No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm pointing out that you don't have that evidence so can't make the claim you made!
Again you're arguing against your own assumptions and not what I've said.
You're just making up things to argue against still...
The Huw Edwards situation
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm pointing out that you don't have that evidence so can't make the claim you made!
Again you're arguing against your own assumptions and not what I've said.
You're just making up things to argue against still...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
That's where the issue lies, many people look significantly older than they really are, one of my nieces is 14, yet can easily pass for 20+ as she is tall (5ft 9")
What i want to know is if using the love emote to like a post now means i have to ask for the posters age in case it's seen as flirting.
In your case, yes
That's a lie because the evidence presented by The Sun is what we both see.
You have zero grounds to claim deviancy in sending emote hearts and kisses to an account before evidence of being 17 was shown.
The ONLY POSSIBLE reason you would make such a claim is if you fell for The Sun's deliberate leading of readers. Or if you falsely assumed awareness without any evidence.
You are making up deflections and it's shameful.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
ok fair enough. i didnt pick up on that sorry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
but that is the point .... we dont know.... IF it turns out he was grooming children then throw him to the wolves.........
but what ever happened to innocent until *proven* guilty.
and those messages after they are put in the correct order all was can see is that unless he was psychic from the evidence presented he could not have known his age.... and there is nothing untoward after his age is revealed.
Nothing i have seen proves his innocence and there are a few question marks for sure.... but unless i missed the law change you are innocent until proven guilty .
if he broke lockdown rules and that can be proven then that may be a sackable offence in and of itself, but the BBC will have to make sure their ducks are in a row before sacking over that.......................... dig too deep and they may find more people guilty of that than they want to deal with.
What specifically is a lie?
Do you want to try addressing a particular claim I've made, perhaps via using the quote function?
What claim or statement are you referring to?
Why not try this: quote the claim you're interested in and ask me... so far you've been arguing against your own assumptions and I'm not seeing any quotes of what it is you're referring to specifically?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
not really... he broke the law at 13....... IF he genuinely looked 18 and it was not just utter outrageousness of the bar serving kids then i think that WOULD be a fair defence....... it would not get the person off scot free but would surely be mitigating... but i would certainly have sympathy..
13 is an extreme.. in truth i cant think of any 13 year olds i would believe were 18............ but a 17 year old can easily look 20, esp if in a club with the right gear on and if already drinking beer etc.
IF he knowingly harrassed a 17 year old school kid and pressured into giving images for cash then that is bad and if proven he should lose his job.
if he was on a dating site (where the presmed age to use is 18) flirted with someone and had some hankey pankey under the assumption he was 18+ but then later it transpired he was 17 then that to me is a totally different beast.
and if hypothetically such a person essentially laid a honeytrap and then threatened to out him....................... i think a fruity response to that is human nature.
the person has clearly been foolish, no doubt there........... but has he been criminal? that has yet to be proven from what i have seen... and if not proven then it isnt really in the public interest imo, the potential harm done to the reputation of this person is far more damaging that any public interest angle imo.
has he done something to warrant a sacking?........ maybe but if that is the case i have sympathy with him so long as he hasn't been knowingly grooming kids.
Last edited:
What do you mean what happened to it? It didn't go away...
This story doesn't just concern behavour that's (potentially) illegal but also just general sleaziness. Even the alleged covid lockdown breach could result in a fixed penalty notice (akin to a speeding ticket and not requiring an admission of guilt) but whether he or she has a viable career left at the BBC after such a thing is another matter.
Last edited:
Soldato
I think the problem is that in many cases, it's down to the discretion of the employer, if they feel their reputation has been damaged or their reputation has been brought into disrepute, in todays day and age - you could be in big trouble.
To be fair, with Gary Lineker - he merely commented on government policy - I think the BBC would struggle to sustain an argument that they'd suffered reputation damage or loss, because a TV presenter commented on government policy, even when he contractually wasn't supposed to - and so they back-tracked.
Sending money to people in exchange for sexual images is an order of magnitude more serious though. After all we've been through with Saville, Glitter - so on - getting involved with this sort of thing as a TV presenter or public figure, is going to cause you big problems.
I think theres a lot of nuance in this if I'm honest.
A stewardess who ran an onlyfans, wouldn't really involve any "moral turpitude", in the sense that most reasonable people wouldn't really see anything wrong with it. For that reason I doubt her employer would really suffer any reputational damage - in fact it might even go the other way, who knows.
In the case of a TV presenter sending tens of thousands of pounds for secret sexy pics of somebody much older.... It's a bit... "sordid" many people probably would feel uncomfortable with an organisation like the BBC employing public figures or presenters who get involved with that sort of thing, even more so if the person presented childrens TV programs or something.
There is nuance for sure which was really my point all along.
The issue comes when you get to custom and practice.
If an organisation decides to be really harsh on this, thats completely their call, but they need to be consistent.
Ive been a reviewing senior person (company policy is review by a senior independent person) in regards a gross misconduct case.
I was quite surprised in the severity, I discussed with the HR director whether it was really gross misconduct and she said yes technically by how the policy was written (it involved horse play and physical contact)
As such we agreed to support the case of the manager who wanted to dismiss one of his staff over it. The complexity was that this behaviour was not new nor unusual in the environment we worked it created new precedent.
As such once the case was completed (appeal also dismissed based on same logic), the HR director ensured that all staff were briefed in regards ensuring the policy was understood.
The managers were all briefed so they realised that now the precedent was formed the "but hes a good guy just having a bad day" type arguments could not be accepted.
The kicker was the manager was trying to get rid of someone, and saw this as an easy way to do so.
Lineker did cause damage. Look at the government reaction and many peoples reaction on here calling for him to be sacked.
I think most people didn't have an issue with that, but enough did its not really possible to say the BBCs reputation was not impacted.
As soon as you say that then your into, is a little bit acceptable, or what exactly.
I mean its interesting, even if you ignore the sex part of this and went with the covid thing. I bet if it was had been fined for speeding most people would be meh, but breaking covid restrictions, "burn him at the stake"
£60 fine for speeding, £60 fine for breaching COVID, very different expected outcome.
We seem to want morality to trump law in these areas.
I agree with everything by the way. I think people need to stop repeating what always happens, OMG look a hint of smoke, must be a massive fire get it into public view.
Presenting childrens programs. Well I would say this is where the professionalism kicks in. A long as you are not promoting or actually doing anything illegal why should your personal beliefs matter.
People may feel uncomfortable, but how often is that discomfort really a fair reflection.
I find it kind of odd that we seem to be trying to hold a BBC presenter to a higher standard than our actual government.
Lets not forget the similarities on pincher here. Who the government were arguing should suffer no consequence, (some of them at times depending on their view of public perception!)
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
but it did... he has already been tried and convicted on the court of public opinion. The Sun should never had released this story they should have put all of their evidence to the police and the BBC
But again, it doesn't just concern criminal behaviour and tabloids have been reporting on sleaze for as long as they've existed.
If your "what ever happened to innocent until *proven* guilty." question in fact just refers to the "court of public opinion" then when did such a right ever exist?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
indeed and that was a disgrace as well... but i thought changes were made after that due to how damaging it could have been to him to stop it happening again.
Lineker............. I must have missed that one, unless you mean the complaints from the public after he waded in with a political opinion? if so that was a little different because he knowingly posted a public comment and then people then gave their views on it (for the record my views are that whilst i generally agreed with him i did think it was unprofessional for him to get involved whilst he was a presenter albeit of football not politics. Sacking would have been harsh however)
.
But the Lineker thing is a little different than a newspaper article printing a story based on heresy , which has been refuted by the very person who was claimed to be the victim......... And the follow up #metoo people, i cant say i have followed closely to know details, but the chat transcript of one he was supposedly was grooming, when the timeline is put in an honest order shows the moment the person admits to being 17 even anything potentially open to being interpreted as flirtatious stops and it appears to be the victim who is doing the encouraging there anyway.
anyone remember back in the day when Craig Charles was accused of gang rape? he got pulled through the coals as well and iirc that was out and out proven to be nonsence, but still a woman on a chat show tried to say he was not found innocent but was just failed to be convicted!.
Last edited:
Suspended
The big question on this one though is assuming nothing illegal has happened, has anything 'morally' wrong happened? This is potentially just a bloke being pilloried because he likes younger men. Not exactly uncommon for someone to want a younger sexual partner, especially if they're getting on in age themselves.
It's the nuances that will decide whether him fancying younger blokes is a problem - is he married, does he threaten/coerce them, are they vulnerable etc.
Soldato
Soldato
I found a news source published exclusive news published the name of BBC presenter at 8pm last night so I dont know if I should post the link.
The whole of this media weirdo thing is very odd and it did not made any sense, he is married with children.
The whole of this media weirdo thing is very odd and it did not made any sense, he is married with children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
As Palpatine would say "DoIT"
- Status