BBC's turn now...

The Sun has taken a fair few on here for a walk around the block.
And they have won this one, game set and match.
The BBC's reputation is damaged, Edwards career is over, his mental health will probably never recover fully although he hasn't broken the law. The Sun can move onto the next 'scandal' which will conveniently fit in with their political or organizational agenda.
You have been exploited, nothing much happened, it's not even a story.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The Sun has taken a fair few on here for a walk around the block.
And they have won this one, game set and match.
The BBC's reputation is damaged, Edwards career is over, his mental health will probably never recover fully although he hasn't broken the law. The Sun can move onto the next 'scandal' which will conveniently fit in with their political or organizational agenda.
You have been exploited, nothing much happened, it's not even a story.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately mate, I think on this occasion your own ‘entrenched political bias’ and disdain for the Sun, has taken you for a walk round the block, so you seem to have conveniently missed the facts of the matter.

It’s all good and well shooting the messenger and the way they have reported the article. From what I can see, they’ve been deceptive, purposely misled the public with carefully crafted words designed to give ‘an impression’ of one thing whilst actually saying another. They appear to have failed to properly verify the facts of the matter, failed to add balance by speaking with the subject of the allegations or print his denial and then tried to add fuel to the fire by slinging additional and irrelevant mud into the bargain…. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Sun have been absolute filth with the way they have handled this matter and I’ve no doubt that their motives are far from honourable…. However..

You cannot get away from the fact that the BBC’s systemic failure to deal with a very serious allegation relating to a senior figure is a matter of public interest and that should have been reported.

It’s unacceptable, given both the recent events within ITN and historic events within the BBC (and regardless of them) for them not to have dealt with the complaint with the care and urgency that it merited.

There’s no justification… Their ‘Timeline’ of activity is embarrassing… I’d expect a more ‘serious’ and structured response from my local chip shop owner ffs.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You cannot get away from the fact that the BBC’s systemic failure to deal with a very serious allegation relating to a senior figure is a matter of public interest and that should have been reported.
Click to expand...
A serious allegation that was not true.
I am sure that the BBC get lots of these all the time.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
A serious allegation that was not true.
I am sure that the BBC get lots of these all the time.
Click to expand...
Not True?

How have you reached that conclusion…?

And the ‘outcome’ of any investigation would not have any bearing on the initial approach to the investigation in any case…. Or are you suggesting the BBC should pre-empt / pre-judge the outcome?

They accept that the allegations / matter raised with them were ‘Serious’ (albeit different to what was alleged in the Sun)…. On that basis they require the appropriate level of care and attention….. They didn’t get it!!!

And THAT is nobody else’s fault, but the BBC’s….
 
Last edited:
An interesting take on this: Imagine the Reaction of the Liberal Left if Huw Edwards Was a GB News Presenter

Call me a cynic, but I doubt Jolyon Maugham, Alistair Campbell, Jon Sopel, John Simpson and Dan Walker would have rallied to the defence of Huw Edwards if he was a GB News presenter. It’s only because they regard him as one of their own that these panjandrums have urged the press to back off, with Sopel stressing there is “no illegality” and any further reporting of this story is therefore an unwarranted intrusion into “someone’s private life”.

This isn’t a considered reaction, but a tribal one. Given that the allegations originally surfaced in the Sun and the reputation of the BBC is at stake, these metropolitan liberals are prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt to Edwards. Again and Again, his defenders emphasise that these are only “allegations” and the police have decided not to take any further action, overlooking the fact that numerous other public figures have been thrown under a bus in similar circumstances, e.g. Michael Fallon, who was forced to resign as Defence Secretary after far milder allegations were made against him in 2017. But, of course, it’s one rule for Conservative MPs and another for the BBC’s highest-paid broadcasters.
 
Lost Seasider said:
An interesting take on this: Imagine the Reaction of the Liberal Left if Huw Edwards Was a GB News Presenter

Call me a cynic, but I doubt Jolyon Maugham, Alistair Campbell, Jon Sopel, John Simpson and Dan Walker would have rallied to the defence of Huw Edwards if he was a GB News presenter. It’s only because they regard him as one of their own that these panjandrums have urged the press to back off, with Sopel stressing there is “no illegality” and any further reporting of this story is therefore an unwarranted intrusion into “someone’s private life”.

This isn’t a considered reaction, but a tribal one. Given that the allegations originally surfaced in the Sun and the reputation of the BBC is at stake, these metropolitan liberals are prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt to Edwards. Again and Again, his defenders emphasise that these are only “allegations” and the police have decided not to take any further action, overlooking the fact that numerous other public figures have been thrown under a bus in similar circumstances, e.g. Michael Fallon, who was forced to resign as Defence Secretary after far milder allegations were made against him in 2017. But, of course, it’s one rule for Conservative MPs and another for the BBC’s highest-paid broadcasters.
Click to expand...
Fallon like Johnson, resigned from his position.
That affair wasn't caused by the left either, it was due to the internecine war inside the Conservative Party. Colleagues briefed against him (Leadsom for instance).
Therefore I am not sure what point the article is making, Edwards career is now also over as well (I would guess) - it is more or less equivalent.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Fallon like Johnson, resigned from his position.
That affair wasn't caused by the left either, it was due to the internecine war inside the Conservative Party. Colleagues briefed against him (Leadsom for instance).
Click to expand...

The charge seems to be that because the Sun is reporting the claims, that makes it a "right wing attack", so the politics of the people making the claims has no bearing whatsoever, indeed we've no idea what the politics of the people making the claims are.


ElBurroSinNombre said:
Therefore I am not sure what point the article is making, Edwards career is now also over as well (I would guess) - it is more or less equivalent.
Click to expand...
Quite simply, if instead of Edwards it was Farage, neither you nor any of the others named would be leaping to his defence.
 
hertfordseasider said:
Not really, I would guess he has tried to take his own life and been sectioned, it’s not easy to get sectioned under the mental health act.

Millions of people have strange sexual quirks and fantasies, those who are so “disgusted” on here probably hide behind their win. Obviously there are illegal and legal forms of this with the huge majority being legal and consensual even if seen as out right weird or abhorrent by others.

Nothing good has come out of this and frankly it was none of our business but the Scun, saw it differently.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I'm just saying that going into hospital does lessen the scorn poured on him. Which does seem well timed.

He did nothing criminal (as of yet) so as far as I'm concerned he should be allowed to carry on.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The charge seems to be that because the Sun is reporting the claims, that makes it a "right wing attack", so the politics of the people making the claims has no bearing whatsoever, indeed we've no idea what the politics of the people making the claims are.



Quite simply, if instead of Edwards it was Farage, neither you nor any of the others named would be leaping to his defence.
Click to expand...
Edwards is collateral damage, he just happened to be the story on this occasion, it is almost nothing to do with him.
The whole point of the story in the Sun, has been to attack and undermine the BBC. This is a part of a wider agenda that they have.
 
Whatever happens I can’t see why it’s not as clear as the nose on your face that if the BBC had investigated in May, the serious allegations made. then we wouldn’t be where we are.

Allegations they say were serious WITHOUT any criminal content.

And since at least 3 junior BBC employers have come out stating that he sent them inappropriate messages which made them feel scared or uncomfortable, or both, he would have been receiving some form of discipline for abuse of power and inappropriate behaviour to junior staff members.

Of course I want him to get well, but the disciplinary he faces is due and right, and the media scandal has been born out of the BBC’s initial lack of action and negligence.

People seem to be picking at the parts of the picture they agree with or don’t agree with and not the full picture, probably based on bias of their own.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Edwards is collateral damage, he just happened to be the story on this occasion, it is almost nothing to do with him.
The whole point of the story in the Sun, has been to attack and undermine the BBC. This is a part of a wider agenda that they have.
Click to expand...
So what if it is?

If that is the case (and I don't disagree or doubt that it will have played a big part) then the BBC ought to be well aware of the fact and make sure that they don't expose their arses like they have on this occasion. It's a complete open goal on their part, because whichever way you look at it, their failure to deal with the issue is a justifiable 'Public Interest' story.

There's a very reasonable argument to suggest the Sun could have spoken to the BBC, asked them what was going on with regard to the complaint and given them the right of reply (likewise the young lad at the heart of it). That seems to me to have been the reasonable thing to have done initially.... However I'm not entirely sure how (other than essentially covering up for the BBC's shambolic excuse for a response) they could have not reported the basic facts.... As in, 'Parents contacted BBC with serious concerns (with wide ranging consequences) and were essentially ignored'.

I don't know, but I suspect that Edwards reported actions thus far are the tip of an iceberg.... The Sun have suggested that they have spoken to BBC staff 'confidentially'... I wouldn't be at all surprised if concerns about his behaviour haven't been raised / identified, but the evidence (as it often can be is a bit patchy)... I imagine the Sun will already know an awful lot more than they have been able to say..
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Edwards is collateral damage, he just happened to be the story on this occasion, it is almost nothing to do with him.
The whole point of the story in the Sun, has been to attack and undermine the BBC. This is a part of a wider agenda that they have.
Click to expand...
And if it was a GBN presenter instead, you'd be piling in with the rest.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
If it was a GBN presenter no-one would give a shit
Click to expand...
I don’t think that‘s fair El. If the presenter was well known enough, eg Piers Morgan the coverage would have been the same, if not greater.

The book stops with the BBC’s lethargic mishandling of the initial enquiry.

The likes of Farage and Morgan would unlikely be garnering the same sympathetic response that Edwards is now either.
 
Lala said:
I don’t think that‘s fair El. If the presenter was well known enough, eg Piers Morgan the coverage would have been the same, if not greater.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
The story would definitely not be on the Sun front page for 5 days or whatever if it was Piers Morgan (who used to edit the paper). He knows where the bodies ar eburied.
 
I don’t care who it is, a 61 year old man, using his status and wealth to pursue his dirty secrets, needs to be exposed. He’s a well known personality with a platform and a married man carrying on secretive liaisons with young men.
 
Matesrates said:
I don’t care who it is, a 61 year old man, using his status and wealth to pursue his dirty secrets, needs to be exposed. He’s a well known personality with a platform and a married man carrying on secretive liaisons with young men.
Click to expand...
People who aren't breaking any law 'need to be exposed'?
Personally I don't care about this - it's just curtain twitching on a national scale.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So what if it is?

If that is the case (and I don't disagree or doubt that it will have played a big part) then the BBC ought to be well aware of the fact and make sure that they don't expose their arses like they have on this occasion. It's a complete open goal on their part, because whichever way you look at it, their failure to deal with the issue is a justifiable 'Public Interest' story.

There's a very reasonable argument to suggest the Sun could have spoken to the BBC, asked them what was going on with regard to the complaint and given them the right of reply (likewise the young lad at the heart of it). That seems to me to have been the reasonable thing to have done initially.... However I'm not entirely sure how (other than essentially covering up for the BBC's shambolic excuse for a response) they could have not reported the basic facts.... As in, 'Parents contacted BBC with serious concerns (with wide ranging consequences) and were essentially ignored'.

I don't know, but I suspect that Edwards reported actions thus far are the tip of an iceberg.... The Sun have suggested that they have spoken to BBC staff 'confidentially'... I wouldn't be at all surprised if concerns about his behaviour haven't been raised / identified, but the evidence (as it often can be is a bit patchy)... I imagine the Sun will already know an awful lot more than they have been able to say..
Click to expand...
We need to be clear about the “public interest” argument.

I agree there’s a public interest argument targeting the BBC and its far from impressive handling of the complaint.

That doesn’t mean there’s a public interest defence for publishing the allegations made in the complaint which concern the private life of a BBC employee. Even by not naming him, the Sun knew exactly what they were doing and the witch hunt that would follow. I’m still a long way from being persuaded there is a public interest defence for revealing details of Huw Edwards private life.

If the Sun’s real concern was the inadequacies of the BBC complaints system they could just have run an article about serious complaints concerning a senior BBC figure not being properly dealt with. Without all the sex bits. And given details of the email and telephone call with dates as examples of the inadequacy of the procedure.

Obviously thought that’d be a bit boring and they wanted the salacious details to ensure the story caught the attention of the public and caused maximum damage to the BBC.

To put it another way, the public interest argument directed at the BBC and the way it handled it isn’t a defence for the article the Sun actually ran. Nor would it prevent Hew Edwards from bringing legal action for breach of his privacy rights.

There’s also case law that would support the other BBC presenters who were caught up in the melee, if they decided to bring defamation actions against the Sun.
 
I am now so confused what has gone on here. Stop me when I go wrong.

Parents make an allegation about a BBC presenter. The allegation does not involve illegal activity. The BBC has a 29 minute conversation with them. As a result, they take no action. The parents go to the Sun, who publish, not as an attack on the presenter, but on the BBC. Everyone piles in. Police investigate, no illegality has taken place. The person involved denies what they have reported.

Standards seem to be set higher for some people than others, depending on what they get paid. Posters on here show their homophobia regarding porn. Different political views lead to attacks on either the BBC or the Sun.

And in the meantime, the economy is tanking, people's wages are declining in real terms, mortgage rates are reaching levels not seen for decades, Michelle Mone is still not behind bars, and Boris has produced another sprog but not his WhatsApp messages.

Confused in the Highlands
 
Lost Seasider said:
The charge seems to be that because the Sun is reporting the claims, that makes it a "right wing attack", so the politics of the people making the claims has no bearing whatsoever, indeed we've no idea what the politics of the people making the claims are.



Quite simply, if instead of Edwards it was Farage, neither you nor any of the others named would be leaping to his defence.
Click to expand...
But your logic cuts both ways.

If you’re comfortable about the way this story has gone, then you’d also have to be comfortable if stories containing embarrassing details of the sex lives of, say, Nigel Farage or Mark Francois also appeared in the press.

Anything else would just be pure hypocrisy.
 
Am I missing something here?

I thought the parents of the youth went to the BBC with their worries about his welfare and the BBC didn't react to them.

The parents (not journalists etc etc) then went to the Sun in the hope that it could be scaled up to get a reaction from the BBC....which it did.

Where in those issues did it become the Sun's fault?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
We need to be clear about the “public interest” argument.

I agree there’s a public interest argument targeting the BBC and its far from impressive handling of the complaint.

That doesn’t mean there’s a public interest defence for publishing the allegations made in the complaint which concern the private life of a BBC employee. Even by not naming him, the Sun knew exactly what they were doing and the witch hunt that would follow. I’m still a long way from being persuaded there is a public interest defence for revealing details of Huw Edwards private life.

If the Sun’s real concern was the inadequacies of the BBC complaints system they could just have run an article about serious complaints concerning a senior BBC figure not being properly dealt with. Without all the sex bits. And given details of the email and telephone call with dates as examples of the inadequacy of the procedure.

Obviously thought that’d be a bit boring and they wanted the salacious details to ensure the story caught the attention of the public and caused maximum damage to the BBC.

To put it another way, the public interest argument directed at the BBC and the way it handled it isn’t a defence for the article the Sun actually ran. Nor would it prevent Hew Edwards from bringing legal action for breach of his privacy rights.

There’s also case law that would support the other BBC presenters who were caught up in the melee, if they decided to bring defamation actions against the Sun.
Click to expand...
As I said… I very much doubt the Sun’s intentions were honourable…

And I’m not attempting to justify the way the article was run by the sun. Frankly I think their reporting has been an absolute disgrace…. But that’s not the point.

I just don’t see how (once they knew about it) they could have not made public the BBC’s fuck up and at least some context.

It feels to me like people are allowing their politics (and this applies to both sides of the equation) to determine their response here.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Am I missing something here?

I thought the parents of the youth went to the BBC with their worries about his welfare and the BBC didn't react to them.

The parents (not journalists etc etc) then went to the Sun in the hope that it could be scaled up to get a reaction from the BBC....which it did.

Where in those issues did it become the Sun's fault?
Click to expand...

As I understand it the allegations made by the lad’s parents to the Sun are different in some ways from those made to the BBC.
This is not necessarily the Sun’s fault, but this is the bit that would have been illegal, and the Police are saying there was no illegality.
Because of this the Sun are being criticised for not checking the story sufficiently and for not halting the publication after the lad, through his lawyers, told them the story was wrong. This and some other factors within parts of their reporting and also for using the story purely to attack the BBC.
IMO there are not enough hard facts in the public domain, and too many contradictions in the stories, for us to be totally certain of very much in the whole of this saga at the moment.
It does seem highly likely though that there is enough in what has been already reported to mean that Huw Edwards’ media career cannot recover from this, and that the BBC have in all probability been very lapse in dealing with the initial complaint (unless there are some mitigating factors we don’t know about).
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Not True?

How have you reached that conclusion…?

And the ‘outcome’ of any investigation would not have any bearing on the initial approach to the investigation in any case…. Or are you suggesting the BBC should pre-empt / pre-judge the outcome?

They accept that the allegations / matter raised with them were ‘Serious’ (albeit different to what was alleged in the Sun)…. On that basis they require the appropriate level of care and attention….. They didn’t get it!!!

And THAT is nobody else’s fault, but the BBC’s….
Click to expand...
The police have said there has been no illegality, therefore not true.

And I would think that if the police were investigating, that would cause an internal enquiry to be halted.

Just like it was with Partygate.
 
Wizaard said:
The police have said there has been no illegality, therefore not true.

And I would think that if the police were investigating, that would cause an internal enquiry to be halted.

Just like it was with Partygate.
Click to expand...
The initial complaint to the BBC didn’t suggest there had been any illegality though and the young lad has already acknowledged that it was true?

Plus

a) The BBC can’t just write something off as untrue without investigating…. They failed to investigate

And

b) Even without illegality the parents still raised important and serious concerns that necessitated proper diligent attention.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The initial complaint to the BBC didn’t suggest there had been any illegality though and the young lad has already acknowledged that it was true?
Click to expand...
If there's no illegality, what is there to investigate?

It's a matter between two consenting adults.
 
Wizaard said:
If there's no illegality, what is there to investigate?

It's a matter between two consenting adults.
Click to expand...
But is it?

I assume as a parent and bearing in mind his age and his medical condition, 'consenting adult' is incredibly suspect, hence their initial intention to report the matter.

In any circumstance (even age) he would be classed as vulnerable
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As I said… I very much doubt the Sun’s intentions were honourable…

And I’m not attempting to justify the way the article was run by the sun. Frankly I think their reporting has been an absolute disgrace…. But that’s not the point.

I just don’t see how (once they knew about it) they could have not made public the BBC’s fuck up and at least some context.

It feels to me like people are allowing their politics (and this applies to both sides of the equation) to determine their response here.
Click to expand...
Well I’ve already agreed the public interest argument works so far as the BBC is concerned.

What I don’t agree is that it works so far as Edwards is concerned. Otherwise you’re saying A’s right to bring a claim against B is lost because of something done (or not done) by C.

That doesn’t seem to be right.
 
Wizaard said:
If there's no illegality, what is there to investigate?

It's a matter between two consenting adults.
Click to expand...
Come on Wiz…

There’s a concern been raised about a lad and a young lad at that… (even at 20 you aren’t very world wise), who is potentially vulnerable due to drug use.

There’s a question mark been raised over potential exploitation, due to the circumstances and the fact that significant payments were being made to the lad by the presenter.

No matter which way you look at it, that situation requires proper care and attention. There are a number of issues of concern, not least the potential for reputational damage to both the BBC and the Presenter… There’s a potential safeguarding issue too and also a duty of care for any socially responsible organisation (never mind the bloody BBC).

Are you suggesting that simply ignoring the parents was OK ?
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
Well I’ve already agreed the public interest argument works so far as the BBC is concerned.

What I don’t agree is that it works so far as Edwards is concerned. Otherwise you’re saying A’s right to bring a claim against B is lost because of something done (or not done) by C.

That doesn’t seem to be right.
Click to expand...
Scratch my last post, I think I follow you now…

I think it depends… (For ease of reference I’ll use the names of the parties, being as this is in the public domain)

I think it’s possible for someone (in this case Edwards) to end up becoming an unintended casualty as the result of a perfectly responsible and reasonable public interest report by the Sun into the BBC’s poor handling of the related complaint.

So it’s certainly possible that Huw Edwards ability to bring a claim (or at least win one) against the Sun might be lost. However, I’m not sure that is the case here.

Of course it’s possible (and you will certainly have more insight here than me) that Huw could bring a claim against the BBC for being negligent and failing in their duty of care to him, by failing to properly address the related complaint.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Scratch my last post, I think I follow you now…

I think it depends… (For ease of reference I’ll use the names of the parties, being as this is in the public domain)

I think it’s possible for someone (in this case Edwards) to end up becoming an unintended casualty as the result of a perfectly responsible and reasonable public interest report by the Sun into the BBC’s poor handling of the related complaint.

So it’s certainly possible that Huw Edwards ability to bring a claim (or at least win one) against the Sun might be lost. However, I’m not sure that is the case here.

Of course it’s possible (and you will certainly have more insight here than me) that Huw could bring a claim against the BBC for being negligent and failing in their duty of care to him, by failing to properly address the related complaint.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s pretty much it.

Edwards like everyone else in this country has the right to a private life. If he thinks that right of privacy has been breached then he can sue the newspaper responsible and maybe win damages.

What defence might the newspaper have?

Focusing just on the one you’ve mentioned - the right to publish the article on the basis that it was in the public interest to highlight failings in the BBC complaints process.

I can see a couple of problems with that.

First, why should Edwards be penalised because of someone else’s cock up? He wasn’t involved in the complaints process at all. I don’t think he knew about it until the article came out or maybe just before. I agree if he did lose the ability to succeed in the claim then he might have a negligence action against the BBC. He might anyway.

Secondly, if the Sun’s going to rely on this defence why bring the sex and titillation into it at all? It’s those allegations that breach the privacy rights but what have they got to do with the BBC’s failings to deal with complaints adequately? As I’ve said previously they could just have had a report along the lines of “Serious complaint made against senior BBC figure” and then gone on to set out the facts of how the BBC had dealt with it - just one email and one phone call. No mention of sex at all.

I agree without the sex it would not have been headline news or sold many newspapers or attracted many clicks. It would in effect have been a non story. Which a lot of people think it is anyway even with the sex thrown in.

In short the Sun may have other defences if Edwards decides to sue, but I don’t think this is a particularly convincing one. If it’s an angle the paper has started to put out then it sounds to me as if it’s been cobbled together late in the day by a panicking news/legal team.
 
Last edited:
The BBC are currently running an article about Tim Westwood who is being investigated for alleged sexual offences. He has been named and a photo published for good measure. What’s the difference?
 
@Mexboroseasider i was initially coming at this from a ‘neither the BBC or the Sun have covered themselves in glory’ perspective in order to challenge the rather polarised and politically motivated positions on either side of that debate.

It seemed some can see no wrong in their chosen source of Media and no right in the other. Anyway, I’ve made my point about both abundantly clear already.

I agree, that the Sun are panicking… And that’s hardly surprising…. On the face of it, they’ve screwed this one up big time and in their haste to sully the BBC (with relative justification) they look like they’re going to come out of it looking like the bad boys (and rightly so).

It’s a let off for the BBC, but serious questions need to be asked about their handling of this too.

The Sun may face a libel claim and probably deserve a reprimand.

And as for Huw…. Personally speaking (and I’m speculating here) I suspect there’s more to come on his extra curricular activities. I get the impression he’s been extremely ‘active’. I hope no criminality is involved, but I wonder if he may have used his power and influence inappropriately and may well also come a cropper in terms of his behaviour at work….
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
@Mexboroseasider i was initially coming at this from a ‘neither the BBC or the Sun have covered themselves in glory’ perspective in order to challenge the rather polarised and politically motivated positions on either side of that debate.

It seemed some can see no wrong in their chosen source of Media and no right in the other. Anyway, I’ve made my point about both abundantly clear already.

I agree, that the Sun are panicking… And that’s hardly surprising…. On the face of it, they’ve screwed this one up big time and in their haste to sully the BBC (with relative justification) they look like they’re going to come out of it looking like the bad boys (and rightly so).

It’s a let off for the BBC, but serious questions need to be asked about they’re handling of this too.

The Sun may face a libel claim and deserve a reprimand.

And as for Huw…. Personally speaking (and I’m speculating here) I suspect there’s more to come on his extra curricular activities. I get the impression he’s been extremely ‘active’. I hope no criminality is involved, but I wonder if he may have used his power and influence inappropriately and may well also come a cropper in terms of his behaviour at work….
Click to expand...
You may be right.

I said early doors this could be one of those situations where no one comes out of it with much credit and haven’t seen much to change my mind.
 
BBC Director General to be questioned in Parliament next week about it’s response to the complaints raised over Huw Edwards. Should find out more then I think. If there is to be no court case this might be the only way we get to find out more?

PS Apparently not the only way. The mother and stepfather of the young man at the centre of this are apparently doing an interview with Talk TV (Murdoch owned, I think?) and have been paid tens of thousands for it.
 
Last edited:
glasshalffull said:
PS Apparently not the only way. The mother and stepfather of the young man at the centre of this are apparently doing an interview with Talk TV (Murdoch owned, I think?) and have been paid tens of thousands for it.
Click to expand...
Ah, I wonder what their motivation could possibly have been for making allegations against the BBC?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Ah, I wonder what their motivation could possibly have been for making allegations against the BBC?
Click to expand...
I wonder.

And having been assured that they weren’t being paid (by the Sun) it now transpires they are being paid after all (by Talk TV another member of the Murdoch Empire).

But I expect we’re being over cynical here and it’s just a coincidence. Separate business entities and all that.

And that the parents were really only motivated by concern for their son. Even if he always denied the allegations, and apparently the Sun knew this before they went to print.
 
There’s a concerted campaign to garner sympathy for HW, it started with his wife’s statement and other colleagues and friends have jumped on the bandwagon, basically trying to make out he’s done nothing wrong and he’s the victim in all of this.

Whether that true or not, I expect we’ll find out in the fullness of time, unless the pro Huw collective manage to crush the story.
 
Matesrates said:
There’s a concerted campaign to garner sympathy for HW, it started with his wife’s statement and other colleagues and friends have jumped on the bandwagon, basically trying to make out he’s done nothing wrong and he’s the victim in all of this.

Whether that true or not, I expect we’ll find out in the fullness of time, unless the pro Huw collective manage to crush the story.
Click to expand...

Illegal maybe not (so far), but probably too much for the great British public and the BBC to allow him to resume his career I would imagine. I think we are about to find out for sure though!
 
Matesrates said:
Yes, I wonder how many of those defending or dismissing his actions, would do so if it was their 17/20 year old child
Click to expand...
The 20 year old son has also dismissed his actions.

And I wonder how many people on here would be happy with family members who went to the press with stories about their private lives and then accepted payment to appear on TV to discuss it?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
The 20 year old son has also dismissed his actions.

And I wonder how many people on here would be happy with family members who went to the press with stories about their private lives and then accepted payment to appear on TV to discuss it?
Click to expand...
I know, that makes me laugh.
His family are now accepting money to go on a Murdoch owned news channel to talk about this. How exactly will that help the youngsters drug addiction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top