The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
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"


You say:


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.
Click to expand...
the sun accused him of grooming and molesting a child
 
dowie said:
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!
Click to expand...
I suspect work would have an issue with it but I don't think it would be reported in the world press , along with a bit of noncery flavour added for extra drama

that said........ (segue now and a genuine problem I believe)
I met my wife at work, a significant number of my mates met their partners at work, not all on the same level as each other. I believe this is absolutely normal.

it is a bloody minefield now and whilst staff must be protected I do think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. it hasn't happened yet but our work was threatening to make a course about dating in the work place along with possibly supplying boiler plate text for how we can ask a colleague on a date.

I mean... FGS!

I am genuinely glad I am not in the dating game any more. it used to be simple Go to a club,/ party get drunk, find a woman equally drunk... have a fun night, maybe meet up again... or maybe not. My entire pulling technique would probably considered taking advantage of someone now (despite the fact I was equally drunk). (obviously I never tainted people's drinks. that should go without saying but with some people on here and how they like to strawman you never know

I mean one of Edwards' crimes was flirting on a dating site........ come on!.

once he is proven to be a sex pest and not just anonymous claims then throw him under the bus (but damn well never ever accuse of being a nonce unless you are absolutely sure!)


(and "he came across a little creepy" or he signed of with a kiss or a heart is not being a sex pest. imo that is a slap on the wrist by HR and perhaps a sensitivity training course. )
 
Last edited:
Hedge said:
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?
Click to expand...

Which Huw Edwards thing (or allegation) are you refering to.

As per my reply to MKW above I suspect that allegedly sending unsolicited flirty DM's to people more junior than you at work, making them feel very uncomfortable, would be a HR issue in plenty of workplaces. As would paying thousands to a young drug user to the point where one of their parents turns up in reception and causes a scene.

Hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, most of this doesn't involve breaking the law. If an 19 year old intern starts at your workplace and you go on her Instagram and click like on bikini pics form her summer holidays and start sending her DMs with hearts and kisses and she feels uncomfortable about it and goes to HR will you just tell them that you've not broken the law and so it's nothing to do with them?
 
bigmike20vt said:
I suspect work would have an issue with it but I don't think it would be reported in the world press , along with a bit of noncery flavour added for extra drama
Click to expand...

Mostly the UK press AFAIK but that's a function of him being a public figure who regularly leads national news coverage at our state broadcaster. As for the noncery flavour, if he was reckless enough to start sliding into a 17-year-old schoolboy's DM's on Instagram then that's on him, he's (allegedly) taken the risk to apparently pursue guys far younger than him and he's gotten a bit close to the line there... ditto to the first story where the money for pics has been allegedly going on for a while now and the parents allege 17 but the (now 20-year-old) denies it... so presumably is going with it allegedly starting at 18+?

Being gay or bi doesn't mean you need (allegedly) pursue barely legal teens! But if you do and you're a famous 61-year-old and you slide into DMs without first even checking someone's age and they later turn out to be 17 then that's very reckless at best.
 
Last edited:
This thread is about Huw Edwards…not Dan Wootton.
Let’s keep on topic shall we? If you want to discuss Dan Wootton then start a thread.
 
Hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Sun had a statement from the "victim" that told them there was no crime and they chose not to run that in their original story because they knew it would go against the narrative of a pedo working high up at the BBC. That could come back to bite them in the arse if Hue or the "victim" decides to sue them.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
But he is 18 so that is your opinion on its arse.
Click to expand...

Plus one complained to police about being trafficked for non-consensual sex.

The other told the police the allegations were rubbish, and the allegations were only for pictures not "solicited sex"

The equivalence here would be if a 17 year old complained to Police themselves. At which point I doubt many people would be defending Huw.
 
Last edited:
robgmun said:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on this thread


We all know who they are...
Click to expand...
I remain unconvinced about Andrews guilt as well. he didn't help himself however with stories about how he can't sweat and what not.
not saying he is innocent either and the company he kept definitely puts him in the "I wouldn't let him look after my teenage daughter if I had one"

I guess only 2 people will know for certain what happened.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
As per my reply to MKW above I suspect that allegedly sending unsolicited flirty DM's to people more junior than you at work, making them feel very uncomfortable, would be a HR issue in plenty of workplaces. As would paying thousands to a young drug user to the point where one of their parents turns up in reception and causes a scene.



Nope, most of this doesn't involve breaking the law. If an 19 year old intern starts at your workplace and you go on her Instagram and click like on bikini pics form her summer holidays and start sending her DMs with hearts and kisses and she feels uncomfortable about it and goes to HR will you just tell them that you've not broken the law and so it's nothing to do with them?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with sleazy or harassing behavior. In them circumstances the 19yr old would be within their rights to report the incidents and procedures would be followed. Ultimately if the creepy person continues then they would be charged for sexual harassment I assume. As they should be.

If a 19yr old person responds to the creep, asks for money for pics, and exchanges dodgy messages then that's on them. They both consented at that point and I couldn't gaf.
 
Tony Edwards said:
17 year old sex traffic girl from the Epstein group of sex trafficed girls and a member of the royal family.

Can you see the difference?
Click to expand...

They're both public figures and the allegations are rather damming. Didn't the police investigate Andrew and find nothing to charge him with? Isn't that the line people are using to pretend Huw's sleazy allegations are a "nothing burger".

Granted Andrew was alleged to have slept with someone whereas that's only been hinted at being a possibility with Huw's first allegation (due to meet at a train station etc..) and it mostly concerned payment for pictures and parents concerned about funding a drug habit.

In both cases these men appear to have been sleazy and reckless, "randy Andy" has had stories about other young women turning up at the palace etc. (former protection officer alleging some sleaze etc..).
 
Hedge said:
I don't agree with sleazy or harassing behavior. In them circumstances the 19yr old would be within their rights to report the incidents and procedures would be followed. Ultimately if the creepy person continues then they would be charged for sexual harassment I assume. As they should be.

If a 19yr old person responds to the creep, asks for money for pics, and exchanges dodgy messages then that's on them. They both consented at that point and I couldn't gaf.
Click to expand...

Thus the question of which allegation you're referring to... You can see then that it isn't just legality that's an issue here, you asked a question related to work "If you did the Huw Edwards thing, would that acceptable since you aren't a news reporter?" but junior BBC employees have made allegations about him too and so you see that's something that can impact people in various workplaces regardless of whether the behaviour is actually illegal or not.
 
dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course it is... Deflect away :cry:

The "side" that I am on is the same as others have already stated. It's not Huw I'm defending, it's the overall issues of A person being persecuted for legal things done in private between consenting adults being played out in public for the pleasure of ghouls like yourself.

I see you avoided my direct question about the Jonathan Pie video... C'mon, let's hear your views on that... Here it is again just for easiness.

Richie said:
In a serious question to @dowie - what's your thoughts on the Jonathan Pie video. You can find it on YouTube "back to you Huw"... I'd link it but it has a couple of swearies.

What do you think of what he says?
Click to expand...

Care to respond?
 
dowie said:
Thus the question of which allegation you're referring to... You can see then that it isn't just legality that's an issue here, you asked a question related to work "If you did the Huw Edwards thing, would that acceptable since you aren't a news reporter?" but junior BBC employees have made allegations about him too and so you see that's something that can impact people in various workplaces regardless of whether the behaviour is actually illegal or not.
Click to expand...

What allegations have they made? Allegations he harassed them? Well that is exactly in line with what I've just said. There are laws on harassment. If them allegations are proven true and it's decided he has been harassing these people, then it would deemed illegal surely?


From a Google.
Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Therefor... Erm...

I stand by my view.. Illegal stuff should be punished. Dirty behaviour between consenting adults that doesn't align with your moral values should not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom