The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minusorange said:
Does anyone find it insidious when people play the mental health card in such situations, it feels like an insult to people who actually suffer daily with it
Click to expand...
He had these problems before this whole thing, it's not new. What he did was immoral, I am not disputing that, but seemingly it was not the serious crime that was implied up until this point.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
This seems apt :

Saga underscores importance of privacy law debate

Anyone with an ounce of humanity would not fail to grasp the extraordinary outcome tonight of this story.

Huw Edwards identified as the presenter alleged by The Sun for days to have obtained sexually explicit images from a 17-year-old.

And, almost exactly at the same time, the Metropolitan Police says that the allegations amounts to nothing - there's no evidence of a criminal offence.

This week has been more than a drama - it has had a direct impact on the lives of real people. And that is why the debate around a law that protects each of our private lives is so important in the modern media digital age.

Tonight, campaigners who want a new law of anonymity before criminal charge say the police's confirmation of no suspicion of a crime proves their point. People caught in a storm should not have to rely alone on suing after the reporting of bogus allegations, like Sir Cliff Richard successfully did in 2018.
Click to expand...

It's a tough one, because the other side of the argument is that naming the suspect allows other genuine cases to come forward, look at the Weinstein case.

I do fall on the side of anonymity, but I understand the other pov.
 
Hotwired said:
The exceptional dishonesty of declaring a lack of evidence, evidence.
Click to expand...

Where? You're just making up arguments again... I've not declared a lack of evidence. evidence. I've highlighted that you can't make the claim you made because you don't have it!

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 a teenager on the photo-sharing site Instagram... you can't claim he had no awareness of his age...

Hotwired said:
Literal months pass before the teenager declares out of nowhere their age and that is the only referral to their age in the screenshots and the commentary with it.
Click to expand...

So what? do you suppose he thought the teen was a middle-aged man before then or was he perhaps aware that he was young and was attracted to him? Bit careless at best no?
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
Does anyone find it insidious when people play the mental health card in such situations, it feels like an insult to people who actually suffer daily with it
Click to expand...
Bit of a stretch when you're talking about someone who has been open about suffering from depression for decades, it's entirely likely such a media storm would have a major impact.
 
I think the mental health aspect comes from that if it was someone else doing these things he'd be the first to be digusted and be taking the moral high ground.

But it's him, so he can't defend his actions.

Cognitive dissonance. The more a person sees themselves has having high moral standards the higher the fall if their actions by them are considered immoral.
 
Freakbro said:
It's a tough one, because the other side of the argument is that naming the suspect allows other genuine cases to come forward, look at the Weinstein case.

I do fall on the side of anonymity, but I understand the other pov.
Click to expand...

Yep its one of them Scenario A you 100% want it public, whilst scenario 2 you 100% want it kept closed (no real public interest)

You would hope there could be a way to get some non partisan recognised group to decide if it should be allowed or not. (Such as maybe 3 senior judges)
I would make the default protection but have a mechanism to allow that to be over ridden.
 
BowdonUK said:
I think the mental health aspect comes from that if it was someone else doing these things he'd be the first to be digusted and be taking the moral high ground.

But it's him, so he can't defend his actions.

Cognitive dissonance. The more a person sees themselves has having high moral standards the higher the fall if their actions by them are considered immoral.
Click to expand...

You know him well then? to be able to state with authority how he would react?
 
dowie said:
Where? You're just making up arguments again... I've not declared a lack of evidence. evidence.
Click to expand...

dowie said:
No, they're at school... they literally say in the article they're at school. Are you unaware that some schools teach A-levels or something? Not everyone goes to a separate 6th form college.

“I told him I was in my final year at school and told him I had the opportunity to take part in a BBC school scheme where you get to make a news programme and he told me to go for it."

You really are struggling to find something to nitpick at here Vincent... is this all because the Sun reported the story?
Click to expand...

See this bit right here, you're quoting the Instagram user the moment the user specifies he informs Huw of his age months later so you knew of the commentary alongside the screenshots.

Yet you continue for pages pitching the farce that evidence doesn't exist that Huw didn't know.

And you wonder why my very first reply was disgust that you're giving credit to The Sun for picking this Instagram exchange as evidence of "something".

There isn't evidence of jack **** in that instagram picture besides The Sun editing in a label to say the otherwise detail free user was 17.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong I don't think he's done anything wrong, morally questionable sure when he has a wife unless she's consenting to it all, I just think stating mental health isn't really relevant to what he has or hasn't done, it's almost like people use it as a shield to hide from criticism

And from the sounds of it, if police aren't doing anything, it's all been blown out of proportion
 
Hotwired said:
See this bit right here, you're quoting the Instagram user the moment the user specifies he informs Huw of his age months later so you knew of the commentary alongside the screenshots.
Click to expand...

Yes, in reply to Vincent who was questioning whether a 17 year old could still be at school (some schools have 6th forms).

Hotwired said:
Yet you continue for pages pitching the farce that evidence doesn't exist that Huw didn't know.
Click to expand...

What are you referring to? What evidence doesn't exist? Pointing out that we haven't seen the then teen's Instagram isn't a claim that it doesn't exist; you're not thinking this through very well.

1) you can't make the claim you did that he had "no awareness of the individuals age" as literally *any* recent photo of the person gives at least some rough indication of age.

2) you don't know what other contextual clues there were on that Instagram.

Hotwired said:
And you wonder why my very first reply was disgust that you're giving credit to The Sun for picking this Instagram exchange as evidence of "something".
Click to expand...

Well, I think that a 61-year-old married man DMing a teen on Instagram is pretty sleazy (and quite reckless), if you think that's totally fine then you have some dubious morals tbh.
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
Does anyone find it insidious when people play the mental health card in such situations, it feels like an insult to people who actually suffer daily with it
Click to expand...

I find it insidious when people class it as a "card" when the condition doesn't suit their narrative; if it's a mental health card when the man has a history of mental health issues, then when is it not a mental health card?

The truth in this case is that an innocent man has been driven to the brink of suicide, by the hand of a ruthless tabloid media who hide behind quotation marks and the like, to ensure they answer to no-one and take responsibility for nothing.

Never mind, maybe Andi Peters will be the winning number in celebrity roulette?
 
Minusorange said:
Don't get me wrong I don't think he's done anything wrong, morally questionable sure when he has a wife unless she's consenting to it all, I just think stating mental health isn't really relevant to what he has or hasn't done, it's almost like people use it as a shield to hide from criticism

And from the sounds of it, if police aren't doing anything, it's all been blown out of proportion
Click to expand...

Worth a read. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61553142
But if you cba I bolded the most relevant bit for you.
"The News at Ten presenter has previously spoken of his 20-year battle with mental health problems."
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
This seems apt :

Saga underscores importance of privacy law debate

Anyone with an ounce of humanity would not fail to grasp the extraordinary outcome tonight of this story.

Huw Edwards identified as the presenter alleged by The Sun for days to have obtained sexually explicit images from a 17-year-old.

And, almost exactly at the same time, the Metropolitan Police says that the allegations amounts to nothing - there's no evidence of a criminal offence.

This week has been more than a drama - it has had a direct impact on the lives of real people. And that is why the debate around a law that protects each of our private lives is so important in the modern media digital age.

Tonight, campaigners who want a new law of anonymity before criminal charge say the police's confirmation of no suspicion of a crime proves their point. People caught in a storm should not have to rely alone on suing after the reporting of bogus allegations, like Sir Cliff Richard successfully did in 2018.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a court ruling last year that gave anonymity to people under investigation by a law enforcement agency which is probably why the sun didn't actually name him? In theory if they believed he had committed a criminal offense they would be breaking said ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom