The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonel_Klinck said:
And right there is why men's mental health is still a taboo subject for many. If you weren't abused as a child or have PTSD from war you should just man up :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bad stuff happens all the time in life. I am not saying people shouldn't talk about stuff and mental health is something that needs looking after by whatever means possible but when people slap the card on the table just to get some sympathy it is just pathetic and offensive to people who are really dealing with some really bad times.

Mental health is a broad range in that at one extreme you could compare some mental health conditions to cancer but on the other hand you can compare some mental health conditions to the common cold.

If I ever decided to go behind my missus back and bang some teenage girls it is all on me and I must face up to the consequences not check myself in to some "mental hospital" (Not that I could afford it anyway). Lack of accountability for your actions has got nothing to do with mental health.
 
Hedge said:
If what he's done is illegal then yeah. If its legal and two consenting adults then I couldn't care less.

What if the parents are swingers who smoke pot at parties? Still sympathise with em?
Click to expand...

Why are you invading their privacy with cruel baseless speculation?

Regardless the sun interview doesn't give that impression and the TV interview is to come..
 
Hedge said:
If what he's done is illegal then yeah. If it’s legal and two consenting adults then I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

‘Lying and deceiving others that trust you’ isn’t illegal. But it would affect how I think about a person and, potentially, my assessment of how suitable they are for a particular position.
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
Google is your friend but he's not been accused of anything illegal (yet).. I wouldn't want to invade his privacy etc etc
Click to expand...

Why would I want to google someone you are asking my position on? You have asked me about Dan, someone I said I don't know much about. So it is encumbent upon you to explain who he is. I am not going to run around trying to find something out for you. If he has not been accused of anything then why are you asking whether I support him? That is quite a strange question.

n111ck said:
So unpacking what you have said in your politicians answer you do support Dan, great.
Click to expand...

Inferring something like that is a lazy position to take when debating. It's similar to Cathy Newman's style of debating.
 
GordyR said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, good old dishonest Gordy, I didn't say it was just about sleaze now did I so why are you pretending I did? Because you're lazy and so want to attack an easier positon as you know full well that only 2 out of the 4 initial allegations re: Huw involved illegality (under 18 allegation and covid rule breach allegation) and that the first story wasn't just about that but also in part about parents trying to stop the flow of money to their son as he has a drug's problem... and then there were the BBC staff allegations which don't concern illegality either but potential misconduct at work.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
How is someone having fairly well documented depression for years playing a card?

Do you think Huw is a robot with zero feelings?
Click to expand...

Maybe Huw is guilty about lying about his sexuality and cheating on his wife for years, poor man.

Do you think Andrew Tate is a robot? He's been through much worse. BBC didn't seem at all concerned about his mental health.
 
Nitefly said:
Are you sure?

‘Lying and deceiving others that trust you’ isn’t illegal. But it would affect how I think about a person and, potentially, my assessment of how suitable they are for a particular position.
Click to expand...

If it someone with influence in my life then maybe. But some people so far removed from me that their actions have no impact on me I honestly couldn't pretend I cared.

I'm also a believer that relationships are complicated and what goes on behind closed doors is no ones business. Many are in marriages of convenience, many have "arrangements" that to an outsider would seem like infidelity.

People just like to act outraged but it's all a front.
 
n111ck said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hilarious. You freely admit that 'we' don't know if the kid is a "complete scumbag" but at the same time we know that Huw has done something untoward.

According to you we don't know about one situation so it would be wrong to condemn those people but in the very same sentence you condemn someone else despite a similar lack of knowledge. And to top it all you can't see why people are taking issue with this. :cry:
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
It would be wonderful to see the far left and far right meltdown :cry:
Click to expand...

Breaking News :
Farage and Corbyn outed as secret lovers
Internet melts down trying to decide who is the victim and who was the groomer with neither side admitting "their man" could have started the decades long affair :D

The above is purely a joke for any about to melt down!
 
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?
Click to expand...

Well, that's a tad naive then tbh.. It's not illegal necessarily for example, for a manager to hit on junior staff members but it could cause issues at work - do you understand why?

There are multiple lines and they depend on your position, it's not a question of where to draw "the" line... a hip hop artists reportedly using drugs is going to be far less of an issue and probably won't stop them from appearing on a music program than say a Blue Peter presenter getting caught doing the same.

Your kids school teacher probably can't get away with a second career as a porn star.

Hades said:
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.
Click to expand...

If he'd been paying them £35k then it could well be a large chunk of income, especially if they were previously living at home, that's the whole reason they went after him beforehand, to try to get him to stop. Angry stepfather turning up at the BBC etc.. before this was ever a news story.

Maybe this person does have an only fans but take a look at the stats on that... the vast majority of people on there barely earn much, Huw could plausibly have been a huge chunk of this person's income.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
Why would I want to google someone you are asking my position on? You have asked me about Dan, someone I said I don't know much about. So it is encumbent upon you to explain who he is. I am not going to run around trying to find something out for you. If he has not been accused of anything then why are you asking whether I support him? That is quite a strange question.



Inferring something like that is a lazy position to take when debating. It's similar to Cathy Newman's style of debating.
Click to expand...


He hasn't been accused of a crime thats all you need to know - any other abuses are fine from your perspective therefore you must support him..
 
Nitefly said:
Are you sure?

‘Lying and deceiving others that trust you’ isn’t illegal. But it would affect how I think about a person and, potentially, my assessment of how suitable they are for a particular position.
Click to expand...

Interesting and valid point.

For example a politician, I mean they get away with far too much.

A presenter I would view differently to a journalist for example.
 
Murphy said:
Hilarious. You freely admit that 'we' don't know if the kid is a "complete scumbag" but at the same time we know that Huw has done something untoward.

According to you we don't know about one situation so it would be wrong to condemn those people but in the very same sentence you condemn someone else despite a similar lack of knowledge. And to top it all you can't see why people are taking issue with this. :cry:
Click to expand...


Accusations have been forthcoming with evidence enough to prompt a police investigation and no denials from the accused so a reasonable hypothesis is that money changed hands and the victim has a drug problem.
 
dowie said:
Ah, good old dishonest Gordy, I didn't say it was just about sleaze now did I so why are you pretending I did? Because you're lazy and so want to attack an easier positon as you know full well that only 2 out of the 4 initial allegations re: Huw involved illegality (under 18 allegation and covid rule breach allegation) and that the first story wasn't just about that but also in part about parents trying to stop the flow of money to their son as he has a drug's problem... and then there were the BBC staff allegations which don't concern illegality either but potential misconduct at work.
Click to expand...

What's all this waffle about?

I've made an observation regarding the divide between posters here, and what I believe is at the root of it; namely, a psyche that tabloids find easy to exploit.

I have absolutely no interest in discussing any specifics of this story, and haven't done so at all; because at this point, beyond the fact that the police have said that there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, I cannot reliably tell what is or isn't true.

Stick to responding to what people actually write.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Interesting and valid point.

For example a politician, I mean they get away with far too much.

A presenter I would view differently to a journalist for example.
Click to expand...

It's rather silly that you guys hadn't considered such a point before... this tunnel vision by some posters re: illegality seems to be the cause of the attitude that now this is suddenly a "nothing burger" simply because the police don't have anything to go on and the teen's lawyers have issued a statement about nothing illegal taking place.
 
ebilcake said:
Maybe Huw is guilty about lying about his sexuality and cheating on his wife for years, poor man.

Do you think Andrew Tate is a robot? He's been through much worse. BBC didn't seem at all concerned about his mental health.
Click to expand...

Does Hue have a well documented history of grooming women and once they are under his control putting them to work in his sex webcam business? Is he indicted on rape, sex trafficking and organised crime charges? No he doesn't so its a ridiculous comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom