The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
You being dishonest or perhaps not reading carefully, see the bit you highlighted in bold then go back and read what you were responding to.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's all still waffle and your typical obfuscation; and nothing to do with the only point i've made.

By all means, fill your boots with speculation and hearsay, it's just not something i'm interested in.
 
bigmike20vt said:
I know I should Google but......should I have heard of Dan Wooton?
Click to expand...

He is the guy who did a photo op of him placing a bunch of flowers after the Queen's death, they did several takes to get just the right image but being an idiot he was filmed doing it again and again.


For those without a Twitter account

dan-wootton.png
 
Last edited:
well I just googled Dan Wooton (also thanks for the link to post1604). but if he has been accused of being up to no good without any proof then sure he should not have been outed either HOWEVER if he has been accused of something it kind of proves the double standards.

even after googling there is far FAR (as in a quick glance didn't spot anything just by googling his name) about him being a deviant.

Google Huw Edwards however .........
 
Nitefly said:
Some people will have similar ‘non-legal’ thoughts over Huw and his role as a BBC news reporter, on the basis that he is supposed to be held to a high degree of honesty in his role of reporting the news. That would be the reasonable ground for the dislike of him, anyway.
Click to expand...

My view is its down to morals at this point. If nothing illegal has happened.

Again I would emphasise there is a big difference between being a reporter / researching who creates content and would genuinely bring a risk if they could impart their views onto a story.
And a presenter (especially a BBC news one) who is really genuinely basically presenting the autocue.

I mean if presenters social lives and morals are an issue then they should all have to have their lives laid bare in order to do the job.
I am not convinced that a presenting job requires that just like it doesn't for the vast majority of jobs.
 
n111ck said:
Recently allegedly stalking and emotional bullying of his boyfriend and an unspecified 'disturbing incident' - all investigated by the police and NFA - so all ok from your perspective.
Click to expand...
You say they are allegations. They appear to be allegations which could be of criminal matters. If found to be true then stalking is a criminal matter. If found true then emotional bullying is a criminal matter (domestic abuse). But you also say that the police have investigated both allegations and found insufficient evidence to charge anyone. So as defined by law he is currently innocent of all accusations. So, given that you already know my position on the rule of law (innocent until proven guilty, but if found guilty then they should be punished appropriately), then I am OK with the allegations being investigated by police and have to trust that they did sufficient investigation into the matter.


So in this case, based on the limited information you have given me, it seems that one of three things has happened:

1) The police missed some evidence. If that is the case then hopefully further evidence comes to light later and it is looked at again by the police. Dan's boyfriend could also consider bringing a private prosecution where the requirement for evidence is based on a lower probability. If that case finds against Dan then I would have course condemn him because it would have been a court that found against him.

2) Dan's behaviour was legal but unacceptable to his boyfriend. If that is the case I hope they have separated and both parties can rebuild their lives, seeking whatever help they each need. Any viewers/readers of Dan Wooten can make their own choice whether to continue consuming content from him.

3) The allegations were false. If that is the case then there should be no other sanctions on Dan (but possibly there should be sanctions on the accuser).

4) Or maybe there is another option that I can't think of right now.


If the matter has been investigated by the police and no further action taken then just perhaps the allegations are false. Have you considered that? How do you know the allegations are true when they have been investigated by an impartial body (the police) and insufficient evidence found for a successful prosecution?
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
well I just googled Dan Wooton (also thanks for the link to post1604). but if he has been accused of being up to no good without any proof then sure he should not have been outed either HOWEVER if he has been accused of something it kind of proves the double standards.

even after googling there is far FAR (as in a quick glance didn't spot anything just by googling his name) about him being a deviant.

Google Huw Edwards however .........
Click to expand...

You should try #danwootton on twitter. If what is being reported is true then it is far far worse than Hue paying an adult for saucy pics.
 
I just want to add a note of thanks to the Mods. This thread is moving so fast you probably have your work cut out reading all the posts today :D
 
dowie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes I understand why. Because that affects how their staff would view them and potentially how they all work together. This is not a concept I find foreign. I don't expect Huw Edwards to ever work at BBC again.

My issue is people's fake offense and the way the entire thing came to light. The Suns behaviour is questionable and their history of 16yr old page 3 models and countless articles objectifying women makes it difficult for me to take them seriously.


dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...

This could be seen as one rule for one and another for someone else. Which is not necessarily unusual.

With this example. Let's imagine no criminal charges are brought. If you did the Huw Edwards thing, would that acceptable since you aren't a news reporter?

dowie said:
Your kids school teacher probably can't get away with a second career as a porn star.
Click to expand...

Indeed.


It's all nuanced. If Winston Churchill felt someone's arse would you kick him out of power in the middle of the ww2.

It's why the law has such an important role. Anyone can apply moral and personal feelings to situations, but situations are complicated so we need something as close to black and white as possible. Did person x break the law? Yes or no.

That's really what things have to come down to.
 
GordyR said:
Nope, it's all still waffle and your typical obfuscation; and nothing to do with the only point i've made.
Click to expand...

Let's try to simplify it for you I point out that most of what he's been accused of is "being a perv and accusations of improper conduct/abuse of his positon", it's "primarily now a story about sleazy behaviour"
dowie said:
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...

You say:
GordyR said:
This isn’t just about sleaze; claiming as such is merely a mental squirm and complete backtrack
Click to expand...

But it wasn't claimed that this was "just about sleaze", most of it is, it is primarily sleazy behaviour now but two allegations did contain possibly law-breaking (covid lockdown and under 18) and that sleazy behaviour includes potential misconduct at work via inappropriate behaviour towards other BBC staff/abuse of power.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nearly spit my drink everywhere when you referred to the media you mentioned as 'highbrow' lol. You're being sarcastic I assume?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You should try #danwootton on twitter. If what is being reported is true then it is far far worse than Hue paying an adult for saucy pics.
Click to expand...
I don't use twitter in my limited experience of it it's downsides do not make up for its usefulness
however what is on twitter can't be helped. that is a different beast to actually spamming all over "real" news sites.
(not saying it's not reported on them either just that it isn't in your face can't get away from it)
 
Anyway as long as you Huw fans extend the same protection and support to Dan thats fine... maybe you could wear an armband or something.. try not to tie yourself in hypocritical knots.

I'll be back once we have the denial statement to pick over.. :D
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
My view is its down to morals at this point. If nothing illegal has happened.

Again I would emphasise there is a big difference between being a reporter / researching who creates content and would genuinely bring a risk if they could impart their views onto a story.
And a presenter (especially a BBC news one) who is really genuinely basically presenting the autocue.

I mean if presenters social lives and morals are an issue then they should all have to have their lives laid bare in order to do the job.
I am not convinced that a presenting job requires that just like it doesn't for the vast majority of jobs.
Click to expand...

That's completely ignoring that it's a senior position paying over £400k, do you think that if someone at your workplace in a senior position was alleged to be sending unsolicited flirty DM's to lower-level employees they hadn't even met then that might cause an issue with HR?

Do you think if their personal life allegedly involved supplying so much cash to a young drug addict that it allegedly caused enough of a problem for that drug addict's stepdad to turn up and get shouty in reception at your workplace then that might cause an issue? And then if they went to the newspapers and stories were printed about it thus drawing negative attention on your employer?

I suspect plenty of ordinary non-famous executives on £400k at various orgnisations would be in plenty of hot water should such things have occurred and that nothing illegal necessarily took place would be rather moot!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom