The Huw Edwards situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Victoria Derbyshire was apparently already investigating Huw for Newsnight before the Sun story:

metro.co.uk

BBC Newsnight spoken to after concern about Huw Edwards investigation

It is said to have made some BBC employees uncomfortable.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
It has now been revealed that BBC News journalists were reportedly working on a potential exposé about the presenter before The Sun’s allegations were published.
On an episode of Newsnight earlier this week, presented by Victoria Derbyshire, 54, they reported that two current BBC employees allegedly received messages from Edwards as well as one former employee.

Deadline has now reported that staff shared concerns after they were approached for intel on Edwards’s behaviour this week.

They claim sources have informed them that they felt uncomfortable being asked questions about their interactions with Edwards, and it was too aggressive. They also report that the Newsnight team have been accused of contacting BBC employees, who Huw follows on Twitter.

‘It’s really distasteful,’ a BBC insider said.
Click to expand...

Seems like a bit of conflict within the BBC now, some are angry at the way he's been treated but with a pre-existing investigation by Newsnight would BBC execs really want to try and suppress that given the corporation's recent history with these sorts of allegations and some BBC staff allegations about his conduct.

It's not clear that the story is over yet, even if some of the people keen to downplay it are now trying to be a bit juvenile in order to get the thread locked.
 
Mick Lynch calls UK press ‘a disgrace’ after Huw Edwards scandal and suggests there should be tighter regulation ‘to protect vulnerable people’

I can honestly say thats the first time I've agreed with anything he's said

www.telegraph.co.uk

Mick Lynch calls UK press ‘a disgrace’ after Huw Edwards scandal

RMT union boss references death of Caroline Flack and suggests there should be tighter regulation ‘to protect vulnerable people’
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Take one single guess at the forum member that has a monopoly on the word "downplay" in this thread.

A scummy tabloid had to smuggle private matters to the front page wrapped in lies describing underage sexual crime while ignoring the "victim".

Morals in the gutter if your reaction is to be grinding your teeth about Huw and the lack of animosity for him.
 
Well at least Huw and the victim seemingly have access to very expensive lawyers so dont have to worry about any concerns they have being ignored or brushed under the carpet..
 
the thing which frustrates me is the level of dishonesty that will be shown by some people IF after a proper investigation he does turn out to have been dodgy.

my position has always been as follows and I believe some others here too.

IF he has been up to no good with kids. lock him up. if he has been outrageously inappropriate with staff then sack him and it would then be a news story.

if he has done stuff with consenting adults on dating sites or if he needs a minor chat from HR about what is appropriate in the work place in 2023 then it's nothing to do with us.

My issue isnt wanting to cover up proven molestation or bullying or sexual assault and it never has been. ... it has been that you don't rip a person to shreds in front of the whole country until you are damn sure you have your facts straight. but if something is ultimately proven some here will take great joy in telling me I was wrong. even tho I still don't believe wanting proof before stories are printed about a person can be wrong

the fact that some people feel that what he may have done even if legal and with consenting adults is.distasteful and therefore means he is fair game is imo an awful take and is imo the modern equivalent of calling homosexuals deviants back in the day.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
the fact that some people feel that what he may have done even if legal and with consenting adults is.distasteful and therefore means he is fair game is imo an awful take and is imo the modern equivalent of calling homosexuals deviants back in the day.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean 'back in the day' the dregs on this forum still say it now, frequently.
 
n111ck said:
Well at least Huw and the victim seemingly have access to very expensive lawyers so dont have to worry about any concerns they have being ignored or brushed under the carpet..
Click to expand...

Imagine caring more about a situation than the two people involved in the situation.

Just focus on your own life and lives within your circle of influence. Not much point in getting too invested in the lives of others.

Edit...

Unless you're actually going to do something proactive.. Like charity work or volunteering for those less fortunate than yourself of course.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
Not sure what you mean 'back in the day' the dregs on this forum still say it now, frequently.
Click to expand...
We still don’t know the gender of any of the victims / complainants and I’d wager if the crack head turns out to be female the reaction will be worse.

You can try and twist the agenda to be about restricting the free press, lgbt sex workers rights or whether mental health issues gives you some sort free pass to avoid scrutiny but ultimately there are multiple accusations that Huw has still failed to address. No amount of sweeping will brush this under the carpet.

Where is the denial statement, where is the lawyer threats, where is the super injuction..
 
Hedge said:
Imagine caring more about a situation than the two people involved in the situation.

Just focus on your own life and lives within your circle of influence. Not much point in getting too invested in the lives of others.

Edit...

Unless you're actually going to do something proactive.. Like charity work or volunteering for those less fortunate than yourself of course.
Click to expand...
Bit of a strange comment to make on a web forum..
 
n111ck said:
We still don’t know the gender of any of the victims / complainants and I’d wager if the crack head turns out to be female the reaction will be worse.

You can try and twist the agenda to be about restricting the free press, lgbt sex workers rights or whether mental health issues gives you some sort free pass to avoid scrutiny but ultimately there are multiple accusations that Huw has still failed to address. No amount of sweeping will brush this under the carpet.

Where is the denial statement, where is the lawyer threats, where is the super injuction..
Click to expand...

You know why we don't know the sex? Because its none of our damned business. The minute we knew the person wasn't a minor it was none of our business. And given the Sun likely knew he/she wasn't a minor it should never have been published.
 
n111ck said:
...but ultimately there are multiple accusations Huw has still failed to address. No amount of sweeping will brush this under the carpet.

Where is the denial statement, where is the lawyer threats, where is the super injuction..
Click to expand...

The guy is an in-patient in a hospital. I would imagine his, and everyone's main concern that's around him (family, friends, medical staff etc), is that he focusses on his mental capacity before making any statements.... What, are you getting junkie-esque withdrawal symptoms without your hit of scandal to keep you functioning?

Besides, if I was him, I'd be letting any investigations run their course (the BBC one for example) before responding. I've just had my life completely obliterated and my actions twisted beyond all recognition, I'm saying f-all until the investigations are done save it happening again.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
The guy is an in-patient in a hospital. I would imagine his, and everyone's main concern that's around him (family, friends, medical staff etc), is that he focusses on his mental capacity before making any statements.... What, are you getting junkie-esque withdrawal symptoms without your hit of scandal to keep you functioning?

Besides, if I was him, I'd be letting any investigations run their course (the BBC one for example) before responding. I've just had my life completely obliterated and my actions twisted beyond all recognition, I'm saying f-all until the investigations are done save it happening again.
Click to expand...
He was ok enough to hire a lawyer and allegedly make that same lawyer available to the victim. He was ok enough to be "annoyed" by the BBC coverage and tell one of his colleagues as much. He was ok enough to apparently hire a former News Of The World editor to create his comms strategy.

If he had made a statement last Friday a lot of what has happened would likely be avoided.. if he is innocent why did he first wait for the outcome of the second police investigation before getting his wife to reveal his name and now your suggestion is he shouldn't deny anything until after the BBC investigation which could take weeks which would be even more suss (much like a 'no comment' police interview)..

A simple denial and confirmation that he will fully cooperate with the enquiry would surely take the pressure off..
 
Or, perhaps, his professional legal advice is advising him of the best way forward taking into account how other recent responses from other cases have played out.

Your desire for salacious gossip knows no bounds... allegedly :rolleyes:



Edit - I'll add that you have your opinion and I have mine. They differ, they currently won't match and until more information or progress is made on the investigations, the 2 sides will just bat this ball back and forward forever.

I'm gracious and mature enough to change my opinion if new and definitive facts appear. I'd hope you and some others in this thread can be the same but we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom