The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
n111ck said:
You think a parent shouldn’t be concerned about someone giving £35k to a drug addict?
Click to expand...
you are assuming he knew that that is what the money went to (even if it is true).

my car cost about that amount of money..... what if the seller was forced to sell his car because of a crack habit and i paid him that money..... what if he ends up in a morgue due to spending my money.... am i at fault?

perhaps rather than selling their story to the sun they could have approached Edwards and said, look, what you do with your life is up to you but our son has a massive crack problem, if you are giving him money please stop now. maybe they did this (though i do not think its reported as such)........ but i know if i was paying someone for something and i knew it was sending them down a dark path, i would likely stop if i was informed of it. esp as Edwards has demons of his own so can likely sympathise more than most.

now i am speculating of course.... but if we are going to use what if scenarios which are not proven i prefer to use glass half full ones.

edit..... i noticed a post claiming they were not paid anything for the story. if so, and there is not some off the books in kind thing going on somewhere that i will admit puts the parents in a better light.... it doesnt make them right however, us parents are programmed to see the best in our kids and make excuses for them.

it is natural and if our lad (god forbid) goes off the rails like that, i would probably want someone to blame, because if you cant find someone then you would surely then look inward and no one wants that guilt on them.

maybe he IS guilty of all that was said.... maybe not, but the point it it was broadcast without being proven.
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
Why is not ok to speculate about Huw but fine for you to speculate about the parents?
Click to expand...
Me speculating that the parents being well intentioned may have permanently damaged their relationship with their offspring is not quite the same as the not exactly subtle inference that no matter what the facts are that the accused is a criminal until proven otherwise. That's not even including the generalisations about the BBC itself and all it's employees being subject to similar terms by association which is rather unfair on Garry the janitor.
 
bigmike20vt said:
you are assuming he knew that that is what the money went to (even if it is true).

my car cost about that amount of money..... what if the seller was forced to sell his car because of a crack habit and i paid him that money..... what if he ends up in a morgue due to spending my money.... am i at fault?

perhaps rather than selling their story to the sun they could have approached Edwards and said, look, what you do with your life is up to you but our son has a massive crack problem, if you are giving him money please stop now. maybe they did this (though i do not think its reported as such)........ but i know if i was paying someone for something and i knew it was sending them down a dark path, i would likely stop if i was informed of it. esp as Edwards has demons of his own so can likely sympathise more than most.

now i am speculating of course.... but if we are going to use what if scenarios which are not proven i prefer to use glass half full ones.
Click to expand...
I’d assume the crack habit would become obvious in the photos… you look a bit pale..
 
n111ck said:
You think a parent shouldn’t be concerned about someone giving £35k to a drug addict?
Click to expand...
I think it's a gross breach of privacy and nothing you claimed has legs does it.

The grown adult stated the claims were rubbish. His mum is making claims and The Sun decided it was front page material.

Crazy how they ignored the supposed victim.
 
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...

What a surprise you'd be defending that rag just because it tends to align with your politics. Its a disgusting excuse for a newspaper and if they'd been certain of the story they would have named him.
 
SPG said:
Makes zero difference apart from more gutter scum journalism.
Click to expand...
Arguing against myself perhaps but i disagree somewhat. i think it casts a better light on the parents at least and hints that, they may believe what they are doing is for truth.

as opposed to them taking a 6 figure sum (i have no idea what they pay for this sort of thing) which would make them look like money grubbers even IF it were true.

it is perfectly feasible that the parents didnt do that much wrong AND at the same time neither did Edwards. not saying that is the case but it is possible.
 
bigmike20vt said:
Arguing against myself perhaps but i disagree somewhat. i think it casts a better light on the parents at least and hints that, they may believe what they are doing is for truth.

as opposed to them taking a 6 figure sum (i have no idea what they pay for this sort of thing) which would make them look like money grubbers even IF it were true.

it is perfectly feasible that the parents didnt do that much wrong AND at the same time neither did Edwards. not saying that is the case but it is possible.
Click to expand...

Loving parents don't take a story to the Sun, I'm sorry but you don't do that. That paper is only interested in salacious gossip and the more salacious the better. Your son/daughter is never going to come out of their story well, they'll print everything and anything that makes the story more clickable. I fail to see how them taking this story to the Sun has helped their child.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Loving parents don't take a story to the Sun, I'm sorry but you don't do that. That paper is only interested in salacious gossip and the more salacious the better. Your son/daughter is never going to come out of their story well, they'll print everything and anything that makes the story more clickable. I fail to see how them taking this story to the Sun has helped their child.
Click to expand...
missguided definitely, but if they didnt get paid (I am assuming this is true) then why else would they do it ?
 
Let's just remind everyone that this stuff comes from the same paper that regularly sells/shares voyeuristic pictures of people's private parts, many of the people barely over 18.

www.thesun.co.uk

Celebrity wardrobe malfunctions - latest photos and sightings

Celebrity wardrobe malfunctions - latest photos and sightings of unfortunate celebrities falling victim to their clothing
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk

Let's not forget this stuff

Leveson inquiry given examples of 'sexist and offensive' reporting | Leveson inquiry | The Guardian

Articles from the Telegraph, Sun and Sunday Sport criticised as sexualising women and misrepresenting rape research findings
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

The Sun also posted a picture of 15 year old Charlotte Church whilst commenting on how she is growing in reference to her breasts.




I mean, are they just annoyed that people are getting their content elsewhere now?
 
Hotwired said:
I think it's a gross breach of privacy and nothing you claimed has legs does it.

The grown adult stated the claims were rubbish. His mum is making claims and The Sun decided it was front page material.

Crazy how they ignored the supposed victim.
Click to expand...
I thought the victim was 17?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom