Ssshh, you know Hugh

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think you're missing the point. It was absolutely obvious what was going to happen. All Edwards had to do was come forward and say the complaint was about him. He didn't have to say any more than that. But he decided to be selfish and hang some thoroughly decent people out to dry. 

I had no opinion about Edwards one way or another before this all started. Because of what he has done to his colleagues I would now smack him in the mouth if I met him. I really can't stand Rylan and Jeremy Vine but at the moment they have my sympathy. I suspect they would really like to smack Edwards in the mouth as well. If you were in their position wouldn't you feel the same? 

The fact that Edwards has left Nicky Campbell in such a difficult position is unforgivable. Campbell has done an awful lot for sexual abuse victims recently but Edwards has just sat and watched as Campbell's reputation has been trashed on social media. Edwards should hang his head in shame 

When you are the unnamed person watching people you know aren't the people the stories about being widely harangued and abused anyway, it would reasonably give anyone pause about putting their own neck in the noose.

This is a weird story. Who pays 35k a pop for sexually explicit photos? Seeing as everyone's speculating anyway, I wonder if it wasn't blackmail money, parents got wind but kid wouldn't give a cut so they tried to get their own payday by going to the press which ruined the blackmail scheme, prompting the rebuttal of the supposed 'victim'.

Onlyfans and the like are massive businesses that succeed because an awful lot of people have sexual fantasies. Odds are a lot of the subscribers out there are married, and doubtless plenty of celebs. If there's nothing criminal, there's no justification for this sort of intrusion.

Edited July 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[benchwarmer 625]

3 hours ago, Canary73 said:

There is a need to be thorough and check the facts and the well-being and privacy of those involved. It’s says as much about the Sun’s tactics as the BBC’s response. 

Does privacy include keeping the alleged perpetrator in the dark for seven weeks?  He didn't even know he was under investigation.

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

2 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Does privacy include keeping the alleged perpetrator in the dark for seven weeks?  He didn't even know he was under investigation.

I'm only going on what we've been told already. The original May allegation was a less significant indiscretion than that the sun reported in the last few days. It had also been as we now know been dismissed at that time by the Police. 

My guess is that it was then lost in the mire as one of any number of complaints that I suspect are made daily right or wrong, often maliciously, on all celebrities. Wasn't there a number given of 250 such complaints out there at present under investigation by the BBC.

[Barbe bleu 832]

38 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

All that's happened is that I (and Ricardo) smelt a rat at the start of the Sun story or in the way it was told. Something didn't and still doesn't add up. The Police twice or thrice now state there was no criminality. 

We've been proved right.

There's a big dose of gotcha in this for sure. The whole reporting is as clever as it is manipulative.

It's a close call but I think that there is public interest in this. Probably should have been written slightly differently  though.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

There's a big dose of gotcha in this for sure. The whole reporting is as clever as it is manipulative.

It's a close call but I think that there is public interest in this. Probably should have been written slightly differently  though.

 

Possibly yes but as of today nobody has seen any evidence of anything and that includes the Police. We do have a statement of 'rubbish' by the alleged victim.

It seems that really its just at worse a case of bringing the BBC into disrepute (a sex scandal if that) . That's not the way the Sun sold it though and I suspect legally they all but inferred who it was. Lawyers smiling. We shall see. Might get souvenir copy or two for posterity.

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

Always follow the money. From what I have read the Sun published a claim about a specific amount of money being handed over. I hope the paper had documentary proof for that it could produce and hadn’t just taken it on trust from one of the parents.

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

11 hours ago, ricardo said:

I am glad to hear that your life is pure as the driven snow and that no aspect if revealed to the general public can be open to misinterpretation or criticism. Sadly and despite the best intentions most human beings often fall short of that standard. Here we have lives destroyed over something that is nobody elses business. My sympathies lie with those people involved and not those who enjoy consuming the muck raking of salacious gossip supplied by certain parts of the media.

Sorry Ricardo but that's nonsense. I don't claim to be pure as the driven snow, I just consider myself to be a normal person with normal standards of behaviour. 

Edwards is a married man in his 60's who holds a very prominent position. But he thought he could persue teenage boys and expect the country to accept his behaviour. He may not have done anything illegal but his behaviour falls as far away from acceptable as is possible. Having been caught he decided to keep his head down and hang several of his colleagues out to dry. 

Put yourself in Nicky Campbell'position. He was asked by his teenage daughter at the weekend if the things being written about him were true. That's awful and Edwards is entirely responsible. 

His behaviour throughout the whole grubby episode has been disgraceful. 

This does call in to question the standards of behaviour of people in prominent positions but perhaps I'm the odd one out? 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[benchwarmer 625]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm only going on what we've been told already. The original May allegation was a less significant indiscretion than that the sun reported in the last few days. It had also been as we now know been dismissed at that time by the Police. 

My guess is that it was then lost in the mire as one of any number of complaints that I suspect are made daily right or wrong, often maliciously, on all celebrities. Wasn't there a number given of 250 such complaints out there at present under investigation by the BBC.

I can't believe you're excusing the BBC for failing to inform possibly their most high-profile asset of the allegation.  However many such complaints they receive, anyone can see that this one should have been top priority. 

The Sun is what we know it is, and does what it does.  I wouldn't use it to line the cat's tray.  But this need never have got that far.

Edited July 13, 2023 by benchwarmer

[DraytonBoy 165]

A tv presenter's career has been destroyed, his personal life is in tatters and he is now in a mental health facility. The fact that he's committed no crime and has had suffered from mental health issues for the last twenty years is irrelevant, he's a sexual deviant and we should be so grateful to The Sun for exposing him. Can't have his sort reading the evening news.

[Herman 9,837]

Yes, thanks to the S*n for its moral guidance. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

9 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

All that's happened is that I (and Ricardo) smelt a rat at the start of the Sun story or in the way it was told. Something didn't and still doesn't add up. The Police twice or thrice now state there was no criminality. 

We've been proved right.

In my 50+ years, that's only the second time I recall that word ever being used. 

"Nay, nay & thrice nay" - Frankie Howerd

EDIT - Currently 122 uses on this forum alone 😮

Edited July 13, 2023 by How I Wrote Elastic Man

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

I'm disgusted that this goal is being ignored due to Huw Edwards.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

48 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

In my 50+ years, that's only the second time I recall that word ever being used. 

"Nay, nay & thrice nay" - Frankie Howerd

EDIT - Currently 122 uses on this forum alone 😮

Another 50 years until the next time 😉

Now for my next trick....

[MooreMarriot 313]

1 hour ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

In my 50+ years, that's only the second time I recall that word ever being used. 

"Nay, nay & thrice nay" - Frankie Howerd

EDIT - Currently 122 uses on this forum alone 😮

It is available as a T shirt :

Edited July 13, 2023 by MooreMarriot

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

1 hour ago, benchwarmer said:

I can't believe you're excusing the BBC for failing to inform possibly their most high-profile asset of the allegation.  However many such complaints they receive, anyone can see that this one should have been top priority. 

The Sun is what we know it is, and does what it does.  I wouldn't use it to line the cat's tray.  But this need never have got that far.

I'm not defending I'm just trying to place in context.

If your parents when you were 20 approached the BBC making some sort of complaint that you had some sort of ill defined relationship with a TV presenter I suspect they 'd also want to to know why you yourself weren't making a complaint (as an adult) and try to get in touch (as they did) or find out more. It would at first come across as nosey parents overstepping their role. It was only later that the much larger set of allegations were made. It seems the police in May had the same opinion.

Clearly the original allegations didn't clear some hurdle although they were not ignored. The BBC has hundreds of cases under investigation (as I guess do all the other broadcasters) many of which are likely cranks or simply innocent interactions. All of us (TV presenters included) are entitled to a private life and minor indiscretions. 

The first allegation may most likely have been little more than gossip.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

Why the BBC again! Uncle Jimmy will be turning in his grave. 

 

[ricardo 7,402]

44 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I'm disgusted that this goal is being ignored due to Huw Edwards.

 

Its a disgrace.

Surely his parents will complain to the Sun.

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

7 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Why the BBC again! Uncle Jimmy will be turning in his grave. 

 

Schofield was ITV....

[KiwiScot 1,486]

So many unknowns so this is laced with lots of assumptions as I try to sum up his future position within the media.

A lot of us could get sacked for this. Companies have thin skins when it comes to deploying the term gross misconduct after public exposure against their desire to be squeaky clean. I'd say for Huw it's not fair, but in his situation his position is untenable and his actions seem a bit daft on his part. As a married man it seems(seems) like he is going online via dating apps(or more ways) to chat up much younger people and buying pictures of them for large amounts of money. As well as trying to meet them(as you would,but paying?). Who cares? Nothing illegal? Some of us do this? Private life is his own and two consenting adults? I'm off the opinion along these lines, but understand others see this as immoral behaviour and he holds a very big position of trust.

What it looks like to the public. It reads as him buying sex which is basically what buying pornography/onlyfans is(people you buy it off get called sex workers). Allegations that messages he sends are not quite appropriate. Seems(seems) like the age of the younger people are close to the age where pedophile concerns begin(hence the police coming in an clearing that aspect). One person he has been in contact with(alleged) has developed a drug addiction(alledged) so again nothing to do with him(assumption) so he's now seen to be buying sex off a young vulerable person(adult) ignoring family concerns(more unknowns).

Again who cares? Nothing illegal? Some of us do this? Private life is his own and two consenting adults? I mean imagine you're trying to chat someone up online and the other person doens't like what you said and it all gets published and shown to your employers. Do we all flirt and chat up people in ways that look ok? This is part that is not fair. Then you've got a history of depression so are these actions of a mentally ill person and do the victims(if any) not matter then.

So Huw gets his job back. Gets on the news and reads the headlines...

"Regulators demand social media companies up their game to fight online abuse on their platforms"

"Prince Andrew settles in court after fighting allegations of sex with underage girl"

"Sex trafficking ring smashed, watch the report where people are addicted to drugs and sold to webcam customers"

"Angus Deayton. Should he be forgiven"

It just doesn't work. Big wow moment if he does.

Edited July 13, 2023 by KiwiScot

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

So many unknowns so this is laced with lots of assumptions as I try to sum up his future position within the media.

A lot of us could get sacked for this. Companies have thin skins when it comes to deploying the term gross misconduct after public exposure against their desire to be squeaky clean. I'd say for Huw it's not fair, but in his situation his position is untenable and his actions seem a bit daft on his part. As a married man it seems(seems) like he is going online via dating apps(or more ways) to chat up much younger people and buying pictures of them for large amounts of money. As well as trying to meet them(as you would,but paying?). Who cares? Nothing illegal? Some of us do this? Private life is his own and two consenting adults? I'm off the opinion along these lines, but understand others see this as immoral behaviour and he holds a very big position of trust.

What it looks like to the public. It reads as him buying sex which is basically what buying pornography/onlyfans is(people you buy it off get called sex workers). Allegations that messages he sends are not quite appropriate. Seems(seems) like the age of the younger people are close to the age where pedophile concerns begin(hence the police coming in an clearing that aspect). One person he has been in contact with(alleged) has developed a drug addiction(alledged) so again nothing to do with him(assumption) so he's now seen to be buying sex off a young vulerable person(adult) ignoring family concerns(more unknowns).

Again who cares? Nothing illegal? Some of us do this? Private life is his own and two consenting adults? I mean imagine you're trying to chat someone up online and the other person doens't like what you said and it all gets published and shown to your employers. Do we all flirt and chat up people in ways that look ok? This is part that is not fair. Then you've got a history of depression so are these actions of a mentally ill person and do the victims(if any) not matter then.

So Huw gets his job back. Gets on the news and reads the headlines...

"Regulators demand social media companies up their game to fight online abuse on their platforms"

"Prince Andrew settles in court after fighting allegations of sex with underage girl"

"Sex trafficking ring smashed, watch the report where people are addicted to drugs and sold to webcam customers"

"Angus Deayton. Should he be forgiven"

It just doesn't work. Big wow moment if he does.

You have outlined perfectly why Edwards shouldn't appear on our screens again. Anyone working in front of the camera for the BBC knows they have to uphold a certain standard in their private life and that is especially true of the flagship news programme. It seems extraordinary that he thought he would get away with it. 

As you say, it would be a big moment if the BBC brought him back. I think they would lose Vine, Campbell, Norton and Rylan if they did. 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,284]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You have outlined perfectly why Edwards shouldn't appear on our screens again. Anyone working in front of the camera for the BBC knows they have to uphold a certain standard in their private life and that is especially true of the flagship news programme. It seems extraordinary that he thought he would get away with it. 

As you say, it would be a big moment if the BBC brought him back. I think they would lose Vine, Campbell, Norton and Rylan if they did. 

 

Well he couldn't read the news for a start, unless of course they choose the newscaster depending on the subject matter of the headlines. 

I suppose he might get away with Antiques Roadshow or something like that, or a Sunday morning radio slot.

More likely he'll be sacked for gross misconduct.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Well he couldn't read the news for a start, unless of course they choose the newscaster depending on the subject matter of the headlines. 

I suppose he might get away with Antiques Roadshow or something like that, or a Sunday morning radio slot.

More likely he'll be sacked for gross misconduct.

Kay Burley was back after 6 months for breaking lockdown rules which she had been hammering Ministers about on her programme. 

Apart from embarassment, there is no reason why he can't resume his job but I bet the BBC sack him.

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Schofield was ITV....

That’s true. Phil and Tim Westwood have offered their full support to Huw in this troubling time. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Interesting thing about Huw Edwards is there's no criminality involved, but actually at rock bottom he's a professional journalist who the Sun chose to put in the crosshairs; this could get quite fun if the private lives of tabloid journalists start to be fair game as well.

[Herman 9,837]

People had enough of the right wing bullies?

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,438]

Dan's a fantastic man, he really is.

Dan! Dan! Dan!...

No, he's not heard me.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Herman said:

People had enough of the right wing bullies?

 

A real Kiwi eats, roots and leaves

[Barbe bleu 832]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting thing about Huw Edwards is there's no criminality involved, but actually at rock bottom he's a professional journalist who the Sun chose to put in the crosshairs; this could get quite fun if the private lives of tabloid journalists start to be fair game as well.

True enough. There has to be limits.

But If we are to belive the bits that have not been discredited HE did bring a lot of this on himself.  He must have known that asking a young adult for dodgy snaps having been messaging them since they were legally a child might attract a few questions. Espwcially so guven the history of his employer. In this case the 2+2s equalled 5 but we sometimes need a Press to hold police and public bodies to account to see if the answer really is 5, and not 4.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting thing about Huw Edwards is there's no criminality involved, but actually at rock bottom he's a professional journalist who the Sun chose to put in the crosshairs; this could get quite fun if the private lives of tabloid journalists start to be fair game as well.

Paul McMullan, a former News of the World reporter, described a typical sting: “A celebrity checked into a hotel room in Paris with a new girlfriend who wasn’t his wife. So what we did is we rang up the hotel pretending to be his accountant and said, we need the entire bill, please with all the phone calls so we can itemise it. And the hotel rather stupidly just faxed over his bill and we just rang all of the numbers until we found the home number of his girlfriend, then sent some paparazzis to get a picture.”

Rebekah Brooks came under the microscope for her part in the phone hacking scandal and just the same as anyone else, was found to have habits that would be distasteful to the majority. And of course although she was remarkably found not guilty she was editor during the Milly Dowler episode when they publshed her parents sexual preferences.

[KiwiScot 1,486]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68873266

Huw has left the building.