The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
n111ck said:
There are some seriously disturbing views in this thread - criminality is ok as long as you dont get caught or you can keep your victim quiet.
Click to expand...
Yes, some very disturbing views indeed - Criminality exists in my head because The Sun told riled me up, even though two police forces found nothing was illegal
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
For the Huw fans - do you seriously think he is going to be reinstated by THE BBC (or paid off) and sue The Sun for millions and win?
Click to expand...
were you fine with how Cliff Richard was treated then?

note i am not a Huw fan..... i AM a fan of actually having hard evidence of a crime or a sackable offence and having an investigation and coming to a conclusion before broadcasting it to everyone that someone "might" be guilty of this but we do not actually know yet.
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
Yes, some very disturbing views indeed - Criminality exists in my head because The Sun told riled me up, even though two police forces found nothing was illegal
Click to expand...

I was told about this particular story over 1 year ago, whether or not a crime
has been committed do you think it’s normal or right that he was messaging people who were just out of school?
 
n111ck said:
Well then THE BBC will be reporting Huw to the police for that then.. as there are multiple complaints..
Click to expand...

Which was why I said...

Hades said:
If new evidence comes to light then that may change.
Click to expand...

If the BBC find evidence they will pass it to the police. The police will then assess whether they believe a law has been broken... and we are back again to my exact point that it's a matter for the police to determine whether there was any wrongdoing.
 
I dont expect anyone here to admit it but i bet some of the up in arms people here using the argument that even if the person was over 18 it is still wrong have looked on a certain you.... or ....hub site at one time or another which has had adults albeit teenage/early 20s ones engaging in activities far more than what mr Edwards is accused off.

(not me of course!... heaven forbid )
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
No

It's because "it's a BBC scandal" when what happened was BEFORE she was employed by them, when the BBC found out they acted.

It's amazing how many "BBC scandals" involve stuff that happened outside of work, in the persons private life, or before they were employed by the BBC, and in some cases decades previously or whilst they were working at another broadcaster.

IIRC the BBC (and a lot of other companies) started to tighten up and check more of of potential employees social media stuff a few years, but given those tweets were from 7 years before the BBC employed her, how far back and how many of a potential employees social media accounts do you expect them to check? (and then we get into the "scandal" about the "BBC cancelling staff over private comments" and "wasting tax payer money on pointless checks" and "BBC invades staff privacy").
Click to expand...
yes the scandal was that they hired someone in the 1st place when a cursory background check would have shown her views..... 7 years? :cry: :cry: Try 3 years!
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
Jimmy is chuckling in his grave at your naivety.
Click to expand...
I was aware of Jimmy's antics when I was a kid in the 1970's. Many people were. The police "knew" and many of his fellow presenters at the BBC "knew". It was an open rumor at the time. I know this for a fact because my father told me in the 1970's when he was a policeman. So no, I am not naive at all in that matter. It was a completely different time to today. A lot has changed in 40 to 50 years and such things are much harder to get away with now.

Naivity is believing BBC presenters when they say they didn't know about Jimmy.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
No

It's because "it's a BBC scandal" when what happened was BEFORE she was employed by them, when the BBC found out they acted.

It's amazing how many "BBC scandals" involve stuff that happened outside of work, in the persons private life, or before they were employed by the BBC, and in some cases decades previously or whilst they were working at another broadcaster.

IIRC the BBC (and a lot of other companies) started to tighten up and check more of of potential employees social media stuff a few years, but given those tweets were from 7 years before the BBC employed her, how far back and how many of a potential employees social media accounts do you expect them to check? (and then we get into the "scandal" about the "BBC cancelling staff over private comments" and "wasting tax payer money on pointless checks" and "BBC invades staff privacy").
Click to expand...
Aren't these the same Journo's that go up digging up people past tweets to smear and discredit them? Judge them by the exact same standards they judge others, they will get no pity from me.

I did chuckle when the compliant was that they could not not trust her to be neutral, like that is an actual requirement for journalism in todays climate. :cry:
 
bigmike20vt said:
were you fine with how Cliff Richard was treated then?

note i am not a Huw fan..... i AM a fan of actually having hard evidence of a crime or a sackable offence and having an investigation and coming to a conclusion before broadcasting it to everyone that someone "might" be guilty of this but we do not actually know yet.
Click to expand...

Cliff was another BBC scandal..

Well if THE BBC had taken the complaint seriously the circus could have been avoided.
 
bigmike20vt said:
I dont expect anyone here to admit it but i bet some of the up in arms people here using the argument that even if the person was over 18 it is still wrong have looked on a certain you.... or ....hub site at one time or another which has had adults albeit teenage/early 20s ones engaging in activities far more than what mr Edwards is accused off.

(not me of course!... heaven forbid )
Click to expand...

The thing is you can bring a company into disrepute. Even if you do nothing illegal. The BBC is meant to be this prim and proper organisation. Someone in their late 50's chatting up a teenager is never a good look. Especially when your wages are paid for by the public.

When your are earning 400k a year you keep your porn habits to yourself. You especially don't flaunt your image around to people who might recognise you.

The guy thought he could use his name to get some young ass.

That is of course if it is all true. If it isn't then I am sure he will get plenty of compo.
 
Hades said:
I was aware of Jimmy's antics when I was a kid in the 1970's. Many people were. The police "knew" and many of his fellow presenters at the BBC "knew". It was an open rumor at the time. I know this for a fact because my father told me in the 1970's when he was a policeman. So no, I am not naive at all in that matter. It was a completely different time to today. A lot has changed in 40 to 50 years and such things are much harder to get away with now.

Naivity is believing BBC presenters when they say they didn't know about Jimmy.
Click to expand...
wasnt there a phrase commonly used around him back in the day that "he liked his bananas a bit green".

now we do have to remember that times and attitudes HAVE changed (generally for the better) but it was pretty common for pop/rock stars to have groupies 16 years old (listen to the lyrics of some songs for goodness sake they as good as admit it, along with drug taking)

so way back then for people to think that Saville was a wrong un means by todays standards they knew he was a proper grade A wrong un!...... I do think however (segue again sorry) that when investigating allegations from the 70s.... they do need to be looked at with what was acceptable in society back then, compared to what is ok now.
 
Still no denials forthcoming..

Jon Sopel - Huw Edwards 'not overly impressed with BBC coverage'​

Huw Edwards was “furious” with the coverage of allegations published by the Sun and is not “overly impressed” by the BBC’s reporting as well, his former colleague Jon Sopel has said.
Sopel, who worked with Edwards for decades before leaving the corporation last year, told ITV’s Good Morning Britain he had been in touch with Edwards before he went to hospital.
He said: “We’ve had contact, obviously not since he’s been hospitalised.
“He was very angry, I think felt very let down by what happened in the Sun, furious with their coverage, not overly impressed with the BBC’s coverage either.
“I’m sure anyone who knows him is just wishing him well.
Sopel said coverage of the allegations “got ugly”, adding: “I think it became a feeding frenzy. I think it was a competition to see who could go further the fastest.”
 
adam cool dude said:
The thing is you can bring a company into disrepute. Even if you do nothing illegal. The BBC is meant to be this prim and proper organisation. Someone in their late 50's chatting up a teenager is never a good look. Especially when your wages are paid for by the public.

When your are earning 400k a year you keep your porn habits to yourself. You especially don't flaunt your image around to people who might recognise you.

The guy thought he could use his name to get some young ass.

That is of course if it is all true. If it isn't then I am sure he will get plenty of compo.
Click to expand...
everything else aside the guy has been a huge idiot, i dont think anyone will argue against that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom