The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
i don't really follow social media so apart from being a bbc media star i have no clue who it is rumoured to be, wish i followed social media now :D
 
Must admit what's making this seem slightly more compelling is the somewhat anonymity of the family, also covering the ID of the young person. It doesn't scream money scam, it seems they just want actual justice for something.

Might be a long game mind.
 
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...
At most.

In reality the story broke in the first week of July, and states "may" as the date of the complaint, that means 5 weeks is possible.

Also the BBC has no right to see the banking details of the alleged victim or the celeb, nor is i known if the alleged victim is co-operating at all (from what little i've heard they seem to be saying the mother made the complaint), and if there is the suggestion of illegality the BBC will have handed much of the investigation over to the police ASAP.

It's also worth noting that a "bank statement" proves nothing, as there if it was paid in cash or via other means there is not going to be that paper trail, or if it was paid to someone else, which means what you seem to think is a straight forward thing is anything but, especially if as it appears the mother has made the complaint and it was over a prolonged period of time so it's unlikely she's going to know the dates of any potential payments or the amounts involved, at which point you start to be looking at the potential for what is basically an audit of someone's accounts which could be fun to do and take a very long time if the payments were in something other than a simple bank transfer.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, doing a proper internal investigation even when the offence took place directly in front of multiple people can take time.
One of my neighbours got into a fight, literally on the shop floor of the supermarket she'd worked at for ~20 years (in uniform, with name badge etc), they were scheduling the HR meeting for the end of the next week for what would have been a simple slam dunk case of gross misconduct. She quit before they could put it into effect.
So if it takes a week+ to get a really simple case done, 4-8 weeks for something that did not take place in public and may involve a criminal investigation is nothing, especially as the BBC probably won't do much publicly until they have some idea of what the police are doing (they won't want to get in the way of the police investigation, and don't have the same ability to force disclosure of documentation).
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think I was wrong to *ask questions in the N Bulley case. I know some people tried to revive that conversation after the autopsy conference. I didn't reply then because I didn't think it was appropriate.

I'll give way to your point about the Sun publishing it first.

Though I still say the bbc dropped the ball by not doing anything about the situation when a complaint was made in May. The mother didn't feel like they were taking it seriously so decided to go to the newspapers.

* I never made accusations against anyone in that case, nor entered into conspiracies surrounding the event. I merely questioned why the police immediately dismissed all other possibilities. The fact the theory they had initially was what happened still doesn't make my initial question invalid. It wasn't only me asking that question, other police were asking the same question. The force were investigated for their handling of the case, and for giving out private information to the public painting an unstable image of Nicola. I'm sure that was very damaging to the emotional welfare of her family.
 
BowdonUK said:
I don't think I was wrong to *ask questions in the N Bulley case. I know some people tried to revive that conversation after the autopsy conference. I didn't reply then because I didn't think it was appropriate.

I'll give way to your point about the Sun publishing it first.

Though I still say the bbc dropped the ball by not doing anything about the situation when a complaint was made in May. The mother didn't feel like they were taking it seriously so decided to go to the newspapers.

* I never made accusations against anyone in that case, nor entered into conspiracies surrounding the event. I merely questioned why the police immediately dismissed all other possibilities. The fact the theory they had initially was what happened still doesn't make my initial question invalid. It wasn't only me asking that question, other police were asking the same question. The force were investigated for their handling of the case, and for giving out private information to the public painting an unstable image of Nicola. I'm sure that was very damaging to the emotional welfare of her family.
Click to expand...

How do you know the BBC dropped the ball.
Again at this point with no criminal charges laid its impossible to know if ANY illegal activity took place.

Hades said:
I think what's telling is that the person who this is widely believed to be hasn't come out and denied it like many others have.
Click to expand...

I agree but then thats still a denied what exactly situation.
My suspicion would be they have been told to say nothing until* they are formally charged.

* Assuming they are at some point.

I mean they may well be "guilty" of making the payments etc, but the timing of them in relation to age etc will be really important.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom