The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
AthlonXP1800 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I understand the mods are generously providing a prize for the first person to guess the persons name correctly - no winners yet..
 
n111ck said:
I understand the mods are generously providing a prize for the first person to guess the persons name correctly - no winners yet..
Click to expand...
He's not guessing it though, he's purely linking a news story which is not holiday worthy as its not directly reported by him.
 
his marital status is neither here nor there either really... unless every person in the public eye is fair game to broadcast their infidelities.

imo the only reason that would matter would be if it was the minister for morality who had form for chastising others who had been unfaithful.

other than that it should be a private family matter for them to sort out.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
is marital status is neither her nor there either really... unless every person in the public eye is fair game to broadcast their infidelities.

imo the only reason that would matter would be if it was the minister for morality who had form for chastising others who had been unfaithful.

other than that it should be a private family matter for them to sort out.
Click to expand...

Whilst I would tend to agree I think there has to be an exception where the persons profession relies heavily upon morals such as say...journalists or politicians!
 
bigmike20vt said:
is marital status is neither her nor there either really... unless every person in the public eye is fair game to broadcast their infidelities.

imo the only reason that would matter would be if it was the minister for morality who had form for chastising others who had been unfaithful.

other than that it should be a private family matter for them to sort out.
Click to expand...
That tends to be my view on that sort of thing.

It only really becomes legititmate public interest when the person is being an active hypcrit.
For example when the tories in the 90's were going on and on about family values when it turned out half of them were having affairs with either each other, or their staff, or when the person is say a clergy member who has been harping on about the sanctity of marriage etc then is found to be boffing the church tea lady.
 
Dis86 said:
Whilst I would tend to agree I think there has to be an exception where the persons profession relies heavily upon morals such as say...journalists or politicians!
Click to expand...
As far as I know I don't remember the BBC pushing individual-focused moral stances to any serious degree that the private lives of their presenters should remotely matter. Politicians are constantly, cynically expressing their holier than thou tripe on the behaviors of society often for personal gain... I don't think the comparison is fair frankly unless there's evidence of hypocrisy from the presenter running whatever the BBC wanted them to run which is about the only barely reasonable justification for ruining this guys life.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
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?
Click to expand...

You argue then revert to intellectual dishonesty when challenged and it's the same pattern of demanding repetition and following up with a statement of incomprehension.

You presented belief that the Instagram screenshots had value then correctly decided my disgust was directed at you.

Code: 
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-latest-media-weirdo-any-naming-gets-a-holiday.18974368/page-32#post-36513358
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-latest-media-weirdo-any-naming-gets-a-holiday.18974368/page-32#post-36513364

You defend the claim of value by presenting the Instagram screenshots in reverse order as you say:
Love hearts and kisses to a 17 year old who is still at school... you're really trying to downplay that as if it's nothing?
Click to expand...
Code: 
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-latest-media-weirdo-any-naming-gets-a-holiday.18974368/page-34#post-36513658

Except the only declaration of being 17 was months after sending "love hearts and kisses" as I specify when correctly putting the Instagram screenshots in chronological order.
Code: 
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-latest-media-weirdo-any-naming-gets-a-holiday.18974368/page-34#post-36513732

So by the evidence available, he had no awareness of the individuals age, only that they followed him and he greeted them with a loveheart.

Your defence nevertheless was:
That doesn't negate that he's 17!

Also, you don't know that there was no indication of being 17 years old before that unless you're aware of the contents of his Instagram?

I mean presumably a picture of his face would be on there for a start which gives at least some indication of age. Other pics may well offer additional context.
Click to expand...
Turns out you want to call on the undemonstrated fact that he was 17 and imagined evidence to back up your claim of it being something.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken we both looked at the same evidence and you're the only one that's giving out unsubstantiated credit which is how this began.

You alluded to me making a claim that needs evidence but read again and find it for me:
Hotwired said:
Vomit inducing that The Sun can run a badly checked sex offence story, fail, desperately search through the trash for something else to smear him with and have people without the slightest bit of mockery quoting the heinous crime of... sending emotes on instagram and saying nothing suggestive.

This is what the story has degraded to. A LOVEHEART WAS SENT ON INSTAGRAM... from the presenter to someone who recently followed him :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be surprised if a fit of incomprehension turns up now.
 
Malevolence said:
Haven't seen the picture in question, but just because somebody has a dodgy photo out there doesn't make them suspect #1.

Hell, earlier I was sent a Morph selfie where he's standing their proudly displaying a rather impressive hard-on, it doesn't mean he's the BBC staff member in question either.
Click to expand...
A friend sent me that Morph on whatsapp so I posted it to a humour group on Facebook.....

Nearly ended up in Facebook jail again over it! Lol!

Apparently they didn't want to see my or anyone else's male members, and it was inappropriate, so it was swiftly removed! :cry:
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that just happened with Phillip Schofield, nothing illegal per se but distasteful. Obvs in his case there was stuff about perhaps helping the guy's career too and in this case there are the allegations of payments of money etc.
 
dowie said:
But that just happened with Phillip Schofield, nothing illegal per se but distasteful. Obvs in his case there was stuff about perhaps helping the guy's career too and in this case there are the allegations of payments of money etc.
Click to expand...
I thought Schofield "allegedly" groomed the boy, from the age of 14, or something like that.

So a bit more than distasteful IMO.
 
Hotwired said:
You argue then revert to intellectual dishonesty when challenged and it's the same pattern of demanding repetition and following up with a statement of incomprehension.
Click to expand...

Again what bit is dishonest? If you're making an argument that involves you assuming things or making things up on my behalf then that's what I'm objecting to.

Hotwired said:
Turns out you want to call on the undemonstrated fact that he was 17 and imagined evidence to back up your claim of it being something
Click to expand...

Nope, I pointed out that you're unable to see the Instagram of this person who was 17 ergo can't make the claim you made.

You've just repeated this claim:

Hotwired said:
So by the evidence available, he had no awareness of the individuals age, only that they followed him and he greeted them with a loveheart.
Click to expand...

He DM'd the kid on Instagram... how can you say he had no awareness of the individual's age? Do you suppose he may have thought they're an OAP then?

It's not whatsapp, Instagram is a place for posting pictures, he slid into the DMs/sent an unsolicited heart emoji... something people do when they're attracted to someone, in this case, someone young. So he's got some indication of the person's age from that person's photos he was attracted to... that doesn't mean he knows he's 17 exactly (though if there were further context clues from pics we don't know).

So your objection to me is some argument where you're made up a claim on my behalf that he knew the teen was 17 at the time (an argument I haven't made) he may have had some indicators of that from Instagram but we don't know to what extent. I think you're being very silly to downplay this.

The presenter chasing after young people and allegedly 2/4 of the young people who have either come forward (or had the interaction reported by parents) have included allegations that they were underage when he initially made contact... that seems very sleazy.

So no I wouldn't dismiss or try to downplay him sending flirty messages to a 17 year old school boy as nothing given that context and no I didn't claim that he definitely knew the boy was 17 at the time.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
MET says no criminal offence given they information they've got from the people involved.

And Huw Edwards has officially stated it was him, and resigned.
Click to expand...

Which allegation are they referring to, presumably the first one not the lockdown one? Also, the presenter has been named on the BBC website by his wife (who is perhaps a bit miffed about this) so can we cite the BBC article in this thread now pls?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom