The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hades said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Ok so you support both Huw and Dan as neither have been found guilty of a crime (yet)?
 
GordyR said:
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.
Click to expand...


Plot twist I dont support either Huw or Dan so thats your theory shot :D
 
n111ck said:
If we've learnt anything from this thread its the quiet ones you need to watch lool..
Click to expand...

Maybe, although my personal opinion is that anyone who puts themselves into a public position such as presenters, musicians, etc are not in any way quiet ones.
Quite ones do a normal job in the day, and then spend the evening at wife swapping events and in sex dungeons ;)
 
What makes me laugh is that most people wouldn't even give a "crackhead junkie druggie" a second of their time. They would cross the street if there was so much as an inclination someone was unsavoury.

Yet here we are. Everyone suddenly big defenders who are all sympathetic of poor people being taken advantage of.

Maybe get yourself down a soup kitchen or community centre and help out some of these people you seem to care about so much.
 
Hedge said:
What makes me laugh is that most people wouldn't even give a "crackhead junkie druggie" a second of their time. They would cross the street if there was so much as an inclination someone was unsavoury.

Yet here we are. Everyone suddenly big defenders who are all sympathetic of poor people being taken advantage of.

Maybe get yourself down a soup kitchen or community centre and help out some of these people you seem to care about so much.
Click to expand...

Hang on are you saying that you think some of this is faux moral outrage to try to cover up some other irrational hatred of a group because they are, welsh, possibly gay, work for the BBC, etc etc

No way!
 
n111ck said:
To keep this simple - do you support Dan because because no breach of law has yet been proven? yes or no?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with what Dan has been accused of (are you talking about Dan Wooten? I barely know who he is). Please summarise who he is and what he has been accused of.

To keep this simple - I do not "support" anyone. I "support" the principles of law and innocence until proven guilty. How hard is that to understand?
 
Last edited:
Hedge said:
What makes me laugh is that most people wouldn't even give a "crackhead junkie druggie" a second of their time. They would cross the street if there was so much as an inclination someone was unsavoury.

Yet here we are. Everyone suddenly big defenders who are all sympathetic of poor people being taken advantage of.

Maybe get yourself down a soup kitchen or community centre and help out some of these people you seem to care about so much.
Click to expand...

Personally I sympathise more with the parents - the kid may be a complete scumbag, we dont know, but that doesnt excuse what Huw has done.
 
Hades said:
To keep this simple - I do not "support" anyone. I "support" the principles of law and innocence until proven guilty. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's nothing but a teamsport to @n111ck. To him you either support one team or the other.

He cannot conceive of someone thinking any other way, and he cannot understand why someone would value truth, evidence and law, above anything else.
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
OK but back to Dan... lol
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the news report on this, can you simply TLDR on what hes been accused of.

I will compare Tate to Huw right now.
It looks by "evidence" that Tate is guilty, so I support whats happening to him. As the evidence changes I will review that position. Although I do have a snigger when I am reminded of how he described their justice system, I cannot help that.
Huw appears by "evidence" to be not guilty of a crime. Everyone has differing morals. Thats not to say he hasn't committed a crime, its just that right now that appears unlikely. If that balance changes then my views will adjust.
 
Hades said:
I'm not familiar with what Dan has been accused of (are you talking about Dan Wooten? I barely know who he is). Please summarise who he is and what he has been accused of.

To keep this simple - I do not "support" anyone. I "support" the principles of law and innocence until proven guilty. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

Google is your friend but he's not been accused of anything illegal (yet).. I wouldn't want to invade his privacy etc etc

So unpacking what you have said in your politicians answer you do support Dan, great.
 
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...

Also - Nobody here has started a thread about Dan Wooten and he's not front page news for a week.
 
Richie said:
It's been amusing watching you self implode as you try and defend a daft position
Click to expand...

What daft positon do you think I'm defending here?

I'd again point out that it's perhaps a reflection on yourself if you think that a 61 year old married man allegedly acting in this sleazy manner is acceptable behaviour, especially w.r.t. the first story about a young person with a drugs issue and with the allegations from BBC employees.
 
For those with no idea who Dan is
"
Daniel John William Wootton is a New Zealand born British broadcaster. He is based in the United Kingdom and holds both New Zealand and British citizenship.[1] He was executive editor of The Sun newspaper.

In 2007, he joined the News of the World. In 2013, he joined The Sun on Sunday and became editor of the Bizarre column the following year. In February 2016, he joined The Sun, under the editorship of Victoria Newton, as associate editor and in March 2018 progressed to executive editor.[2] In 2021 Wootton left News UK to join MailOnline as a columnist and present a show on GB News.[3]

Wootton has made appearances as a show business presenter on the ITV Breakfast shows Lorraine and Daybreak. From 2015 to 2018, he was also a regular contributor and panelist on Big Brother's Bit on the Side"

If you do not partake in some of the more highbrow media, or daytime TV, you are unlikely to have come across him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom