BBC Presenter Scandal #10 Huw Edwards

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Hinchawakening said:
I can accept that first part, I guess it doesn’t mean she deffo wasn’t paid then… and we are likely to never know that truthfully… but from the start, I’ve always thought the sun didn’t give any evidence due to the nature and the fact the mother probably knew the son didn’t want it out there as so she was trying to get Huw done whilst still protect her child as much as possible?! In saying that, if I were the sun now, after what’s been said today, I’d be furious and pushing to get out some evidence and prove myself… we will soon see if they will do this I guess
Click to expand...

They have already confirmed they will not be publishing anything more.

The Sun had a massive agenda when publishing that story. They hate the BBC and want people to not trust it.

But more than that, they are really right wing and George Osborne got accused of rape at the end of last week, but apparently that wasn’t worthy of their time. Nor is it worth their time talking about Boris Johnson not handing over his texts to the Covid enquiry.
 
It’s been repeatedly said … there is NO evidence that the young person at the centre of this is a drug addict.

The family were so worried the parents published details of his sex life in The Sun.The Sun ignored the young person at the centre of this, who told them the story was rubbish. The Sun is in no way concerned about the moral welfare of this young person - what they tried to do was publish some unsubstantiated rumours in the hope others would come forward… and when all they got were a few innocuous messages exchanged between adults on a gay dating sight, they decided to try and gaslight us all by saying that “never said there was any illegal activity” in the first place
 
FrankieP said:
The S*um is now claiming that it never "alleged criminality" in its stories - despite the fact it clearly said that [Huw Edwards] had explicit photos of a person under 18, which is a criminal offence - as is supplying the photo even if the photo is of you.
Click to expand...
Note they're the only paper not to mention his mental health issues in their headlines. Just that it's him. Probably don't want to be held responsible for potentially ruining someone's mental health
 
I must admit I’m a bit puzzled by the outpouring of sympathy tbh.

However, I don’t think he’s “playing the mental health card” either. I mean, the last 5 days of events including your arse being shown to the nation and your alleged liking for males who are 40 years younger than you being broadcast online are enough to send anyone over the edge never mind anyone who already has MH problems.

I’m still on the fence about the first “victim” despite the police concluding nothing illegal happened. My personal opinion (based on no facts whatsoever) is that the young person may have told his parents that HE was buying photos as an explanation for the money appearing in his account to cover up the fact that he was being paid to keep quiet but if neither party are going to co operate then what can you do? I think his parents genuinely thought he was being exploited and a person is still someone’s “child” whatever their age.

I think there’s been many others (if screenshots a few threads back are genuine) then he was definitely communicating with someone who made it clear that they were still at school 🤢

And as much as I agree that the sun are scum - this is what these kind of papers do isn’t it, report scandal? And I think it definitely falls into that category!

What a mess
 
RJF 2.0 said:
- Already, this is widely considered to be a very dark episode for the tabloid press and social media. The ramifications from this mess could be massive.
Click to expand...

I think things have got a lot better online recently. When I first started going online it was like a wild west.
I saw things and web page that will never leave me. Men used to think the whole purpose of women online was to satisfy their urges.
I went in a few what I thought were respectable chat rooms, and men would be private messaging me rude things and asking to video call, for me to discover they were naked and DIYing with their hands.
At least now if people are into cheap thrills online there are certain webpages and chat rooms especially for that, with others over the age of consent and who know what to expect.
 
Radiorebel said:
For any of those saying that Huw is completely innocent and there is no proof of anything. The BBC themselves reported that a young man had received threatening messages from him and they had verified that these messages had come from Huw Edwards.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that. They are saying he hasn’t done anything criminal.

Moral, and work place investigations into someone being inappropriate is not the same as having done something criminally wrong.
 
FrankieP said:
The S*um is now claiming that it never "alleged criminality" in its stories - despite the fact it clearly said that [Huw Edwards] had explicit photos of a person under 18, which is a criminal offence - as is supplying the photo even if the photo is of you.
Click to expand...
And they kept using words like « child » and « sex » together. What a bastion of journalistic integrity.
 
Dr.CM said:
Because I know from vast personal experience that's where the rich, famous, and well insured go for this type of 'issue'.

If you think for one minute he's holed up somewhere in the crappy british weather location with a bunch of povvos half of whom have been state funded (yes the state funds people to go to private mental hospitals and rehabs) think again. He's somewhere lovely, absolutely guaranteed and out of the UK for his own personal safety would be the justification to his insurance company if he's paying on healthcare insurance or if the BBC are paying (which they may be). The types of places are out of this world.
Click to expand...
I think that Pete Doherty used to frequent these type of fancy rehabs? On a beach in Thailand or somewhere? Seemed less than ideal to be honest! I don't think he will be out of the country as some fucker would have photographed him at the airport & posted online
 
I feel sorry for Huw that he has been hospitalised and I hope he is eventually ok and able to move on. But at the end of the day, duck around and find out. He’s gone for YOUNG YOUNG boys from a position of authority and power and he’s not conducted himself accordingly. Ask any 61 year old what they see when they look at at 17-19 year old and they’ll say a child!!! Yes no criminal wrong doing but it is morally wrong and he should be ashamed of himself. I feel for him that he’s felt the need to be closeted but for god sake have an affair with someone your own age.

I always say with these people who go for ‘barely legal’ if the law was younger they would go younger and younger and younger. It’s just so disappointing and I can’t believe they’re painting it as poor Huw.
 
Okgolightly said:
There’s need to be some distinguishing going on between a child and late teen here, IMO. Everyone saying Huw was targeting children…well to me a child is up to the age of 12. It conjures really sinister imagery. I am NOT saying what he did was in any way appropriate or acceptable because it wasn’t. But 17 is not a child. I’m sorry but it isn’t.
Click to expand...

I'm law a child is anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top