The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
But it's not just about being famous you're being either naive or very disingenuous here re: the criticism made; this guy heads up a serious news program. If he was a hip-hop artist he could be hanging out with known gangsters at weekends, have all sorts of criminal past and still be fine to appear on some music-related programming.

To pretend it's just about fame is nonsense, this guy covered Covid (but allegedly broke covid rules), covers sleazy behaviour by MPs (but has allegedly indulged in sleazy/seemingly adulterous behaviour himself), was allegedly skating very close to the line re: just how legal the people he DM'd were. Wouldn't necessarily get him dropped by a record label but it's not really the same for a news reader/journalist.

That completely undermines him as BBC news presenter... then add to that the allegations from junior BBC employees, a news presenter may not be an executive in the organisation but it's a senior position paying nearly half a million a year, a position of power and influence... those sorts of allegations would be taken seriously in any workplace especially if they relate to an abuse of power. But sure just pretend it's only about fame and ignore the context of his senior position in the organisation or the actual job he has vs other famous people.
Click to expand...

You know fully well that post was in response to a poster saying because someone is famous they have to live to higher standards than the rest of us. Which is clearly ridiculous.

OMG he broke covid rules, that's it lock him up and throw away the key :eek: who didn't at some point? He wasn't making the rules, people have a problem when it was the rule makers breaking the rules. Not someone who told us what the rule makers want us to do.

You really are like a dog with a bone on this barely legal thing. As far as we know he didn't knowingly message someone asking them for pictures when he knew they we under 18. He could have course of messaged a 17 year old asking if the fancied a shag and it would have been perfectly legal.

It only undermines him as a BBC presenter because the Sun ran a story that he was paying a child for sexual photos, a lie and they knew it was a lie because the victim told them it was a lie. Remove the child bit and who cares? I couldn't give a damn if some dude has problems with his sexuality and is looking for photos online to satisfy his repressed sexuality. When the child part of this is removed its the biggest nothing burger. Yes some of his messaging to colleagues is probably inappropriate but that is a HR issue. He's screwed now though and so is his family, so the Sun and the other tabloids are mission accomplished.
 
In the space of only a handful of days, this thread has gone from people screaming pedo and calling for a public hanging, to debating whether or not adding a kiss or heart to the end of a message is a bit odd.

Full disclaimer: I once accidentally added an x to the end of a text to one of my clients, a company director.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
This alleged incident seems super tame:


This alleged incident is obviously flirty:


That sort of thing would appear to be quite reckless and *if* that was a regular thing he did then it's unsurprising to have seen 3 more people come forwards after the initial story + then the BBC employees and then these appear on social media too.
Click to expand...

it looks the converse - the other guy obviously initiated the conversation somehow, and doesn't show how, and tagged Huw, he replied in like;
looks similar to the discourse from Spacey today about flirting.
Apart from the invasion of his / his-families privacy episode could all increase Huw's popularity,
- when you think Boris didn't have his head put on a spike for his pillar-box diatribe.
 
It does restore your faith in humanity that people are willing to devote so much time to defending someone who is, at best, a dirty old perv and at worst a nonce - good job GD lol..
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
OMG he broke covid rules, that's it lock him up and throw away the key :eek: who didn't at some point? He wasn't making the rules, people have a problem when it was the rule makers breaking the rules. Not someone who told us what the rule makers want us to do.
Click to expand...

If true then he has no credibility as a broadcaster reporting public info, new rules etc.. and others breaking them if he's breaking them himself.

And plenty of people didn't break the rules, I do wonder now about some of the people trying to downplay the other stuff.
 
n111ck said:
It does restore your faith in humanity that people are willing to devote so much time to defending someone who is, at best, a dirty old perv and at worst a nonce - good job GD lol..
Click to expand...

You really do struggle with your understanding of the difference between the word defence, and the reality, which is people refusing to irrationally condemn someone based solely upon the reporting of purposefully exploitative tabloids, who’ve since completely backtracked, and social media hearsay.

I get that you have no interest in what’s actually true, we established that several pages ago, but this continued virtue signalling from you is incredibly cringeworthy.
 
GordyR said:
Full disclaimer: I once accidentally added an x to the end of a text to one of my clients, a company director.
Click to expand...
How are you still employed/employable/at liberty/not pleasuring his majesty in small, locked and guarded room? This is a disgrace, a social injustice, an assault on our shared values, an affront to the very essence of decency. I am outraged.
 
dowie said:
A 61-year-old man allegedly DMing a 17 year old is just moral panic? Ditto to allegedly flirty, unsolicited DMs to a junior employee he'd not even met?

You're seemingly ignoring context, ignoring the accusations and have given a vague reply related to some personal views/issues you have with office politics in general?



What argument are you talking about? The alleged exchange with the 17 year old was already posted, the BBC employee hasn't posted their alleged exchange.

You appear to be attributing an argument to me that hasn't been made, just quote the argument in future and ask directly as it will save any confusion.
Click to expand...
are you on about the one you put in the wrong chronological order... in which (when ordered correctly) the moment his age was mentioned nothing remotely dodgy happened and where it was the 17 year old who was doing most of the contacting?
because as I remember it you are the only one suggesting that something dodgy that we have not seen happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom