I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
Two very different sets of needs.
Isn’t that basically the origin of the Sardaukar in Dune?
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
Piss off you grubby fuck. By that principle the Egyptian/Kentucky tourism boards* should have a direct line to your questionable Thai outgoings.
Jesus calm the fuck down. He’s a famous BBC tv dude
I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
My old fee-paying school did exactly that, from memory. Only kids who could pass the entrance exam though.
The school had oodles of local kids, particularly as day pupils, on bursaries. Although to be fair it wasn't really the 'done' thing to discuss who was paying what.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
He was an employee. Employees are those that work under a wage/work bargain. Whether it was a fair bargain or a cost effective one is neither here nor there - that was the contract. He provided his labour and got paid for it. Once he was paid it’s no longer “our money”. It’s his money.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
I haven't but then I dont accept christian morality
I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
My old fee-paying school did exactly that, from memory. Only kids who could pass the entrance exam though.
The school had oodles of local kids, particularly as day pupils, on bursaries. Although to be fair it wasn't really the 'done' thing to discuss who was paying what.
Yes, many public schools do it. I would like it to be done a lot more, as an agreed element of charitable status.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
Piss off you grubby fuck. By that principle the Egyptian/Kentucky tourism boards* should have a direct line to your questionable Thai outgoings.
Jesus calm the fuck down. He’s a famous BBC tv dude
Hold on, I think I caught sight of a social worker buying Heinz instead of own brand beans. Fire up an enquiry, it’s A Waste Of Public Money* 😂
*And YOU’RE Paying For It! (copyright, The Daily Mail)
I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
Two very different sets of needs.
Isn’t that basically the origin of the Sardaukar in Dune?
Likely that was the stories of slave armies in the Near East like the Janissaries or the Mamluks.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
Sorry you are wrong, I say this as someone who has no truck with the bbc. If the BBC had been funding it to keep their talent you are right....however if you pay someone a salary and they spend it in a way thats less than optimal it is not down to the employer. It is the same if a civil servant uses their salary to pay for prostitutes...once its paid out as salary its no longer public money
He just got £400,000 a year and a massive pay rise. Unfortunate timing
Once he is paid it however it is not public money. Argue he is paid to much I would probably agree...however how he spends it once paid it is a private matter
Bingo.
I think he (and other BBC "talent") is paid much too much money, and the BBC could do with paying less to fresh blood instead, but its none of our freaking business what private people do with their own money once it has been paid.
Whether he spent his money on charitable donations and trying to cure cancer, or booze, birds and fast cars, or just squanders it - its his to do as he pleases. And its too much because its too much and raised by threat of prison rather than voluntary subscriptions either way.
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Yes it was all the squealing Labour supporters that cost Theresa May her majority. All her Conservative supporters voted Tory as normal but MI5 rubbed out their votes. Use pens not pencils, sheeple!
I was thinking of people @BJO here and Corbyn and very many Labour MPs attacked the "dementia tax".
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
Piss off you grubby fuck. By that principle the Egyptian/Kentucky tourism boards* should have a direct line to your questionable Thai outgoings.
Jesus calm the fuck down. He’s a famous BBC tv dude
So every time some Tory MP (for instance) has it off with saome teenager, we can specially complain because it's our tax money that is paying him? Interesting doctrine of locus standi.
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Yes it was all the squealing Labour supporters that cost Theresa May her majority. All her Conservative supporters voted Tory as normal but MI5 rubbed out their votes. Use pens not pencils, sheeple!
I was thinking of people @BJO here and Corbyn and very many Labour MPs attacked the "dementia tax".
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
Let the people decide
See there you are wrong, theoretically everyone is free to sue them into oblivion. In practise only the rich can. The sun can libel me all they like but I will never be in a position to see them in court
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
Except that it drowned out the pay awards news.
Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
you are a naughty twistedfirestopper stop misusing those public funds, apparently even though its payment for labour you did its still public funding of your misbehaviour
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
You reckon if it had been someone from ITV of a similar standing (the only example I can think of being, er, Schofield) they wouldn't have bothered? Really?
It's a story about Huw Edwards because stories about famous people behaving seedily sell newspapers.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
Let the people decide
Lefty?
I think you'll find everyone on the libertarian right here seems to unanimously agree that what Huw Edwards does with his own money, in his own time, if its legal, is his own business and not ours.
If it was illegal it'd be news. If its not, then its Heat magazine trash.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
You reckon if it had been someone from ITV of a similar standing (the only example I can think of being, er, Schofield) they wouldn't have bothered? Really?
It's a story about Huw Edwards because stories about famous people behaving seedily sell newspapers.
Timing. Which leads to the possible mens rea, given the known animus of the right-wing newspapers against the BBC.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Yes it was all the squealing Labour supporters that cost Theresa May her majority. All her Conservative supporters voted Tory as normal but MI5 rubbed out their votes. Use pens not pencils, sheeple!
I was thinking of people @BJO here and Corbyn and very many Labour MPs attacked the "dementia tax".
Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.
There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:
- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and - Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.
But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.
The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.
The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.
Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.
If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.
Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
Except that it drowned out the pay awards news.
Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.
Doesn't mean they always get timings right. Some of the story was out of their control.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.
On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed
PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
Let the people decide
Get off your sanctimonious high horse and address the points being made. Trying to turn this into a culture war issue, PB “elites” vs the “people’s paper” is the problem with you fash-curious reactionaries these days. No ideas, no brains, just “elites…woke…something”.
Someone has checked into a mental hospital because of newspaper coverage of his private life. That is a story in and of itself. Trying to shut it down with your sixth form class war bollocks.
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
I've done things which wouldn't bear too much scrutiny. But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal. It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.
On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed
Yes it would, but I am not sure that I want to live in a country where there's a ban on reporting such things.
The S*n quite clearly put it about that Huw Edwards was a paedophile, paying an under-age child for illegal sex photos. This was explicitly not true, and I hope that he now sues the living shit out of them.
What is the story here - that a man pays to see saucy images of another man? So if I go and pay twinky (but legal) goodness on OnlyFans for access to images, or subscribe to someone's channel having found them on PornHub, how is that any different?
The S*n printed straight lies- that the man was a child - despite them being denounced by the supposed victim. So malicious falsehood, designed specifically to destroy his image and career.
Some of our more excitable posters occasionally respond to non-libellous statement about their side which they dislike with "thats libel". It isn't. But this is.
Park your opinions about the BBC. About lefties. About married men getting secretly turned on by hot male bodies. And look what happened here. If Huw isn't completely broken by this, and can recover himself back to mental fitness, I hope he destroys them.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
What he does with his own money is his own business.
Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.
No it isn't
"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.
The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"
Sky
That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage
Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior
Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.
Except that it drowned out the pay awards news.
Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.
Doesn't mean they always get timings right. Some of the story was out of their control.
The overall timing is strongly suggestive.
If I was cynical I'd suggest the story was leaked to time now by someone else on the awards list, so that the story was about Edwards rather than everyone else on the list.
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
Sort of on topic.
My father and grandfather were paid by the taxpayer, so my private education was paid for by the state.
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
I've done things which wouldn't bear too much scrutiny. But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal. It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.
Should you need to be though? More careful that is. If what you are doing is not illegal then frankly it is no one elses business and we would be better off if we stopped prying
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...
So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?
It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?
Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?
Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)
1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.
2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.
Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest
The BBC cannot have it both ways
Sorry you are wrong, I say this as someone who has no truck with the bbc. If the BBC had been funding it to keep their talent you are right....however if you pay someone a salary and they spend it in a way thats less than optimal it is not down to the employer. It is the same if a civil servant uses their salary to pay for prostitutes...once its paid out as salary its no longer public money
He just got £400,000 a year and a massive pay rise. Unfortunate timing
I find Edwards irritating to the point where don't like him, but I don't want a Caroline Flack outcome.
If he didn't break any laws the business is between him and his employer.
Sack him and send him to the Schofield wilderness if that's what is required, but the family grief is none of our concern.
I find the fact that the Sun busted him to be offensive. The Sun generated 40 years of popularity as a vile conduit for exposing images of 16-17 year old girls to grubby, raincoated perverts.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.
On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed
Yes it would, but I am not sure that I want to live in a country where there's a ban on reporting such things.
I didn't call for a ban, I just think we would be better of if even so the media went...is this legal what they did....if so well really not our business. A ban would unfortunately lead to things being covered up that shouldn't be and yes there is a line here and I don't know how to reconcile it
I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
Two very different sets of needs.
Isn’t that basically the origin of the Sardaukar in Dune?
Not unless Mam'zelle was a member of the Bene Gesserit, no.
What I don't want to see is Edwards making an apology along the "I'm sorry....error of judgement...under pressure...stress...self medicating..." lines. He's just got to own it. No excuses, just say "I've let my family down, and the BBC down. Sorry, can't help what my kink is, thats just how I am" No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted. I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.
If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.
He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.
On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed
Yes it would, but I am not sure that I want to live in a country where there's a ban on reporting such things.
I didn't call for a ban, I just think we would be better of if even so the media went...is this legal what they did....if so well really not our business. A ban would unfortunately lead to things being covered up that shouldn't be and yes there is a line here and I don't know how to reconcile it
The best way to have the media cease to be interested is to not be interested in it ourselves.
What I don't want to see is Edwards making an apology along the "I'm sorry....error of judgement...under pressure...stress...self medicating..." lines. He's just got to own it. No excuses, just say "I've let my family down, and the BBC down. Sorry, can't help what my kink is, thats just how I am" No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted. I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.
PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
Let the people decide
That is all true. The question that arises is what happens to the people like your good self who wank themselves into such a frenzy that even the facts don't stop them.
Huw Edwards is not - despite The S*n clearly suggesting he is - a paedophile. Man looks at pictures of men shock. Man pays for sexy photos shock. You could argue there is a story because he's a public figure and married, but this is 2023.
Why - despite knowing the truth- did the S*n go after this well-paid BBC anchor? Do we need to draw crayon pictures? The right hates the BBC, hates dogooders, hates people who don't parrot support for that git Jenrick. What Edwards did isn't their concern - especially having been told by the so-called victim that it was a pack of lies.
I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.
Two very different sets of needs.
Isn’t that basically the origin of the Sardaukar in Dune?
Not unless Mam'zelle was a member of the Bene Gesserit, no.
The fallacy in Luckyguy's argument is that he thinks that Mallory Towers and Eton aren't part of the care system.
To give an example if king charles likes to be sodomized by large cocks while camilla watched. It is not illegal and I think it would be a benefit to the whole world if people didn't report it and just went nah none of our business if thats what they like.
I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do. Forgive me.
I've done things which wouldn't bear too much scrutiny. But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal. It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.
I agree, and as he's so high profile, he's got to expect greater scrutiny and face the shame of what he's putting his family through. But as far as we know, he's not Savile or Harris, no one's died.
What I don't want to see is Edwards making an apology along the "I'm sorry....error of judgement...under pressure...stress...self medicating..." lines. He's just got to own it. No excuses, just say "I've let my family down, and the BBC down. Sorry, can't help what my kink is, thats just how I am" No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted. I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.
Unless it was illegal the only apologies he owes is to his wife and family and they are private apologies
What I don't want to see is Edwards making an apology along the "I'm sorry....error of judgement...under pressure...stress...self medicating..." lines. He's just got to own it. No excuses, just say "I've let my family down, and the BBC down. Sorry, can't help what my kink is, thats just how I am" No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted. I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.
The S*n quite clearly put it about that Huw Edwards was a paedophile, paying an under-age child for illegal sex photos. This was explicitly not true, and I hope that he now sues the living shit out of them.
What is the story here - that a man pays to see saucy images of another man? So if I go and pay twinky (but legal) goodness on OnlyFans for access to images, or subscribe to someone's channel having found them on PornHub, how is that any different?
The S*n printed straight lies- that the man was a child - despite them being denounced by the supposed victim. So malicious falsehood, designed specifically to destroy his image and career.
Some of our more excitable posters occasionally respond to non-libellous statement about their side which they dislike with "thats libel". It isn't. But this is.
Park your opinions about the BBC. About lefties. About married men getting secretly turned on by hot male bodies. And look what happened here. If Huw isn't completely broken by this, and can recover himself back to mental fitness, I hope he destroys them.
When he recovers he needs to be thinking about his wife and children first and foremost. Not about suing newspapers. I don't suppose any of this is nice for them.
I suspect latest developments at the BBC won't impinge too much on tomorrow's by-election in my patch of Wall End, Newham.
We've had leaflets from Labour, Conservative, LD and Reform and I've no hesitation in saying the most coherent was from the Reform candidate. The Labour leaflet was a self-congratulatory rant about how wonderful Labour has been though oddly enough the "achievements" in Wall End seem to be thin gruel.
The Conservative candidate (the obligatory Hindu business man) claims we are all so terrified of crime we'd support CCTV on every street corner while the LD leaflet was a questionnaire so that was pointless. Nothing from the Greens who are putting all their effort into Boleyn.
The Reform candidate, a local man, advocates the return of free parking permits for the first car in any house (I have to pay £60 for the privilege of parking in the road outside my front door)
He opposes low traffic neighbourhoods (there aren't any in Wall End) and wants development on brownfield rather than greenfield sites (bit of a given in Newham to be honest). As I said to Mrs Stodge "if they developed the parks, where would the drunks, druggies and doggers go?"
The Reform candidate is also the only one publicly stated as living in the Ward - the LD lives in Plashet and the other candidates simply say they live in the Borough.
None of it matters - Labour will win big on a small turnout (probably 25%). Conservatives probably second in front of Greens, LDs and Reform.
What I didn’t like about this whole episode was the attempts to suggest those involved were some tragic victims who were corrupted by some creepy older man , the Sun was desperate to paint Edwards as some pedo.
The law is the law . They were over 16 . End of ! Whether people think it’s questionable morally for an older man to pay for a 17 year old to perform on camera is irrelevant to the police . If there was a crime they would have said so .
I also found it somewhat strange that another of those who came forward was surprised that the presenter might react badly to threats of being outed to the media . Wtf did he expect !
Then we had the other person who allegedly met Edwards during covid restrictions and who was happy to do so but now is trying to play the martyr about lockdown rules .
I have started to consider the possibility of leaving the country for the first time in my life in the last year. It’s not really the tax rate which is the problem, it’s just too low salaries and too high cost of living.
Maybe everywhere else is the same, maybe it isn’t, but maybe there’s a better life somewhere else.
Pity that I picked one of the only geographically limited (save for language) jobs for a new career
It is hard to find a place where the same job gets you a higher salaries and a lower cost of living. If you're a Western professional, it's true of the Gulf, because you can use the indentured servant class.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
Just re-upping this. I am fucking fuming.
This entire “story” is essentially an attack by Rupert Murdoch on the BBC and it seems the entire country has been happy enough to play along.
I have started to consider the possibility of leaving the country for the first time in my life in the last year. It’s not really the tax rate which is the problem, it’s just too low salaries and too high cost of living.
Maybe everywhere else is the same, maybe it isn’t, but maybe there’s a better life somewhere else.
Pity that I picked one of the only geographically limited (save for language) jobs for a new career
Try to get to the States. Do it for a while to save up some money and then you’ll have options.
I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.
This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).
If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.
Just re-upping this. I am fucking fuming.
This entire “story” is essentially an attack by Rupert Murdoch on the BBC and it seems the entire country has been happy enough to play along.
Comments
The school had oodles of local kids, particularly as day pupils, on bursaries. Although to be fair it wasn't really the 'done' thing to discuss who was paying what.
Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.
Neither are great, but they are separate issues.
I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.
And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.
*And YOU’RE Paying For It! (copyright, The Daily Mail)
I think he (and other BBC "talent") is paid much too much money, and the BBC could do with paying less to fresh blood instead, but its none of our freaking business what private people do with their own money once it has been paid.
Whether he spent his money on charitable donations and trying to cure cancer, or booze, birds and fast cars, or just squanders it - its his to do as he pleases. And its too much because its too much and raised by threat of prison rather than voluntary subscriptions either way.
Even it's a lower amount my point is that the sums raised are nowhere near enough to make any sort of difference.
We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so
And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion
Let the people decide
Forgive me.
Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/437231/Jimmy-Savile-bragged-about-suing-over-child-abuse
It's a story about Huw Edwards because stories about famous people behaving seedily sell newspapers.
It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.
I think you'll find everyone on the libertarian right here seems to unanimously agree that what Huw Edwards does with his own money, in his own time, if its legal, is his own business and not ours.
If it was illegal it'd be news. If its not, then its Heat magazine trash.
It's not as if the offences happened yesterday.
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics
So if this policy raised £1.3 billion it would represent a roughly 2% increase in funding.
Which is not negligible but doesn't even begin to cover the funding shortfalls we have.
The overall timing is strongly suggestive.
Someone has checked into a mental hospital because of newspaper coverage of his private life. That is a story in and of itself. Trying to shut it down with your sixth form class war bollocks.
But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal.
It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.
What is the story here - that a man pays to see saucy images of another man? So if I go and pay twinky (but legal) goodness on OnlyFans for access to images, or subscribe to someone's channel having found them on PornHub, how is that any different?
The S*n printed straight lies- that the man was a child - despite them being denounced by the supposed victim. So malicious falsehood, designed specifically to destroy his image and career.
Some of our more excitable posters occasionally respond to non-libellous statement about their side which they dislike with "thats libel". It isn't. But this is.
Park your opinions about the BBC. About lefties. About married men getting secretly turned on by hot male bodies. And look what happened here. If Huw isn't completely broken by this, and can recover himself back to mental fitness, I hope he destroys them.
My father and grandfather were paid by the taxpayer, so my private education was paid for by the state.
Didn't see that one coming!
If he didn't break any laws the business is between him and his employer.
Sack him and send him to the Schofield wilderness if that's what is required, but the family grief is none of our concern.
I find the fact that the Sun busted him to be offensive. The Sun generated 40 years of popularity as a vile conduit for exposing images of 16-17 year old girls to grubby, raincoated perverts.
No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted.
I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.
Has Johnson handed over his phone yet?
Just say no to salacious gossip.
Huw Edwards is not - despite The S*n clearly suggesting he is - a paedophile. Man looks at pictures of men shock. Man pays for sexy photos shock. You could argue there is a story because he's a public figure and married, but this is 2023.
Why - despite knowing the truth- did the S*n go after this well-paid BBC anchor? Do we need to draw crayon pictures? The right hates the BBC, hates dogooders, hates people who don't parrot support for that git Jenrick. What Edwards did isn't their concern - especially having been told by the so-called victim that it was a pack of lies.
NEW THREAD
But my point remains: if the Sun had been listened to back then, Savile might have faced justice for his crimes - and his victims better closure.
Now, imagine if his crimes continued *after* the Sun's stories were spiked...
Almost looks as though she knew.
I suspect latest developments at the BBC won't impinge too much on tomorrow's by-election in my patch of Wall End, Newham.
We've had leaflets from Labour, Conservative, LD and Reform and I've no hesitation in saying the most coherent was from the Reform candidate. The Labour leaflet was a self-congratulatory rant about how wonderful Labour has been though oddly enough the "achievements" in Wall End seem to be thin gruel.
The Conservative candidate (the obligatory Hindu business man) claims we are all so terrified of crime we'd support CCTV on every street corner while the LD leaflet was a questionnaire so that was pointless. Nothing from the Greens who are putting all their effort into Boleyn.
The Reform candidate, a local man, advocates the return of free parking permits for the first car in any house (I have to pay £60 for the privilege of parking in the road outside my front door)
He opposes low traffic neighbourhoods (there aren't any in Wall End) and wants development on brownfield rather than greenfield sites (bit of a given in Newham to be honest). As I said to Mrs Stodge "if they developed the parks, where would the drunks, druggies and doggers go?"
The Reform candidate is also the only one publicly stated as living in the Ward - the LD lives in Plashet and the other candidates simply say they live in the Borough.
None of it matters - Labour will win big on a small turnout (probably 25%). Conservatives probably second in front of Greens, LDs and Reform.
The law is the law . They were over 16 . End of ! Whether people think it’s questionable morally for an older man to pay for a 17 year old to perform on camera is irrelevant to the police . If there was a crime they would have said so .
I also found it somewhat strange that another of those who came forward was surprised that the presenter might react badly to threats of being outed to the media . Wtf did he expect !
Then we had the other person who allegedly met Edwards during covid restrictions and who was happy to do so but now is trying to play the martyr about lockdown rules .
I am fucking fuming.
This entire “story” is essentially an attack by Rupert Murdoch on the BBC and it seems the entire country has been happy enough to play along.
Poor Huw.
This is awful.