The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
C Kent said:
61 year old married male hitting up young boys on social media isn't immoral to you? Interesting
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he was "hitting up" young boys at all, just being polite in the context of that DM.

For all we know he could have just sent a DM because the person in question posted a photo that tagged him. Is it weird for a bloke to be using heart emojis and kisses, not really some people are just like that. Most normal people wouldn't see as anything more than just being friendly. I don't understand why the parents of this person are pushing so hard, this person has already said nothing happened, the police have already confirmed nothing illegal occured, yet the parents are still pushing for something probably after a settlement of some form. At the end of the day, the evidence if there even is any will speak for itself, not that it really matters many people are jumping at the opportunity to cancel another celebrity for their own personally satisfaction.
 
BowdonUK said:
If I was him and thought I hadn't done anything wrong I would have gone public, especially when my name was all over social media.
Click to expand...
I bet you wouldn't at all.

People never do, only when its basically either "come out" or someone else will do it.

The sun have basically manipulated you to do this. Its literally their standard mo.
Push a narrative so hard in the public domain it takes on life of its own.

After the first couple of days it started to seem odd, each day more and more.
 
dowie said:
There are accusations from 4 different people not just this series of DM's from one person on Instagram, it's not a standalone story but was presented as a follow-up with that person and a 4th coming forwards with claims of inappropriateness. You seem hung up on the fact it's the Sun publishing it but you don't need to read their coverage beyond the facts being presented.

It's unacceptable regardless, nothing I said relied on screen shots being in a particular order or indeed claims that he knew for sure that this person was 17 at the start of the convo, you seem to be falling back to the straw man argument where you're not paying attention to what I said and assuming instead some argument that relies on things I've not claimed.
Click to expand...

That's as you see and say it. I remain incredulous that you chose to credit and then defend the Instagram story for so long.
 
dowie said:
I think perhaps you're muddling the first accusation (which involved a mother complaining about her son?) and the mother making an accusation that the relationship(?) started when the "victim" was 17. Allegations were about payment for pictures etc.. There hasn't been a complete denial of that one but there has been a denial of crimiality indicating that the person concerned wasn't 17 when it (allegedly) started.

There were then other accusations about his conduct, one of which was rather milder by itself and concerned Huw allegedly initiating a flirty DM conversation with a 17-year-old follower on Instagram... this seemingly just involved hearts and kisses and the 17-year-old later stated in the DMs that they were in their final year of school.

By itself that's far less sleazy, in context, it's a bit suspect, especially given the other story about the lockdown breach/payments seemingly for a meet-up via a dating app with another young man and another story about some flirtation and later abusive messaging with a fourth individual.
Click to expand...

No it is the IG one I'm talking about. If he didn't know the person was 17 until the last messages then its a nothing story. Its pretty much impossible to know now with all the filters etc if someone is 15 or 21. And the older you get the more difficult it is to judge a young persons age imo.

Someone in the final year of A levels could be 18 on the first day of term One of my mates had his birthday 3 days after the beginning of the school year so he was able to ride his DT50 to school for the whole of our last year at secondary school. We were all proper jealous.
 
bigup said:
www.theguardian.com

The Sun finds itself in line of fire over report on Huw Edwards

Days after publication, the newsreader is in hospital with mental health issues and the paper is rapidly backtracking
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

In a sign of its growing defensiveness and nervousness, on Tuesday the Sun published a lengthy editorial stating the story was “squarely in the public interest” and insisted its reporting was always about “alleged abuse of power”.

One issue throughout the past five days is that the rest of the media were unable to independently verify most of the allegations and had to rely on the Sun’s reporting. The BBC also dedicated enormous resources to chasing the story, covering it across many of its bulletins.

Since the Sun’s original story, other allegations have been made against Edwards, albeit anonymously. The Sun claimed he travelled across London during lockdown restrictions to meet a person he met on a dating app, while another individual said they exchanged messages with Edwards on Instagram while a child.

But it is the Sun which is now facing serious questions – and a potential legal risk: Edwards has used his Twitter account to like a tweet suggesting the Sun could now “face the mother of all libel actions”.
Click to expand...

Oh please, it'll be hilarious to see the public interest defence they come up with and prove their duty of care. While the original claimed victim tells them it's a load of rubbish through his lawyer.
 
I have a few observations.

Technically a person is a teenager until they reach the age of 20. You can legitimately possess content of a pornographic nature of teenagers providing they consent and are at least 18 years of age.

I’m not a lawyer but I was under the impression that possession of images of an explicit sexual nature of someone under the age of 18 was an absolute offence, and therefore “I didn’t know they were under 18” is not a defence? Would welcome clarity from any actual lawyers here.

Regarding mental health, it wasn’t so long ago that we were lining young men against walls with bags over their heads and shooting them in the chest for cowardice. Later we understood what shell shock was and more recently the nature of PTSD as well as other mental health issues, including depression.

Depression and anxiety can be devastating to both sufferers and their families. An extreme stress situation could easily trigger a depressive episode, and a persons culpability with regard to any alleged crime will have no bearing on this. So if Huw is not guilty of any crimes, it makes the allegations and the way they have been handled even more damaging and insidious.

Of course if he is guilty then he should be dealt with appropriately to the full extent allowed by law.

I guess time will tell. I will personally wait for something with more substance to be published before making up my mind, for example that he has been arrested and charged. Trial by public opinion is not something I’m interested in, nor is it useful for factual discussion.
 
Tony Edwards said:
What a bin fire of a thread this has turned out to be.

Some people trying to take the moral high ground is hypocrisy at its highest.

Check your posts in any Andrew Tate thread before you all criticise people.

Moraly wrong. JFC.

I think we really are seeing the worst of the worst of 'opinions' here.
Click to expand...
How could he seriously do his job as a journalist if he had to interview an MP for instance that was guilty of grooming someone. They would just turn the tables on the interviewer even if it turns out to be more about perception.

He may not have done anything criminal, we don't know if the other allegations will be investigated or how robustly his property was searched in connection with any dates that any naked pictures were received if indeed they were.

It depends whether other allegations turn out to be true, in terms of breaking lock down and whether any affair was taking place.

Again, on those last two points it would make his position to be untenable if those things turned out to be true as he couldn't credibly cross question anyone else on similar matters.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
No it is the IG one I'm talking about. If he didn't know the person was 17 until the last messages then its a nothing story. Its pretty much impossible to know now with all the filters etc if someone is 15 or 21. And the older you get the more difficult it is to judge a young persons age imo.
Click to expand...

Well, no, it's not impossible to know, people post birthdays for example (some balloons with 17 on them would be an obvious clue that someone was 17). We don't know what he knew in advance as we don't have access to this Instagram to see the pictures/context or to make a judgment re whether this person looked 17 or looked 20 say.

Colonel_Klinck said:
Someone in the final year of A levels could be 18 on the first day of term One of my mates had his birthday 3 days after the beginning of the school year so he was able to ride his DT50 to school for the whole of our last year at secondary school. We were all proper jealous.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could be but they weren't and more to the point it's just reckless regardless, why flirt with or pursue someone on the boundary of adulthood when you're late 50s early 60s? By itself it's a mild story in context it's a bit dubious... if he's slid into that kid's DMs then did he do the same with other followers?

Ditto to the dating site... did he go onto a dating site and get exactly one match and only meet with that one person during lockdown or did he get more than one match/meeting?
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
If I was him and thought I hadn't done anything wrong I would have gone public
Click to expand...
I've seen users make a thread on this forum to question how to do something like say "how to deal with upcoming rebellious teenager years".. And like 50 percent of the replies are about how they are a bad parent, need to have child taken away from them.

I'm sure you'd have seen sense and not gone public just because you're innocent.

In fact, if you look at games like among us and the board game versions, talking makes you look guilty. People want to twist your words to make you the bad guy. Better to be vague and say nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom