The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's an age thing. Until recently it was socially unacceptable to be gay. I know 3 people who were in long term marriages (20 years plus) and had children but are really gay, now divorced and their wives knew.

2 of these men appeared obviously gay to me by the way they acted and spoke, and I was more surprised to learn that they had children rather than that they were previously married

Marriages of convenience are more common than you think
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it was in the public interest (rather than just interesting to the public) then the Sun would have published Huw's name straight away. They didn't.
 
Murphy said:
I think you're confusing defence of a person with defence of basic legal principals.
Click to expand...
Spot on. I'm sure some people here think I am defending Huw. I'm not. I'm defending the principle of law and innocence until proven guilty. If allegations of illegal behaviour prove true then I've already said he should suffer the consequences. But I would prefer to see investigations play out before assuming guilt.
 
Hades said:
Spot on. I'm sure some people here think I am defending Huw. I'm not. I'm defending the principle of law and innocence until proven guilty. If allegations of illegal behaviour prove true then I've already said he should suffer the consequences. But I would prefer to see investigations play out before assuming guilt.
Click to expand...


PMSL trying to slide out of Huw's DM's now its getting a bit tricky... :D
 
n111ck said:
So are all the Huw fans now going to have to defend Dan?? lolol :D

From twitter:

The left : ‘Poor #HuwEdwards, stop this witch hunt, he’s had enough leave him alone.

’Also the left : ‘Get #DanWooton!’ :D :D :D
Click to expand...

The difference is Hue Edwards wouldn't be baying for someone's blood when this is happening where as Dan Wooton would be at the front throwing wood at them so they could be burnt at the stake. As you would be stood next to him offering him a can a petrol the difference is probably lost on you.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
The difference is Hue Edwards wouldn't be baying for someone's blood when this is happening where as Dan Wooton would be at the front throwing wood at them so they could be burnt at the stake. As you would be stood next to him offering him a can a petrol the difference is probably lost on you.
Click to expand...


So it's ok to be a scumbag as long as you do it privately?? .......:D
 
n111ck said:
PMSL trying to slide out of Huw's DM's now its getting a bit tricky...
:D
Click to expand...

No, my position has been very clear and very consistent from the start. Below was one of my earlier replies which is 100% in concordance with what I just said. I said it before Huw's name was public.

Hades said:
I am very much of the opinion that anyone involved in anything sexual relating to someone underage should be burned at the stake. But I am equally of the opinion that someone is innocent until proven guilty and that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law and does not affect other people.
Click to expand...

You are trying to read things into what other people say, so that your own position is justified to yourself. As someone else said to you, you have become so invested in this that you can't back down.
 
n111ck said:
So are all the Huw fans now going to have to defend Dan?? lolol :D

From twitter:

The left : ‘Poor #HuwEdwards, stop this witch hunt, he’s had enough leave him alone.

’Also the left : ‘Get #DanWooton!’ :D :D :D
Click to expand...

This post gives such an incredible insight into your psyche.

It seems to me that you view the entire world, and all of it's news, through some kind of political lens.

Rather than expend the intellectual effort required to form your own actual opinions, based upon evidence, clear of influence; the positions you take are instead based purely upon who you perceive to be "on your team".

When you think that way, whether or not something is actually true is of no particular relevance to you; my team good, your team bad - must blindly follow team.

It's a pretty lazy way of thinking in my opinion.

Regardless, what's really interesting is that you seem to be so deeply invested in this teamsport way of thinking, that you cannot possibly conceive of anyone else thinking any other way; like perhaps valuing truth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom