The Huw Edwards situation

[Colonel_Klinck]

Probably a mixture of playing the mental health card and the gay aspect...

Or the original story from the Sun was lies, they had a statement from the alleged victim that said no offence had taken place and he wasn't a victim but they buried it. The public can be idiots but they know when a newspaper has an agenda and is twisting something to suit that agenda.

 

[dowie]

.

There's that word again.

The young person involved's solicitor says the Sun's article is rubbish and nothing criminal happened.

I do wonder why you and others are so obsessed. It's a bit 'iffy' as you like to say

You're confused... you're talking about the solicitor for the teen in the first allegation which has nothing to do with the incident in the post you just quoted, as far as I'm aware that young person hasn't even hired a solicitor. Why not familiarise yourself with the story first before commenting on it?

 

[GordyR]

Let's try to simplify it for you... *snip*

I didn't say that you said it was just about sleaze. I simply said that it's not. There's a distinction.

If you thought that's what I was saying, then you were mistaken. It was a general comment that was intended to be taken in the wider context of the point being made in my post, along with my previous one that you had ridiculed.

Hence my confusion at what felt to me like a bizarre response from you; one that completely ignored the entire point I was actually making in favour of discussing case specifics.

I don't know whether this is just a genuine misunderstanding that I could have avoided by being more clear, or whether it's an actual deliberate thing that you like to do. It could be seen as you purposefully nitpicking at one very specific interpretation of one very specific sentence, in an attempt to avoid addressing the wider point of a post.

Regardless, I guess I’ll just have to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that this clarification is enough to end a line of questioning that to me seems totally unrelated to the point I tried to make.

 

[Ormy1]

So soliciting photos from an 18 year old makes you a nonce?

That depends. If you're of similar age then no. If you're a very rich publicly recognisable figure in their 60s, hell yes it does.

Add to that sexual harassment of young female co-workers, definitely a nonce.

As I said before, legal ≠ morally acceptable. I'm not saying he should be locked up (not yet anyway), but if he loses his job/career and gets dragged by the media, no sympathy, he brought it upon himself.

 

[Hedge]

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.

I'm struggling. So I'll try to just clear up my personal opinions for you.

When someone is accused of something, it should be backed up with evidence.

What consenting adults get up to is there business.

Sexual harassment is not acceptable and should be handled according to the equality act 2010. Charges should be made if evidence is there.

I agree certain behaviours don't align with certain jobs. But to be honest if a person is still capable of doing the job to their best ability then maybe we shouldn't always apply personal moral beliefs to them.

If evidence leads to charges being pressed on Huw Edwards, or anyone else to that matter then I believe he/she/they should be met with the full force of the law.

Just because I don't agree with something it doesn't mean it's illegal or unacceptable. It's just not for me.

I think The Sun have an agenda to push against the BBC.

Not really sure what else you're lookin for.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

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.

We don't know he knew he was 17. In fact wasn't that mentioned in the very last message?

So you have a problem with an older man being into younger men? Its not my thing but what happens between consenting adults is their business. And if memory serves barley legal was a term for 16 year olds, not 18 year olds. School uniform and all that stuff.

 

[dowie]

I agree certain behaviours don't align with certain jobs. But to be honest if a person is still capable of doing the job to their best ability then maybe we shouldn't always apply personal moral beliefs to them.

But this isn't just personal moral beliefs if it impacts others at work. Or indeed if it compromises their ability to do their work... is he going to be credible if in future a politician is accused of some sleazy or inappropriate behaviour?

Not really sure what else you're lookin for.

Well that was what I wanted clarification from you on, you asked me a broad question and when asked to clarify it (which Huw Edwards allegation you were referring to)you haven't done so?

 

[GGizmo]

I'm surprised none of the dictionaries online know the true origin of nonce. They all call it a slang word for sex offenders.

While it is used in that way the word is an abbreviation of: Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

That depends. If you're of similar age then no. If you're a very rich publicly recognisable figure in their 60s, hell yes it does.

Add to that sexual harassment of young female co-workers, definitely a nonce.

As I said before, legal ≠ morally acceptable. I'm not saying he should be locked up (not yet anyway), but if he loses his job/career and gets dragged by the media, no sympathy, he brought it upon himself.

My understand of a nonce and yours must be different. I thought it was someone into children, also known as a pedo.

So any older man or women who has some kind of sexual interaction with an 18 year old is now a nonce. And what does wealth or being a public figure have to do with it? Some real weird standards you have. So someone who is poor and not a public figure isn't a nonce? Or isn't as big a nonce?

 

[dowie]

We don't know he knew he was 17. In fact wasn't that mentioned in the very last message?

Correct, read the post again and look at the last few words in bold, below:

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.

So you have a problem with an older man being into younger men?

Nope, where did I say that? Again, re-read the post, I've pointed out that if you're into very borderline younger men then it's pretty reckless if you don't check they're actually men and end up DMing a schoolboy!

Its not my thing but what happens between consenting adults is their business. And if memory serves barley legal was a term for 16 year olds, not 18 year olds. School uniform and all that stuff.

Not if you wanted, for the sake of argument, to pay them for pictures or anything else. A 17-year-old isn't an adult and it wouldn't be legal to pay them for pictures or indeed anything else sexual.

 

[Hedge]

But this isn't just personal moral beliefs if it impacts others at work. Or indeed if it compromises their ability to do their work... is he going to be credible if in future a politician is accused of some sleazy or inappropriate behaviour?

This is why I said maybe we shouldn't apply personal moral beliefs. The reason it compromises their ability among others at work, is because others at work hold too much weight in their own moral beliefs. Get me?

If no one actually have a crap what their boss got up to in his or her personal life then if wouldn't impact their feeling on them. But unfortunately humans are strange and get pretty passionate about things that they can't relate to.

Well that was what I wanted clarification from you on, you asked me a broad question and when asked to clarify it (which Huw Edwards allegation you were referring to)you haven't done so?

I was referring to the initial allegation that this entire thing stemmed from. The allegation that he was creeping on a 17yr old. The one that I'd say was illegal.

 

[Ormy1]

Lots of people debating whether he broke the law, and debating whether it is relevant. When considering relevancy, we need to have a point of reference, or a question to which a piece of information may or may not be relevant.

Huw allegedly solicited sexual images from another person. Regardless of that person's age, if the messages sent by Huw were not solicited they are harassment.

Whether that harassment crosses the line into criminality is ONLY relevant to the following question: should Huw go to prison?

A different question: should he be allowed to continue his career as a news presenter, or any career that puts him on TV? If that is the question, then whether or not the harassment crossed the line into criminality is totally irrelevant.

Another question: should he be able to sue The Sun for misrepresenting the facts? Now a whole different set of things are relevant or irrelevant accordingly.

Relevance is not an isolated concept. A fact 'X' is not relevant or irrelevant on its own. Fact 'X' may be very relevant to question 'Y' but wholly irrelevant to question 'Z'. So it is here.

 

[GGizmo]

A lot of people are taking legal risks on Twitter if the other named person hasn't done anything illegal.

 

[Ormy1]

My understand of a nonce and yours must be different. I thought it was someone into children, also known as a pedo.

So any older man or women who has some kind of sexual interaction with an 18 year old is now a nonce. And what does wealth or being a public figure have to do with it? Some real weird standards you have. So someone who is poor and not a public figure isn't a nonce? Or isn't as big a nonce?

Would you let him babysit your kids?

 

[dowie]

This is why I said maybe we shouldn't apply personal moral beliefs. The reason it compromises their ability among others at work, is because others at work hold to much weight in their own moral beliefs. Get me?

Apply moral beliefs how? For example hooking up with a 23 year old and having an affair shouldn't be an issue for most employers (though again there are obvious exceptions) you can still think he's an immoral person and lower your personal opinion of him as a married man with kids.

But the alleged issues are rather more than that and impact others. Him meeting up with a 23-year-old and paying him money shouldn't be a cause for an issue in most jobs I'd have thought. But it could do if you're in a role requiring security clearance... or indeed it might not be a good idea as a serious BBC journalist given both the alleged covid breach and the sleaze aspect.

I was referring to the initial allegation that this entire thing stemmed from. The allegation that he was creeping on a 17yr old. The one that I'd say was illegal.

Well in that case I'd say creeping on a 17-year-old and having their parents turn up and getting shouty in reception would probably be an issue in a few workplaces if true.

I'll go back to the point that there isn't necessarily a universal "line" here but it differs for good reasons depending on the role you're in, the conduct expected of someone public facing in a serious role, someone senior in public office, someone in law enforcement or the judiciary, someone in financial positions requiring them to be a fit an proper person, someone holding a company director position etc..etc.. can differ from the expectations required of people who don't have those responsibilities or high profile positions.

To give a completely different example being in debt isn't illegal and isn't a work issue for most people but it can be if you work in a bank or some other role requiring background checks including credit checks or in a role requiring security clearance (open to bribery)... ditto to a gambling habit in the latter case. The lines for unacceptable but legal behaviour are different for different people and that's fine.

 

[VincentHanna]

Would you let him babysit your kids?

Strange question

I wouldn't have let him babysit my non-existent kids before the allegation - I don't know the man personally.

 

[FoxEye]

Would you let him babysit your kids?

How is that relevant to anything, tho?

I think this thread highlights one thing very plainly.

People in the public eye are subject to expectations going far beyond what is legal. They have to tread a careful line of what will cause outrage and moral panic. Even if that outrage is limited to a specific set of people with specific views.

I would not want to be in such a position, but those who are, surely know the score by now (rightly or wrongly). One slip-up that offends the Sun's readership and you're toast. Perhaps they should put that in the contract...

 

[sidimmu]

It's funny as those who bang the drum about morally unacceptable acts should carry heavy punishments even if legal are usually hypocrites throwing stones from their glass houses...
I'm looking at some people in here...

 

[Ormy1]

People in the public eye are subject to expectations going far beyond what is legal. They have to tread a careful line of what will cause outrage and moral panic.

People in the public eye are de facto role models for everyone else, damn right the expectations for their behaviour are higher than simply being legal. If you want to do questionable stuff (especially of a sexual nature) don't be famous.

 

[dowie]

I would not want to be in such a position, but those who are, surely know the score by now (rightly or wrongly). One slip-up that offends the Sun's readership and you're toast.

Exactly, if you're getting 400k+ (and formerly 500k+) of taxpayers licence fee payers money and part of that public facing role means you perhaps have a higher expectation re: your personal conduct then; allegedly sliding into the DM's of junior staff members at work and a random schoolboy on instagram, allegedly paying thousands to a drug using teen with very worried parents and allegedly breaking covid lockdown rules while reporting on covid and briefing the public on the rules... is all pretty reckless, jeopardizes that well paid high profile positon and is worthy of plenty of criticism.