The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
thenewoc said:
Rubbish!

The Sun must have seen evidence strong enough to run a story deemed in the public interest because the accused being a significant public figure. Regardless of whether there has been criminality involved, his position in public life (delivering news) makes it a story.
Click to expand...

That's a great laugh. Strong evidence.

The defence of public interest lets you name the person :)
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Plenty of names were being thrown around. His name included.

To prove it was obvious you need to show that the story had unique traits that clearly pointed at him. Maybe the story does mention unique traits but you haven't shown that. Just being a Male presenter on the BBC isn't enough.
Click to expand...

n111ck said:
Exactly we only know who it is because his wife told us.
Click to expand...

If the allegations were false and if Huw loses a 400k a year job because of it then I am absolutely, 100% confident, that his lawyers will completely agree with you and wouldn't ever consider legal action.
 
thenewoc said:
I actually said strong enough.
Click to expand...

The defence of public interest in fact is STRENGTHENED by naming the person. You are providing a service by specifying the dangerous individual.

It's a genuine laugh that you're associating the word strong with the word evidence and accusing The Sun of having it for this front page story.
 
Irish_Tom said:
I can't post it or link to it due to swearing, but Johnathan Pie's latest video pretty much nails it for me.
Click to expand...

Yes very apt.

n111ck said:
There are all The Sun allegations, the known BBC staff allegations, further BBC allegations that were already being looked at, plus the extra stuff in the Sun dossier that hasn't been made public but has been passed on to the BBC investigation.
Click to expand...

Thats all well and good but the original story was Huw Edwards knowingly paid a 17 year old for sexual pictures and made them a crack addict. I could have got behind that anger but that isnt what happened.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
The defence of public interest in fact is STRENGTHENED by naming the person. You are providing a service by specifying the dangerous individual.

It's a genuine laugh that you're associating the word strong with the word evidence and accusing The Sun of having it for this front page story.
Click to expand...

Public interest doesn't compel a journalist to name someone though. If the subsequent complainants inputs prove to be accurate, it further strengthens the case for The Sun to run with the story.
 
thenewoc said:
Public interest doesn't compel a journalist to name someone though. If the subsequent complainants inputs prove to be accurate, it further strengthens the case for The Sun to run with the story.
Click to expand...

I think you're totally right. They put unproven libel out and hoped a real story would appear.

Which is exactly why they deserve all the **** they get as their bait story fell apart.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Didnt she go to the police first and they said its BS though? The she went to the BBC and then the Sun.
Click to expand...

..and if THE BBC had gone straight to Huw he could have explained how he was just coaching a school leaver who wanted a media job, the photos were entirely innocent portfolio shots and the money was from his charitable foundation for young people and all this could have been avoided.
 
thenewoc said:
Rubbish!

The Sun must have seen evidence strong enough to run a story deemed in the public interest because the accused being a significant public figure. Regardless of whether there has been criminality involved, his position in public life (delivering news) makes it a story.
Click to expand...
strong enough evidence...... as i said in another post your kind of logic is exactly why i believed them about Hillsborough. The difference is i was 14 ish. Gutter press like the Sun dont need much evidence to present stuff, they are just about vague enough (but leaving enough crumbs, at least when combined with other leaks elsewhere to get you where they want you to go).

this is not just the Sun and not just celebs but everything, be it FUD about global warming, or casting blame of government failures against minority groups to swerve away from government, or getting the media gossiping about 1 thing whilst doing a slight of hand that will then get missed, or just anything really that gets people angry and , more importantly gets them clicking on their article for the advertising revenue or buying their rag or shaping public opinion in the way they want it shaped..

sling enough crap and hope some of it sticks, in this case some *maybe* has, but NOT what they actually accused him of, in other cases they just hurt people then print a tiny retraction on page 5 in a weeks time.

The sad thing is, when a real monster (which maybe Huw is but it isnt proven yet) who is literally caught red handed gets outed, many peoples 1st reaction (mine included) is to suspect it is a stitchup.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
I think you're totally right. They put unproven libel out and hoped a real story would appear.

Which is exactly why they deserve all the **** they get as their bait story fell apart.
Click to expand...

So all this debate rests on is whether or not he sues.. I bet the Sun hope he does lol..
 
bigmike20vt said:
strong enough evidence...... as i said in another post your kind of logic is exactly why i believed them about Hillsborough. The difference is i was 14 ish. Gutter press like the Sun dont need much evidence to present stuff, they are just about vague enough (but leaving enough crumbs, at least when combined with other leaks elsewhere to get you where they want you to go).

this is not just the Sun and not just celebs but everything, be it FUD about global warming, or casting blame of government failures against minority groups to swerve away from government, or getting the media gossiping about 1 thing whilst doing a slight of hand that will then get missed, or just anything really that gets people angry and , more importantly gets them clicking on their article for the advertising revenue or buying their rag or shaping public opinion in the way they want it shaped..
Click to expand...

So the mentioned dossier is empty is it, the same dossier that I assume they ran past their own lawyers before running the story? This dossier must have had some evidence of bank accounts, photos and timestamps, I simply don't believe it would only have a statement for instance from the mother.

Even the police statements on NFA don't elaborate on whether they've seized Edward's phone or computer equipment to do a thorough examination of these items.
 
Last edited:
thenewoc said:
So the mentioned dossier is empty is it, the same dossier that I assume they ran past their own lawyers before running the story. This dossier must have had some evidence of bank accounts, photos and timestamps, I simply don't believe it would only have a statement for instance from the mother.
Click to expand...
but they chose not to ask the victim who is now an adult in their 20s. That sounds like at the very least pretty reasonable doubt to me when he said it is categorically not true that anything untoward happened (at least when he was under age, and anything since then is between 2 adults and nowt to do with us).

and as for timestamps....... we have seen how good they are with time stamps with that whatsapp message with the heart emogi, written months before the A level students age is given on it.

maybe there is more to it than that but if so why not release actual damning evidence instead of something you need to have hindsite for, and which is pretty damn tame anyway?.

Chris Hanson on to catch a predator knew how to properly stitch up a perve! they need to learn off him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom