinks her little bundle of joy could do no wrong, and anything that goes wrong was an immigrant someone elses fault
 
TheOracle said:
Twitter really is a cesspit. There is a certain persons name flying around, with pics. I'm sure you have all seen them by now (the one with his trousers round his ankles).
If it turns out to be a fake, damn! The comments are unreal.

How long until the BBC mafias control of central government weakens?
Click to expand...

I've just seen that and I'm completely shocked. :eek: I hope it's fake and the person successfully sues for defamation, but to be honest it doesn't look photoshopped to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom