The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Irish_Tom said:
I can't post it or link to it due to swearing, but Johnathan Pie's latest video pretty much nails it for me.
Click to expand...

I notice he conveniently neglected to mention sexual harassment of subordinate co-workers. He seems to assume (as do several posters in this thread) that all of Huw's sexual escapades occurred with another consenting adult, an assumption that has no basis in evidence. In fact evidence to the contrary is continually surfacing.

Also lots of people implying that anything that isn't outright criminal is automatically morally justified. Legality and morality are not the same thing, the amount of people who seem to think they are the same is worrisome.
 
Last edited:
Ormy1 said:
I notice he conveniently neglected to mention sexual harassment of subordinate co-workers. He seems to assume (as do several posters in this thread) that all of Huw's sexual escapades occurred with another consenting adult, an assumption that has no basis in evidence. In fact evidence to the contrary is continually surfacing.
Click to expand...

And if his video is based upon believing it's between two consenting adults.. Then his points are valid.

The people involved in this media thing were Huw Edwards, the other, and the others parents. From what I read the other person effectively said "nothing to see here".

Admittedly I've not been reading much since the news broke so if there's some new damning evidence from sources other than the Sun then I'm all ears.
 
Hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Assume you in a dowie hole so I wont see, but I cannot see how anyone can take a different view from this as the fundamental.

Once you get below that, into the moral side, company rep side etc then its very very grey.
Your into when does an individuals right to practice their own wishes (as long as legal) have any right to public knowledge.

IMO the saying a person can not perform some jobs because of reason XY or Z gets us onto significantly dodgy ground.
Jobs where there are clearly a higher requirement for certain behaviours, or lack of others, should be clear at the start.
Such as the police* and working with children.
* and yes I recognise how that sits at the moment considering the met.

I cannot reconcile that you can say a job requires a certain level of morals (which by default can be hard to define) can require a certain standing when you do not check for that standing in the first place.
 
It think people are forgetting why we have professionalism in the first place. Because if we don't have neutral, average, plain people then the public don't respect it.

When it comes to legal activities that are considered immoral by the public then it risks losing respect and business.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
There is supposed to be another accused person's name floating around.

I don't get private eye these days but they are referencing someone else for harassing and bullying young men.
Click to expand...

Yes it has been mentioned but until the pitchfork brigade start a thread it is unlikely to be debated and as the person in question is from the obscure right it is unlikely to happen.

Strange uh?

Ormy1 said:
I notice he conveniently neglected to mention sexual harassment of subordinate co-workers. He seems to assume (as do several posters in this thread) that all of Huw's sexual escapades occurred with another consenting adult, an assumption that has no basis in evidence. In fact evidence to the contrary is continually surfacing.

Also lots of people implying that anything that isn't outright criminal is automatically morally justified. Legality and morality are not the same thing, the amount of people who seem to think they are the same is worrisome.
Click to expand...

Thats an odd view of the situation but inline with this thread.
 
Richie said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer then... Richie if anything you're the "ghoul" here not me. You're apparently not defending him yet you can't even answer a direct question re: what you think you're even criticising then... are you slow to understand or something?

Richie said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's only addressed the meeting up with a 23 year old on grindr... again try to answer the question I asked? I don't think I've even focused on that allegation aside from the alleged rule breach.

You can't seem to do that and instead, you want to keep things vague for some reason... perhaps because you don't actually have any solid criticism.
 
Last edited:
Hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a reach... where did they allege "harassment"? Messaging someone with a flirty message doesn't necessarily break any law but could be seen as an abuse of power within the workplace or indeed inappropriate behaviour in general.

You know full well that behaviour that can get you into trouble at work or indeed sacked doesn't necessarily need to be illegal so why the straw clutching to maintain some position that only illegality is important here?
 
For some reason the media are pushing this sympathy line in this story, it's near universal across left/right media.

But remember people are sacked for tattoos, or that woman from hollyoaks was sacked for doing onlyfans.

Many years ago I used to help a friend run sexually themed irc channels. So I'm aware of people's legal sexual proclivities. But whether right or wrong everyone knew back then if it became public the perception others had of them would change.
 
dowie said:
That's a reach... where did they allege "harassment"? Messaging someone with a flirty message doesn't necessarily break any law but could be seen as an abuse of power within the workplace or indeed inappropriate behaviour in general.

You know full well that behaviour that can get you into trouble at work or indeed sacked doesn't necessarily need to be illegal so why the straw clutching to maintain some position that only illegality is important here?
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to talk to you because it's like I'm in some kind of loop where you don't quite grasp what is being said.

Legality is the most important here. Your entire example of sending unwanted messages to a colleague and browsing bikini photos would push boundaries of legality and I'm not even sure how for you want to go with that?

Employers have complaints procedures. The BBC likely have not actioned these procedures as well as they should.

I'm going round in circles with you here. I don't understand your thought process it seems.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Yes it has been mentioned but until the pitchfork brigade start a thread it is unlikely to be debated and as the person in question is from the obscure right it is unlikely to happen.

Strange uh?
Click to expand...
I didn't know of who it was until I just looked it up.

If it's the same person who as been hinted at in my sources then it's supposed to be worst than the Edwards story.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
So soliciting photos from an 18 year old makes you a nonce?
Click to expand...

Allegedly sliding unsolicited into the DMs of a 17-year-old schoolboy with some flirty messages certainly highlights some questionable judgment. It's not illegal for a 61-year-old man to be into barely legal teens but given how borderline such a thing is he's seemingly a bit reckless if he doesn't necessarily know whether they're adults or not.
 
Hedge said:
Legality is the most important here. Your entire example of sending unwanted messages to a colleague and browsing bikini photos would push boundaries of legality and I'm not even sure how for you want to go with that?

Employers have complaints procedures. The BBC likely have not actioned these procedures as well as they should.

I'm going round in circles with you here. I don't understand your thought process it seems.
Click to expand...

You don't need to, don't try and mind read here just read what I've said and address that. Of course, illegality is the most important thing... that involves potential prison time. It's hardly the only thing of concern here thus the clarification question you avoided. And no sending a flirty message or clicking like on some Instagram pcis in that hypothetical doesn't need push the boundaries of illegality for it to be an issue at work.

I mean if you're struggling with that then ignore the hypothetical as it's proving to be a distraction for you, you're not unaware that you can be disciplined or fired at work over personal conduct that isn't necessarily illegal? Right? So that surely addresses your earlier broad question... unless you wish to clarify it further.
 
Last edited:
robgmun said:
Pretty much sums up my feelings on this thread


We all know who they are...
Click to expand...

Awful take :o

There is nothing in the thread that warrants the whole left/right discussion. It’s really lame.

Separately, the fuss over those two individuals is factually extremely distinguishable. Prince Andrew was found to have some extremely dubious company, for starters.

A/B-ing those circumstances and doing some left/right comparison is one of the worst takes I’ve read on here in some time :o
 
Hedge said:
I thought I had. Multiple times.

I've seen the phrase "dowie hole" come up on this forum a bunch and I've realised I might be in it.
Click to expand...

That's a cop-out, see my edit - feel free to clarify your earlier question or acknowledge the point... I don't see any reason for you to need to grasp at straws with this illegality issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom