The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may as well show me a Daily Sport article, it likely contains as many "facts". People's mistake was believing a lying rag with an agenda that had nothing to do with protecting some alleged 17 year old.

They were reporting on claims made by the BBC, I think some of you see the title of a publication and want to dismiss the lot but if they're directly citing things people have said then that seems silly.
 
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.
via his lawyer who know one knows how he's managing to fund them, being he reportedly has a drug addiction and they are commonly known to generally not be the best examples of truth tellers.
 
So all this debate rests on is whether or not he sues.. I bet the Sun hope he does lol..

It's kinda iffy on one hand he appears to have been outed as a bit of a perv/pest... on the other hand if they've got that one detail wrong (believing the parents of the first person re: him being 17 when it started) then that's still something he could pursue them over. But he still seems to have a lot more dirt on him and do we know for sure that that detail is actually false or is just unsupported by the bank statements etc.. if they call the now 20 year old as a witness and go through how they met, go through phone evidence would they find that they did meet before his 18th birthday as the parents claim.
 
You may as well show me a Daily Sport article, it likely contains as many "facts". People's mistake was believing a lying rag with an agenda that had nothing to do with protecting some alleged 17 year old.
The thing with the daily sport (is that even still going now?) at least the stories there were fun and harmless (or at least as i remember it - its been a long time since i looked at one)... basically its viz with photos and harmless enough. The Sun and others like them is far worse
 
Here's how I think the St Huw of The Valleys saga will play out.
He'll spend at least a week 'receiving treatment' to make it seem believable.
He'll be given a soft interview, probably with Amol Rajan, with Mrs Edwards by his side. His mental health struggles were worse than he was letting on. His condition, paired with lockdown, led him to dark places on the internet. This led to poor decisions that put him in a vulnerable position. He'll probably break down in tears. His wife will grip his hand. It will cut to a few minutes later when he's composed himself. Then the words 'Yes, I do think we need to have a serious conversation about reporting restrictions and what people are allowed to say on the internet' will trip off his lips and we'll finally know what this was really about all along.
 
It's kinda iffy on one hand he appears to have been outed as a bit of a perv/pest... on the other hand if they've got that one detail wrong (believing the parents of the first person re: him being 17 when it started) then that's still something he could pursue them over. But he still seems to have a lot more dirt on him and do we know for sure that that detail is actually false or is just unsupported by the bank statements etc.. if they call the now 20 year old as a witness and go through how they met, go through phone evidence would they find that they did meet before his 18th birthday as the parents claim.
1 detail..... jesus tho its a bit of a whopper.

its the difference between being a bit of a perv vs being potentially a grooming child molester.

all of the stuff coming out now from bbc employees, not discounting those either, but that does not let the sun off the hook, those employees should be going to bbc HR and complaining and then an INTERNAL investigation carried out and him either warned, disciplined, fired OR supported if its deemed the employees are wrong. - and at that point if needed release a statement once all facts are considered - or pass on to the police if criminal charges warranted.
 
..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.

I'm thinking how that would go.

Yo Huw,

Head to HR, there's a complaint about your sex life with an adult from their mum.

We tried to contact this adult's mum for more detail, like how to contact the adult but there's no reply so just pretend we have a good reason for this meeting and don't sue us for this insane breach of privacy.

I dunno, seems proper sketchy attempts from this mum to shut down Huw for how her grown child turned out.
 
I imagine someone got a job in BBC HR thinking they would spend their days disciplining people for being late or using the wrong pronouns…

I dunno, the campus i work on and have worked on for the last 25+ years is much smaller than the BBC and yet we have had a few wronguns..... a dodgy scout leader who ended up doing jail time (not work related) a security guard having..... self relations in one of the managers chairs - not knowing there was cctv - so some security officer!, some pretty interesting fetish stuff on a work computer and showing up when plugging laptop into the projector at a meeting.

i am sure HR in all places get to see all sorts of stuff
 
1 detail..... jesus tho its a bit of a whopper.

its the difference between being a bit of a perv vs being potentially a grooming child molester.

all of the stuff coming out now from bbc employees, not discounting those either, but that does not let the sun off the hook, those employees should be going to bbc HR and complaining and then an INTERNAL investigation carried out and him either warned, disciplined, fired OR supported if its deemed the employees are wrong. - and at that point if needed release a statement once all facts are considered - or pass on to the police if criminal charges warranted.
By all accounts they were too scared too because of the power he had - hence why whenever a celebrity gets accused of this sort of thing loads of other allegations tend to follow..
 
According to the BBC's own timeline, they received some materials from the mother on 8th & 9th July when it then suspended the presenter. So the evidence they saw is reasonable to conclude that it was sufficient for them to escalate matters to formerly suspend the presenter. If there was no evidence then The Sun's story would surely have been rebuked and the presenter would not have been suspended.

 
Last edited:
…if your kid was turned into a crack head by a rich celebrity would you just turn a blind eye?
He's an adult not a kid, how many times does this need to be said?

Maybe the parents acted out of concern but in all likelihood they've completely estranged their 'child' and may well have put them on an even darker path.
 
He's an adult not a kid, how many times does this need to be said?

Maybe the parents acted out of concern but in all likelihood they've completely estranged their 'child' and may well have put them on an even darker path.
Why is not ok to speculate about Huw but fine for you to speculate about the parents?
 
A grown adult rejected all the claims.

Exactly what basis is there for anyone to insanely invade private life on the basis of what their mum says.
another way to look at it is a crack head that didn’t want to grass up his* enabler..

*or her!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom