The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
For me, if these allegations end up being true and he has been paying significant sums of money for sexy pictures, or sending inappropriate messages to junior staff - then his position is untenable, he’s got to go.

On the other hand, I’m uncomfortable about how this is all being reported, the whole thing is very vague. I’m concerned that the whole thing may have been made up, or spun out of context and a man’s life is being trashed….

Either way, I think the truth will eventually come out, and if these allegations are not true, the sun is toast….
 
Minusorange said:
Does anyone find it insidious when people play the mental health card in such situations, it feels like an insult to people who actually suffer daily with it
Click to expand...

Yeah and was the point of my previous post.

Time line:
Tuesday: Huw book yourself into a hospital
On the day of the reveal: 9am Meeting at the bbc with Huw's wife on teams + several bbc names that have been internet named to discuss how it will be played out
By teatime: All done and dusted and the sympathy will flow once the name is announced
 
dowie said:
most of what he's been accused of has nothing to do with the rule of law…
Click to expand...

Nonsense, it has absolutely everything to do with it.

Half of the posters in this thread would immediately change their positions if new evidence came to light that gave the police cause to think that a crime had been committed.

The other half of the posters aren’t even remotely interested in whether or not something is true; instead they’re wielding pitchforks, frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs, desperate to burn the witch. They’re lapping up every new tabloid morsel that comes out, swallowing it whole without any critique or consideration for its accuracy whatsoever.

This isn’t just about sleaze; claiming as such is merely a mental squirm and complete backtrack from people here who only a few days ago were declaring that a crime had obviously been committed; and only because their favourite tabloid wrote a dubious article that was designed to cause maximum emotional response in its readers.

Even though the discussion has now moved on from the criminal concern, that still remains the divide in this thread; it’s between posters who clearly have precisely the kind of psychological makeup that these tabloids set out to exploit, and those who don’t.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
or sending inappropriate messages to junior staff - then his position is untenable,
Click to expand...
situation is analogous to house of parliament with the recent, sitting on my knee, or touching accusations, in this empowered age the victims individually thought the actions were too innocuous to complain,
but then have some critical mass reached, catalysed by social media, where everyone says - caw caw metoo.
Rishi, or Kier should have been shining the light on their institutional problem, rather than RS wielding Huw pitchfork - misdirection.
 
dowie said:
Utter dross from you as usual Gordy... most of what he's been accused of has nothing to do with the rule of law and is accusations of being a perv and accusations of improper conduct/abuse of his positon as a senior BBC employee to more junior employees. This is primarily now a story about sleazy behaviour by someone who is supposed to be a serious journalist/news reader and has likely rendered himself incapable of being taken seriously or conducting any serious interviews with say politicians accused of improper behaviour going forwards.
Click to expand...

Where do we draw the line? I thought the law was the line. If I find out the checkout girl was at an orgy last night should I move to the next one over? it's a public facing role isn't it.

What level of job allows certain conduct behind closed doors? Can you pay money on onlyfans whilst in a junior position but not when you're a supervisor?

It's obvious Huw can't be on TV again but people feigning offense are ridiculous.

I'd rather the law did it's thing instead of trial by tabloid media and the muppets that read it.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
Well you fell at the first hurdle there. Kind of like in this thread really. You are so invested in the outcome you wanted you can't back down.
Click to expand...


We all know you read it - saw the parents perspective and are questioning your fanboy approach but are too scared to back down and let down the other abuser enablers in this thread who, lets face it, are just scared of their on online behaviours being exposed. :D

Still waiting for Huw's defence statement will likely be gold given how long it's taken to write... how are you going to cope if he admits to everything - very sorry mental health / rehab / unwise but not illegal etc etc
 
Hedge said:
Where do we draw the line? I thought the law was the line. If I find out the checkout girl was at an orgy last night should I move to the next one over? it's a public facing role isn't it.

What level of job allows certain conduct behind closed doors? Can you pay money on onlyfans whilst in a junior position but not when you're a supervisor?

It's obvious Huw can't be on TV again but people feigning offense are ridiculous.

I'd rather the law did it's thing instead of trial by tabloid media and the muppets that read it.
Click to expand...

Very much this.

I mean we had this a few days ago. Some people seem to think anything that brings your company into disrepute means you can be fired.
As I said, I bet most people have done something that would fall into that once some media tabloid writer had a chance to stretch everything to the limit, insert some careful words like child to refer to an adult, by referring to the person as a relative, ie the mothers child (as we see in this case).

I mean your checkout girl example. If that was in the sun it would be "depraved checkout girl happily serving law abiding OAPS their morning papers only hours after all nighter sordid sex sessions"
Don't mention the company directly, but give enough info to infer, such as "I bet they got finest value from their sordid sessions"

I do think however there is a certain element of gay bashing from a few here that is an under current.
 
Hedge said:
Where do we draw the line? I thought the law was the line. If I find out the checkout girl was at an orgy last night should I move to the next one over? it's a public facing role isn't it.

What level of job allows certain conduct behind closed doors? Can you pay money on onlyfans whilst in a junior position but not when you're a supervisor?

It's obvious Huw can't be on TV again but people feigning offense are ridiculous.

I'd rather the law did it's thing instead of trial by tabloid media and the muppets that read it.
Click to expand...

Is all the stuff on this list acceptable to you? Would you do all this and shrug if anyone complained because most is not illegal?

www.thesun.co.uk

10 questions about the BBC's failings that it cannot ignore

YESTERDAY, the BBC re-started its investigation into Huw Edwards, which had been paused while the police determined if there was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Here, we detail the disturbing …
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
@GordyR there’s a few overlapping issues on this.

(1) One issue is whether Huw has done anything illegal.

(2) Another issue is whether Huw has been defamed.

(3) Another issue is whether Huw’s ability to work has been affected by his actual conduct.

(4) Another issue (if applicable) is whether Huw’s ability to work has been affected by any defamatory statements.

(5) Another issue is whether there has been breaches of privacy.

(6) Another issue is whether the press have acted appropriately (whether in accordance with their regulatory requirements or not).

(7) Another (!!) issue is the extent that Huw is a person that has any illness and the extent that warrants sympathy for any actions.

It’s possible that Huw is subject to (3) i.e. his conduct will affect his ability to work without him doing anything illegal, nor being defamed, nor having his privacy breached.

Whether he’s been defamed or not, or whether his privacy has been breached, it’s not clear.

From my perspective, I feel it’s been a very poor show from the press, regardless of whether Huw has done dubious things or not. At the same time, if Huw has done dubious things, then it should be expected that it will impact his career.
 
Hotwired said:
I expect there to be more clients than Huw which means this is all for nothing.
Click to expand...

dowie said:
Yes, keep on downplaying this... it's just nothing... it's totally normal for this 61 year old married man to be sending kisses and hearts to random followers including fellow junior BBC employees... allegedly.
Click to expand...

I don't think Hotwired means it's normal for a 61 year old married man to do this. I think he means even if this 61 year old married man is never seen of again, heard of again, or pays this alleged victim any more money, it still won't make a difference to the alleged victim or parents. The alleged victim is highly likely to have other clients. It's unlikely that Huw is the only person paying them. It's probably the whole gang of Huw, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub. The alleged victim will carry on with their lifestyle and the parents will continue worrying about their child and being estranged from them.
 
Last edited:
It's the usually double standard from many media outlets and political commentators, when it's someone who is remotely conservative or right leaning, there's no concern for privacy or mental health.

But for one their own the mental health card gets played, concerns for their privacy, referring to his personal life as "messy"........ Sure, maybe nothing illegal happened but he's still potentially been cheating on wife for years.

Similar situation with Schofield, at least he apologised.
 
ebilcake said:
It's the usually double standard from many media outlets and political commentators, when it's someone who is remotely conservative or right leaning, there's no concern for privacy or mental health.

But for one their own the mental health card gets played, concerns for their privacy, referring to his personal life as "messy"........ Sure, maybe nothing illegal happened but he's still potentially been cheating on wife for years.

Similar situation with Schofield, at least he apologised.
Click to expand...
How is someone having fairly well documented depression for years playing a card?

Do you think Huw is a robot with zero feelings?
 
ebilcake said:
It's the usually double standard from many media outlets and political commentators, when it's someone who is remotely conservative or right leaning, there's no concern for privacy or mental health.

But for one their own the mental health card gets played, concerns for their privacy, referring to his personal life as "messy"........ Sure, maybe nothing illegal happened but he's still potentially been cheating on wife for years.

Similar situation with Schofield, at least he apologised.
Click to expand...

Don’t be such a buttercup…give an example…..the media is majority right biased…or is that just what you think or feel?

Pincher, Johnson and so on have all been let of lightly for their shenanigans.
 
Listening to Nick Ferrari yesterday, I just remembered he was saying in the public interest is not the same as interesting to the public.
Very important view I think.
Because I struggle to see that this indeed in the public interest to have been acted up on as it was.

Anyway I am continuing to reserve my views until its all outed. If hes been a naughty boy then he deserves to be punished as such.
If he hasn't then I hope he goes after the sun (and potentially the BBC).

If hes been naughty I will be joining the queue with a pitchfork.

I have a feeling we won't see many who were for burning him at the stake already publicly reversing their views though. They never do, just scuttle back under their rocks, or blame a cover up or such.
That is just their cope for being wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom