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
Betty66 said:
Share with the presenter the fact that the parents had been to see them to report their concerns, especially re the passing over of large sums of money to their drug addicted son. Huw would have immediately realised that this was likely to cause him issues and ‘retired’ with the rest of the world none the wiser to his ways. That would have been better for him and his mental health than what has gone on over the last week.
Click to expand...

I think everyone agrees that the BBC should have addressed this in May. Even the BBC agree that.

They haven’t lied though, have they? They haven’t said it wasn’t true?
The police have said no evidence of crime, and the BBC are continuing their investigation.
 
Oh ffs.

You know the headlines in the Daily Mail about most people knowing this entire mess was about Huw Edwards?

I've found someone who didn't know. My Nan, bless her, text me expressing her disbelief and has declared we need to meet up for a chat about it.

She didn't know who it was or could be but thinks that Jeremy Vine needs taking down a peg or two. That or a kick in the willy. She doesn't mind which.
 
InTheDollsHouse said:
I think everyone agrees that the BBC should have addressed this in May. Even the BBC agree that.

They haven’t lied though, have they? They haven’t said it wasn’t true?
The police have said no evidence of crime, and the BBC are continuing their investigation.
Click to expand...

Depending what the BBC find out during the course of their investigation (if indeed there really is one) there could yet be criminal charges or a police investigation because we don't as yet know what they're going to find out.
 
Dr.CM said:
Terminology has not changed. I can't imagine what this distorted notion that is being referred to is.
Click to expand...
There's been plenty of discussions somewhat recently about changing the terminology and it seems that a slow shift has started to take place:
learning.nspcc.org.uk

Why language matters: why we should never use ‘child pornography’ and always say child sexual abuse material | NSPCC Learning

This blog post looks at the significant impact of using the term 'child sexual abuse material' instead of ‘child pornography’ which diminishes the seriousness of the crime. It is aimed at anyone working in the wider child protection sphere (in any capacity), anyone whose work involves children...
learning.nspcc.org.uk learning.nspcc.org.uk
https://www.12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/open-door-term-child-porn

Legally it still appears to be called child pornography but the impression I got from the conversation is that it was relating to the whole "teen" category
 
I wonder if all those "celebrities" eg Alistair Campbell and Emily Maitlis, castigating the Sun would say the same if it was a politician especially a tory, who did exactly the same as HE. No. They would be baying for blood and saying tell us more.

Hypocrites the lot of them. They just want to shut down the free press. Jmo
 
PurvyPanda said:
The waters seem to be muddied over this story. Alister Campbell thinks that this has all been blown out of proportion, and sensationalised to make news. I partly agree, however remember this is off the back of the Scofield story, and in recent years, trusted and respected entertainers and broadcasters have been exposed to be predatory criminals, so I think it’s no wonder people want to know if the people they watch on TV, especially those delivering the news, are trustworthy and solid.

It boils down to this, do people want someone reporting on the news who is a married man and father who on the side pays young escorts / drug addicts £35,000 to continue ruining their life, and then seeks out young people online and young coworkers, to be his performing monkeys?

I would say there is a line, and he crossed it.
Click to expand...

on A very practical level… imagine there’s another similar scandal. Maybe a politician is exposed for doing something similar.

how could Huw feasibly report on it with a straight face? The hypocrisy would be deeply uncomfortable to watch. It would undermine any credibly the BBC had when reporting on the issue. How would he be able to hold this individual to account or interview them, if he’d done something similar?

it’s like when Beth Rigby was found to have partied during lockdown. I thought she should’ve lost her job for that. Because what happened? When she was quizzing Matt Hancock about lockdown parties he made a sly dig back at her and she shut up.

journalists and broadcasters hold the political and elite classes to account. Robust journalism is a cornerstone of democracy. That’s why there needs to be a degree of integrity in the profession. That’s why it’s in the public interest that Huw was exposed. That’s why he should be held to a higher standard than your average Joe.

Huw can’t do his job properly, if his personal conduct undermines him, in a nutshell.
 
Bowbow82 said:
🤨 if that was the only news outlet to get this info, of course they’d run with it. Says a lot about the mother going to a rag like the sun.
Click to expand...
Which media outlet should she have gone to then? Assuming the Sun was the first publication she went to, as perhaps no one else wanted to touch it with a barge pole.

Desperate measures for desperate people.
 
Last edited:
4FoxAche said:
Oh ffs.

You know the headlines in the Daily Mail about most people knowing this entire mess was about Huw Edwards?

I've found someone who didn't know. My Nan, bless her, text me expressing her disbelief and has declared we need to meet up for a chat about it.

She didn't know who it was or could be but thinks that Jeremy Vine needs taking down a peg or two. That or a kick in the willy. She doesn't mind which.
Click to expand...

Do make sure to tell her about bum sex rules though
 
tdf said:
Do you think you are better than people who are on benefits? Personally as someone who has been both rich and poor, I think the people on benefits are mostly better than the George Osbornes, Huw Edwards and Jimmy Saviles of this world. Your mileage may differ.

It's a bit weird to imply that people on benefits don't pay taxes - they do.
Click to expand...
Hmmm not sure why you’ve asked that?! I said I’ve only ever worked and not claimed benefits so I can only talk about what I know about where my tax supposedly goes. Hope you’re ok doll x
 
Merpedy said:
There's been plenty of discussions somewhat recently about changing the terminology and it seems that a slow shift has started to take place:
learning.nspcc.org.uk

Why language matters: why we should never use ‘child pornography’ and always say child sexual abuse material | NSPCC Learning

This blog post looks at the significant impact of using the term 'child sexual abuse material' instead of ‘child pornography’ which diminishes the seriousness of the crime. It is aimed at anyone working in the wider child protection sphere (in any capacity), anyone whose work involves children...
learning.nspcc.org.uk learning.nspcc.org.uk
https://www.12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/open-door-term-child-porn

Legally it still appears to be called child pornography but the impression I got from the conversation is that it was relating to the whole "teen" category
Click to expand...

I agree - there is Child Abuse only and the term 'CP' is a poor label for sexual violence abuse of minors.

However, at no point in time has child abuse, unlawful sexual violence of any child, or CP, been a 'sub genre' of actual porn and nobody should be muddled on that - if one were to find something online, god forbid, and it's called CP it's unlawful abuse it's not adults play acting young.
 
Jaynefnw said:
But wasn't that what happend to PS he apparently just had an affair with a legal aged young man, yet lost all his jobs(which I found crazy and suspected and still do that there is more to it) so why is this different, Huw lied to bosses and hide some things, obviously we don't know if he had sex with anyone , but if it was all legal and above board , going by those rules why should his job be saved but PS loses it all. Disclaimer I can't stand PS and I believe he groomed that lad ...but no charges, all was apparently legal and above board in the eyes of the law. Yet he lost it all.
Click to expand...
*allegedly* - PS jumped before he was pushed, played 'woe is me' & has thus seemingly avoided historical scrutiny around behaviour and the culture he created around him.
 
Merpedy said:
I think the point is that the terminology has changed because CP implies that there's a level of consent or possibly joy which obviously isn't the case
Click to expand...

It hasn't if it ever was been call child pornography in the law inforcment circles foor a couple of decades at least. To the general public anything showng erotic imagery is pornography, which is legal. Using that just isn't right when it is abuse of children.
 
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