Huw Edwards #11 BBC Presenter Scandal

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
WordsFromReuben said:
I’ve noticed there is a lot of sympathy in the reporting of the story on Huw today but I can’t help but think, what is the difference between this story and the story of Philip Scofield? He doesn’t seem to have the same sympathy maybe because a lot of his peers dislike him?
Click to expand...
that is the essence of it, certainly amongst work colleagues. From several accounts - PS appears to have created a culture around him of arrogance & bullying. It is alleged that his relationship with MM was only one amongst several over the years. This culture was supposed to be being investigated through the enquiries with the executives but ? the outcome - ? possibly buried 🤷‍♀️
 
ElectricFireCracker said:
Also, I'm a parent to kids...are we supposed to just shrug off the whole parent thing when they turn 20?

Just let them self destruct and mind our business? If so, I'm down to one child in 5 years time :m
Click to expand...
Exactly, my son is 24, he still comes to me with his personal private issues and concerns and I will be there for him until my last breath as he will always be my kid no matter what age he is .....even more so if he was vulnerable which the parents of this first young lad claim he was/is
 
lhs said:
At least the BBC actually had the balls to address it head on, unlike ITVs pathetic excuse.
Click to expand...

What? They've done nothing for Huw or their other employees in his department for the three years we're now told it's been going on; and then since last Friday when it became public they continued to do nothing to quell the public's intrigue but flop around from one pretence to another and hide everything in a rat's nest of "the BBC has asked the BBC for a statement" nonsense, until the wife came forward yesterday. "Balls to address it head on" looks A LOT different in my book.

Everyone knew the name would be confirmed eventually just from ticking off who was no longer around and on screen, they should have shut things down days ago by just coming out with the name and what was being done for him (with Huw's agreement, resulting from their highly paid staff and consultants persuading him that this would be the least painful option in the long run). Thinking they could just hope it would all go away was stupid.
 
Squittel said:
And why the supposed “victim” contacted the Sun twice, once over messaging/email and once via lawyers to say that nothing criminal happened.
Click to expand...

Or why it took the mother and stepfather 3 years to make a police report about their allegedly underage, crack addicted son being extorted for CSAI.

There's far more to what happened here than we'll ever know, and perhaps that's a good thing. Where I've landed on it is that the young adult involved in this obviously wants no part of what's going on, and that's really the end of the story.

Unless they choose to speak out at a later date, we're never going to hear their side of the story. Ultimately, that's the person I feel most empathy for in all of this; even if they do think of themselves as a victim, they've had the opportunity to talk about that in their own time and space taken away from them. Complete strangers have assigned them either victim or villain status without knowing them, a story that they expressly didn't agree with was published without their consent, and in general their feelings have been completely glossed over while everyone argues about Huw Edwards.
 
veevee04 said:
I've worked in forensic wards trust me sometimes it's better to get the prison sentence. There's people who have been charged for minor offences who are still under section 10 years later. At least in jail its do your time and release. Hospital its when the clinical team and the tribunal decide its not the easy way out.
Click to expand...

That definitely wasn't Sutcliffe's view in 1981. Mind you, 'charged for minor offences' is a bit different from murdering and defiling 13 women (official count 13, actual count more likely at least 17, he copped to Barbara Leach later so that's 18, plus all the non-fatal attacks).
 
Jaynefnw said:
Some top criminal lawyer has just been on a news channel saying the police wouldn't have spoken to Huw in the mental state that he is in and have halted the investigation and stated so far no wrong doing has been found, he also said they will once Huw is well enough speak to him and then they may well re investigate the claims.
Click to expand...

well it certainly needs full investigation - certainly regarding the images - he could have hard drives full of allsorts and several PAYG phones .

(although the wife will have plenty of time to destroy evidence in the meantime )
 
This whole thing has left me feeling a bit sad really.

If he’s done anything illegal I of course hope it is investigated properly and he faces the consequences.

He’s clearly going to have to resign, that goes without saying (but due to his mental state that may come later)

If he is found to have been messaging colleagues inappropriately then that is both grim and misguided. Sexual harassment at work is not a joke. I’ve been through it when I was in my early 20s and it was awful.

I’m just rambling at this point. I still think The Sun is a disgusting rag that should never have published the story, BUT it is in the public interest if he is a sex pest and it’s clearly given people the confidence to come out about it. I don’t know, it’s grim all round.

I just hope he gets the mental health support he needs. No one should feel driven to suicide.
 
My lord sometimes what you read on here makes you wonder. For days most people were desperate for a name, appalled at it all. Now we know and that person sadly has poor mental health there’s been a massive shift in the tide to ‘poor Huw, it’s no crime’. We are talking about this happening 3 years ago - that we know of - who knows what his MH was like then. Could have been great. He was making very poor decisions it seems on multiple occasions. And if it was a 60 year old nom celeb man in your town messaging a 17 year old girl for dirty pics and paying a fortune then the views would be different. I’ve no issue with HW being gay or bi, I hope he had told his wife and kids, I’ve no issue with people using only fans, I understand MH problems. These cannot be excuses to resolve very questionable behaviour that have hurt many people just because that’s what Huw wanted. And since when did something not being illegal make it socially acceptable when it’s very sleezy that you don’t need to be held accountable when you are in a position of power? I’m getting a batch of ‘unwise but not illegal’ T-shirts printed up as clearly many supporters of this new ‘movement’.
 
WhatABore said:
This may have already been mentioned. And I'm also not saying anything was illegal however... if something that was illegal happened, even with proof, but the now 20 year old is saying it's rubbish, can they actually do anything about it if he doesn't make an official statement himself?

Just going from personal experience for a CSA case. The police had some evidence/proof but because the person didn't want to make an official statement to be used in court, the police couldn't do anything about it, even though they'd seen the evidence.

Would this be the same in this case?

Again, not saying there is anything true... more curious than anything if it would be the same.
Click to expand...

This is similar to something that I was already thinking about with the Schofe situation and again now with reports that the first individual may have been 17 when photos were exchanged.

It leaves me feeling a bit uncomfortable that inappropriate behaviour, possibly criminal behaviour, may start underage but by the time it becomes known to others/the police the individual is a young adult and it can only be investigated if the adult cooperates and hands over potential evidence. I assume if they were still underage then it’s taken out of their hands and they don’t get a say about whether it’s taken further or not?

I’ll use Schofe as an example because most people on tattle are more on board with the likelihood that Schofe started grooming when MM was underage.
But as it stands it’s only really MM that can take it further if he chooses to. And I appreciate a victim can’t be responsible if the perpetrator goes on to commit more crimes, but in the meantime PS has potentially got away with sex crimes against children and the cycle may continue (or certainly might have done before it was made public this year) because the police can’t do anything unless the now-adult victim reports it.

It’s this overlap from something starting as a child to adulthood that concerns me. I’m talking generally here as I appreciate Huw may genuinely not had contact with anyone whilst under 18 but I’m concerned even if he did, we may never know if the now-adults don’t want to report it.
 
WestSideIsDaBest said:
They weren't afforded the opportunity as the mother never called them back
Click to expand...

That's not how that works, lol. The complaint was made, the onus is on the Beeb, that's the huge public service organisation with the royal charter, to do everything in their power to follow up adequately and ensure that the matter is fully heard, investigated and resolved.

Not leave a half assed voicemail or whoops accidentally dial the wrong number and, 'oh dear, couldn't get through to the complainant on this potentially very serious safeguarding issue. Oh welp. Let's leave it there then shall we." 😂🤣😂
 
moldwarp said:
That definitely wasn't Sutcliffe's view in 1981. Mind you, 'charged for minor offences' is a bit different from murdering and defiling 13 women (official count 13, actual count more likely at least 17, he copped to Barbara Leach later so that's 18, plus all the non-fatal attacks).
Click to expand...

Still it's not pretty, any sign of violent behaviour and its seclusion. Which is a bare mattress on the floor with a hatch to pass through food , carry on and its forcibly injected with rapid tranquilisation. Some have asked to go back to prison as they can't get access to any substances or socialise very well. I think its a myth that high secure is better than prison.
 
barabra cundy said:
well it certainly needs full investigation - certainly regarding the images - he could have hard drives full of allsorts and several PAYG phones .

(although the wife will have plenty of time to destroy evidence in the meantime )
Click to expand...

But he also 'could' have a sex dungeon and a leather suit. And he 'could' spend his weekends knitting soft toys for children's wards. And he 'could' have applied to go down to see the titanic remains. And he 'could' be the next James bond.
'Could' means absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
 
Force12 said:
You would be happy for your 18 year old son getting paid for sex pics from a 60 year old man?

sure jan
Click to expand...
Of course no one would be happy about that, in the same way id imagine Sam Foxs, Jordans and the other page three girls of their day parents felt.
This is just modern page three, but a little more interactive. Same age men wanking, just a different generation.

The person i know who does it, their dad is heartbroken. But they are an adult making a good living and can only say so much. Young people rarely listen to parents quibbles about life choices.
 
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