Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
The age of consent in many areas is 18, not 16.
That especially applies to photographs/video - as well as eg for school teachers or others in positions of authority over the children.
17 is a child by law in some areas, and not in other areas. Its grey not black and white.
But the Police have investigated and said no crime, so that's the end of it.
According to @TSE's "logic", Saving Private Ryan can't be a WW2 film cos it was released in 1998.
Most historical films are released after the events they depict.
Except of course for the iPads in 2001.
[For all those of you who don't know, Clarke/Kubrick did not want the displays in the movie to use CRTs, so they used back projections and careful angles, ensuring that all the displays were flat rectangles with 90degree corners. The tablets that Poole and Bowman used were therefore A4 size pads displaying a flat moving image cand interactive text. When the iPad came out, The studio who inherited the rights to 2001 (Sony) sued to prevent copyright, contending that 2001 had predicted the concept in detail and was therefore prior art. Perhaps unfortunately, they lost.]
I was amazed at the way NASA did graphics for the Apollo control rooms.
The BBC 8.00 news are being very frank and they are intimating complaints are now being received from within the BBC
Edwards' career is plainly over but I suspect that's the least of his worries right now.
I hope he gets well and he and his family find some peace in the coming days, weeks and months.
Yes it seems a pattern of behaviour is forming. Edwards is looking more and more like a sleazy predator. Not good for the trust and reputation of the bbc.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
True, but we are not self appointed moral guardians. That’s not really any of our concern.
The only thing that may be an issue now is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour that have been mentioned.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
The age of consent in many areas is 18, not 16.
That especially applies to photographs/video - as well as eg for school teachers or others in positions of authority over the children.
17 is a child by law in some areas, and not in other areas. Its grey not black and white.
But the Police have investigated and said no crime, so that's the end of it.
So a private matter he needs to resolve with his family
Forget Christmas (or not) films, forget BBC presenters, the important questions remain:
1. Will Biden stand again? 2. When will the next GE be? 3. How big a defeat will the Tories suffer? 4. What on earth are Mrs P. and I going to have for dinner tomorrow?
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
True, but we are not self appointed moral guardians. That’s not really any of our concern.
The only thing that may be an issue now is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour that have been mentioned.
True but do you want such a person presenting bbc news at ten.
Forget Christmas (or not) films, forget BBC presenters, the important questions remain:
1. Will Biden stand again? 2. When will the next GE be? 3. How big a defeat will the Tories suffer? 4. What on earth are Mrs P. and I going to have for dinner tomorrow?
1. yes 2. October 2024 3. The number of votes for Conservative candidates will be less than that for Labour 4. Depending on when you mean "dinner" I find this time of year is best served with chicken Caesar salad with fruit to follow, with a light crisp wine for the evening
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
So the young man threatened to out him to the media and then screams threats when the person doesn’t take it well ! I mean wtf did he think would be the response . As for breaking lockdown rules , that’s of course bad but my issue is the person accusing him of this also broke them by meeting up and has the gall to act the moral martyr now .
Yes but they werent presenting the bbc news at ten and telling people to stay home. Totally different.
Those presenting the news though were not making the rules merely relaying them
A fair point for the newsreaders.
A less fair point for the people like Death Rigby and Burley who were screaming at Ministers why aren't they locking down sooner, harder etc
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
Pictures of a 17 year old would have been illegal, yes.
But the Sun always put a gap between saying "photos" and saying "seventeen year old". If people chose to misread what they had carefully written, that's not their fault, is it? And even if you think it is, how are you going to prove it?
Even in moderately well-run schools, you sometimes get a strange packlike bullying frenzy. And nobody questions it at the time. Then the victim responds- either they lash out or they self harm.
The interesting thing is what happens next. Sometimes, it's a strange and nasty sort of victim blaming; if X hadn't been eminently bullyable, this wouldn't have happened. (We saw a bit of that with the Christopher Jefferies fiasco.) Sometimes, it's a lashing out at the ringleader, or more likely a prominent minion. Very occaisonally, it's the beginning of a kind of wisdom. More often, it's a pretence that nothing happened, and if it did, it was nothing to do with us.
I wonder what it will be this time?
I am old enough to remember when the Sun considered publishing photographs of a naked 16 year old Samantha Fox was just good clean fun.
I am not defending Huw so much as condemning the deplorable Sun.
Also lets not forget the young person put themselves out there on onlyfans and they knew what it entailed. They marketed themselves for sexual pecadildos
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
True, but we are not self appointed moral guardians. That’s not really any of our concern.
The only thing that may be an issue now is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour that have been mentioned.
True but do you want such a person presenting bbc news at ten.
The BBC will have problems with all of the ceremonial stuff where he's been the commentator too.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
anti lancastrian sentiment plus it is fairly anti urban
Summer film though!
Summer film but not inclusive which was the challenge I believe
Well Grease then maybe - 'Summer Nights' song.
Less inclusive would be Manon Des Source, but infinitely better. Or perhaps Grapes of Wrath.
Spring films can obviously be anchored to 'The Producers'
Grease is non inclusive because for many faiths people that are unmarried dancing together is forbidden
Warn them not to read Jane Austen. The bit in Emma where Mr Knightly dances with Harriet Smith; the moral horror of Darcy dancing with Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice.....how can a just God see this and not smite them?
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
So the young man threatened to out him to the media and then screams threats when the person doesn’t take it well ! I mean wtf did he think would be the response . As for breaking lockdown rules , that’s of course bad but my issue is the person accusing him of this also broke them by meeting up and has the gall to act the moral martyr now .
Yes but they werent presenting the bbc news at ten and telling people to stay home. Totally different.
Those presenting the news though were not making the rules merely relaying them
A fair point for the newsreaders.
A less fair point for the people like Death Rigby and Burley who were screaming at Ministers why aren't they locking down sooner, harder etc
Yes a difference between those merely relaying instructions and those asking questions who mostly failed to call people to account
Also lets not forget the young person put themselves out there on onlyfans and they knew what it entailed. They marketed themselves for sexual pecadildos
That sounds like victim blaming to me im afraid. Not good.
anti lancastrian sentiment plus it is fairly anti urban
Summer film though!
Summer film but not inclusive which was the challenge I believe
Well Grease then maybe - 'Summer Nights' song.
Less inclusive would be Manon Des Source, but infinitely better. Or perhaps Grapes of Wrath.
Spring films can obviously be anchored to 'The Producers'
Grease is non inclusive because for many faiths people that are unmarried dancing together is forbidden
Warn them not to read Jane Austen. The bit in Emma where Mr Knightly dances with Harriet Smith; the moral horror of Darcy dancing with Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice.....how can a just God see this and not smite them?
Because she is not that bothered by our sexual antics?
The BBC 8.00 news are being very frank and they are intimating complaints are now being received from within the BBC
Edwards' career is plainly over but I suspect that's the least of his worries right now.
I hope he gets well and he and his family find some peace in the coming days, weeks and months.
Yes it seems a pattern of behaviour is forming. Edwards is looking more and more like a sleazy predator. Not good for the trust and reputation of the bbc.
The BBC still remains the most trusted source of news and is highly regarded across the world. No organization is perfect and we’ll have to see what happens when the investigation is concluded .
It’s vomit inducing though to see people like Lee Anderson scoring points over this . And it’s been clear for years that some Tories want to destroy the BBC .
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
True, but we are not self appointed moral guardians. That’s not really any of our concern.
The only thing that may be an issue now is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour that have been mentioned.
True but do you want such a person presenting bbc news at ten.
I don’t care either way as long as they are good at it.
If he is found to have behaved inappropriately at work then that would be a different matter.
Also lets not forget the young person put themselves out there on onlyfans and they knew what it entailed. They marketed themselves for sexual pecadildos
That sounds like victim blaming to me im afraid. Not good.
If the young person was over 18, they're not a victim.
If the young person was under 18, then there'd have been a crime committed but the Police have said there wasn't.
According to @TSE's "logic", Saving Private Ryan can't be a WW2 film cos it was released in 1998.
Most historical films are released after the events they depict.
Except of course for the iPads in 2001.
[For all those of you who don't know, Clarke/Kubrick did not want the displays in the movie to use CRTs, so they used back projections and careful angles, ensuring that all the displays were flat rectangles with 90degree corners. The tablets that Poole and Bowman used were therefore A4 size pads displaying a flat moving image cand interactive text. When the iPad came out, The studio who inherited the rights to 2001 (Sony) sued to prevent copyright, contending that 2001 had predicted the concept in detail and was therefore prior art. Perhaps unfortunately, they lost.]
I was amazed at the way NASA did graphics for the Apollo control rooms.
Basically, a series of projections and recordings to overlay stuff.
Good God I'm keeping that! Excellent find! I know how the graphics were done for the BBC HHGTTG, for TNG, for the Last Starfighter, Bab 5, TWOK, and the early Pixar stuff, but damn that's interesting! Thank you!
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I get it nothing strictly illegal has been proved. But do you want such a person engaging in such grubby behaviour presenting royal events and bbc news at ten notwithstanding the massive power discrepancy between edwards and his "contacts".
I'm assuming this has been done already... but whatever.
No I don't think they will run with it because it's libellous, that's just as libellous as the Huw Edwards rumour.
The Thick of it is a bit like the Simpsons....a uncanny ability to predict the future. Although I think some of their prediction are more down to very good insider knowledge.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Well I have heard different things on that.....one story is he threatened the young persons (I dont think we are sure if the young person is male or female)
The other is he threatened the young person after being himself getting threatening emails to reveal him
The first no excuse....the second I can see mitigating circumstances.
Currently there is more heat than light on the whole subject and no one seems to have a clear idea on the actual events so I am keeping an open mind
I think we are walking in to a situation where ever relationship ever public figure has ever had will be picked apart looking for evidence of 'abuse' - listening to evidence from the 'victim' only - a situation necessitated by 'power differentials' . It won't last. Common sense isn't completely dead.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun and kept it running was making clear that they hold photoint or elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold photoint or elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
Also lets not forget the young person put themselves out there on onlyfans and they knew what it entailed. They marketed themselves for sexual pecadildos
That sounds like victim blaming to me im afraid. Not good.
Oh come on there is a lot of difference between I wore a short skirt...not asking for sexual encounters and not someone that put themselves out to be a sex crime victim
and
I became a sex worker but I am surprised someone asked me for sexy pictures
If you go on onlyfans in that line you are explicitly saying I am a sexworker
All the talk seems to be about the morality or legality of the grubby pictures and webcam story
What about the threatening messages to the 17 year old and attempts to meet during lockdown? Confirmed, I believe, by the BBC
What about the, I think, at least three (one current, two ex?) Beeb employees who have complained already about his inappropriate messages?
And is anyone confident that that's it?
I don't want him hounded, but I also don't want the objects of his curious sexual desires to be silenced if they want to speak out
I'm surprised anyone would want to commit themselves to being on his side before hearing what might be to come
I think the "threatening messages" were to a 23 year old who threatened to out him on Social Media, not the 17 year old.
There do seem to be other allegations too emerging.
We don't know how long he has been having these relationships. I do wonder if future generations will have these sorts of exposures. I think Huw wouldn't have had such a glittering career if outed younger in the Eighties or nineties.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
Dubiously certainly. But there have to be questions about the appropriateness of this coming to press in the way it did particularly given the eventual outcome vis a vis the police statement.
What this now seems to boil down to, certainly in the events that were reported before today (but that have been ruled out as criminal activity) is a man who has made some very bad errors of judgment in the way he has pursued sexual thrills and spoken to people online, but not in a way that affected his job*. I understand why people might enjoy reading the salacious details, but I am not sure it should have passed as publishable content.
I do on a personal level feel desperately sorry for all involved because I cannot imagine how awful it must be to have such a spotlight shone on you. At the end of the day yes he has created this situation for himself and his family in the way he has behaved but I struggle to see a justification as to why the public needed to know all this in the way it came out.
*I am aware that there are some suggestions of improper behaviour with colleagues but that is a separate issue - if for the sake of argument someone had whistleblown on potentially inappropriate behaviour at work, as a public-facing figure I can see more of an argument for reporting.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I remember many years ago a paper did a countdown to a model becoming 16 so they could publish a picture of her with her thrupnies out.
Natalie Banus IIRC.
Those pictures were legal then but not now so, presumably, people could not now own them or copies of magazines, from the time, for that era that had then legal images of 16 or 17 year olds.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
All the talk seems to be about the morality or legality of the grubby pictures and webcam story
What about the threatening messages to the 17 year old and attempts to meet during lockdown? Confirmed, I believe, by the BBC
What about the, I think, at least three (one current, two ex?) Beeb employees who have complained already about his inappropriate messages?
And is anyone confident that that's it?
I don't want him hounded, but I also don't want the objects of his curious sexual desires to be silenced if they want to speak out
I'm surprised anyone would want to commit themselves to being on his side before hearing what might be to come
I’m not on his side . I think he’s made some questionable decisions given his high profile role and it was always likely to end badly but I didnt like the tone of the reporting and the insinuations they tried to make .
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I remember many years ago a paper did a countdown to a model becoming 16 so they could publish a picture of her with her thrupnies out.
Natalie Banus IIRC.
Those pictures were legal then but not now so, presumably, people could not now own them or copies of magazines, from the time, for that era that had then legal images of 16 or 17 year olds.
We did this the other day...its not true.
An individual "prankster" did it and faked the header to make it look like a newspaper. It was then reported during testimony at levenson as fact, but it was untrue.
Christmas or no, it's just not a very good film is it?
Nonsense, it is a great film, one of Alan Rickman's all time great performances, which is high praise.
Rickman is a pearl amongst swine in this film. Even then, he put in better performances as Snape than as Hans Gruber.
On no level at all is Die Hard a 'great film'. It's pants tbh.
As a true and deep believer in the freedom of speech…
{puts on black cap}
I hear by sentence you. That you shall be taken from this place to a place of incarceration where you shall be placed in the same cell as Piers Moron, Piers Corbyn and Julian Assange for a term not less than 20 years. The only entertainment is the worst Radiohead track on permanent, unstoppable repeat. The only written matter is the ability to read the comments on ConHome.
May God have Mercy on your Soul!
I recant, I recant!
We must purge the Hersey from Your Soul. For your own good.
All the talk seems to be about the morality or legality of the grubby pictures and webcam story
What about the threatening messages to the 17 year old and attempts to meet during lockdown? Confirmed, I believe, by the BBC
What about the, I think, at least three (one current, two ex?) Beeb employees who have complained already about his inappropriate messages?
And is anyone confident that that's it?
I don't want him hounded, but I also don't want the objects of his curious sexual desires to be silenced if they want to speak out
I'm surprised anyone would want to commit themselves to being on his side before hearing what might be to come
I’m not on his side . I think he’s made some questionable decisions given his high profile role and it was always likely to end badly but I didnt like the tone of the reporting and the insinuations they tried to make .
Its standard with sex crimes though. Happened with Savile and Harris too. Just part of life.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I get it nothing strictly illegal has been proved. But do you want such a person engaging in such grubby behaviour presenting royal events and bbc news at ten notwithstanding the massive power discrepancy between edwards and his "contacts".
Good point. Nothing grubby at all about some of the royals !
But is Batman Returns (Pfieffer, De Vito) a Christmas film?
Who cares? It's got Michelle Pfieffer in it.
The Fabulous Baker Boys: when her beauty was at its absolute pinnacle. And incidentally a Christmas film.
Rather sadly, given she's playing a junkie and is whippet thin to match, it's Scarface. She was luminous.
Thing is she can really act as well. She’s been in some good films, but some really terrible ones too. But every film she’s in is some 10-20% better just by virtue of her presence.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
'Indecent' rather than pornographic. Indecent is probably quite a bit wider than pornographic, but it is for the jury to determine. Unclothedness in itself is not automatically indecent - as with perfectly innocent family photos of 2 y.o children on the beach.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I remember many years ago a paper did a countdown to a model becoming 16 so they could publish a picture of her with her thrupnies out.
Natalie Banus IIRC.
Those pictures were legal then but not now so, presumably, people could not now own them or copies of magazines, from the time, for that era that had then legal images of 16 or 17 year olds.
We did this the other day...its not true.
An individual "prankster" did it and faked the header to make it look like a newspaper. It was then reported during testimony at levenson as fact, but it was untrue.
Wow, really. As JNT said, the memory cheats because I can remember it vividly happening, or being discussed at work, yet it didn’t.
I'm assuming this has been done already... but whatever.
No I don't think they will run with it because it's libellous, that's just as libellous as the Huw Edwards rumour.
The Thick of it is a bit like the Simpsons....a uncanny ability to predict the future. Although I think some of their prediction are more down to very good insider knowledge.
I remember Armando saying that the only line the BBC asked them to take out was Malcolm referencing "What they'd find in Jimmy Savile's basement when he dies".
Forget Christmas (or not) films, forget BBC presenters, the important questions remain:
1. Will Biden stand again? 2. When will the next GE be? 3. How big a defeat will the Tories suffer? 4. What on earth are Mrs P. and I going to have for dinner tomorrow?
1. yes 2. October 2024 3. The number of votes for Conservative candidates will be less than that for Labour 4. Depending on when you mean "dinner" I find this time of year is best served with chicken Caesar salad with fruit to follow, with a light crisp wine for the evening
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I get it nothing strictly illegal has been proved. But do you want such a person engaging in such grubby behaviour presenting royal events and bbc news at ten notwithstanding the massive power discrepancy between edwards and his "contacts".
If "such grubby behaviour" was legal, consensual behaviour between consenting adults?
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
I didn't leave my house for 55 days between 19/03/20 and 13/05/20
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I get it nothing strictly illegal has been proved. But do you want such a person engaging in such grubby behaviour presenting royal events and bbc news at ten notwithstanding the massive power discrepancy between edwards and his "contacts".
If "such grubby behaviour" was legal, consensual behaviour between consenting adults?
Yes, sure, why the hell not?
62 year old man gets his rocks off seducing 18 years old barely legal teens online and gets abusive when things go wrong.. Hes a good and proper person to present bbc news at ten though. Ok fair enough.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Behaviour by Boris Johnson absolutely matters. Lawmakers should not be lawbreakers.
And I think most people in Britain tried to stick to the rules. Most Brits are fairly rule abiding, even in unwritten rules like queueing etiquette.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
I get it nothing strictly illegal has been proved. But do you want such a person engaging in such grubby behaviour presenting royal events and bbc news at ten notwithstanding the massive power discrepancy between edwards and his "contacts".
If "such grubby behaviour" was legal, consensual behaviour between consenting adults?
Yes, sure, why the hell not?
62 year old man gets his rocks off seducing 18 years old barely legal teens online and gets abusive when things go wrong.. Hes a good and proper person to present bbc news at ten though. Ok fair enough.
I couldn't give less of a crap how any man or woman gets his or her rocks off. And legal is legal.
Yes, if he's done nothing wrong and it doesn't affect his job, then what's the issue?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side do you bury the survivors? 2) is pineapple on pizza a warcrime? 3) are you @SeanT?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side do you bury the survivors? 2) is pineapple on pizza a warcrime? 3) are you @SeanT?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
They knew full well Huw would end up outed to the world and that it would ruin his career. And that they had no real evidence of a crime.
Yet they went ahead and published in such a way that shielded them from libel, yet had the same impact as if they had named him on day one.
Cowards.
Yes. I admit I went down a rabbit hole on this story - wiser heads on this site warned against it. I regret it now, not just because it's none of my business, and several people will be badly hurt. But also because it was stupid to be manipulated by the Sun. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
'Indecent' rather than pornographic. Indecent is probably quite a bit wider than pornographic, but it is for the jury to determine. Unclothedness in itself is not automatically indecent - as with perfectly innocent family photos of 2 y.o children on the beach.
From Big Bang Theory
Howard: Look at this cute picture of Halley in the bath. Leonard: Aw, that's great. Howard: Want me to send it to you? Leonard: No, on your phone it's cute, on my phone it's a crime.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side do you bury the survivors? 2) is pineapple on pizza a warcrime? 3) are you @SeanT?
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
Regardless Edwards is over 60 and clearly likes them young as in 18 years old and recruiting them from sleazy websites. Notwithstanding he has a wife and 5 children.
It's all a bit Mary Woodhouse. It's legal for a man of any age to view sexually explicit images of any other man of legal age.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
"of legal age" = 18, not 16.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
'Indecent' rather than pornographic. Indecent is probably quite a bit wider than pornographic, but it is for the jury to determine. Unclothedness in itself is not automatically indecent - as with perfectly innocent family photos of 2 y.o children on the beach.
From Big Bang Theory
Howard: Look at this cute picture of Halley in the bath. Leonard: Aw, that's great. Howard: Want me to send it to you? Leonard: No, on your phone it's cute, on my phone it's a crime.
Yes. This all gives pause for thought before entirely innocent action in ways which not all that long ago would never cross our minds.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
No, the argument is who cares what happened if it was legal and between consenting adults?
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
Back onto holiday films, the fun thing about The Rock is that it is Sean Connery's last Bond film. Not only is "John Mason" an obvious Connery Bond, the timeline in the film directly fits his timeline as Bond ...
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
What a load of shite. This is the Murdoch press attacking the BBC, and Huw’s privacy and mental health is the collateral damage.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
That was the allegation yes, and allegations of such nature should be investigated.
Its been investigated, the Police have said no crime committed.
So either the Police are doing something dodgy (not unheard of), or no crime was committed, or a crime was committed but there's no evidence in which case innocent until proven guilty applies anyway.
Either way though, no crime committed, unless new evidence to the contrary comes out.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
What a load of shite. This is the Murdoch press attacking the BBC, and Huw’s privacy and mental health is the collateral damage.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
What a load of shite. This is the Murdoch press attacking the BBC, and Huw’s privacy and mental health is the collateral damage.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
So the young man threatened to out him to the media and then screams threats when the person doesn’t take it well ! I mean wtf did he think would be the response . As for breaking lockdown rules , that’s of course bad but my issue is the person accusing him of this also broke them by meeting up and has the gall to act the moral martyr now .
Yes but they werent presenting the bbc news at ten and telling people to stay home. Totally different.
Ah but they were (deputy) editing the Sun and telling people to stay at home. Not so different.
The most important news this week regarding the BBC came out yesterday - and it's been totally missed by the entire media - the latest figure for the number of TV licences in force.
March 2019 - 26.2m March 2020 - 25.9m March 2021 - 25.2m March 2022 - 24.8m March 2023 - 24.4m
So down 400k in the last 12 months and not far off down 2 million in the last 4 years - although note that some of the fall in 2020/21 was dead people and old people who had moved being deleted from the system (people who the BBC had previously been paid for automatically when the Government paid for all over 75s).
And this at a time when the population and number of households in the country continues to rise.
Almost 3 million households have now formally declared to the BBC that they don't need a TV licence. And the BBC believes the evasion rate is now over 10% (having historically been about 7%).
Contrary to popular perception, the BBC is going to be absolutely desperate to get rid of the TV licence when the Royal Charter expires at the end of 2027 - because at this rate of decline they are going to face permanent and severe contraction.
The only question now is will Starmer agree to a "media levy" on all households - which will annoy everyone who doesn't now have a TV Licence - but if he doesn't the BBC is in big trouble - and far, far bigger trouble than anything to do with Huw Edwards.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
It’s not been confirmed that any money changed hands and is there proof Edwards even knew the person involved was a drug addict or even if that person was actually a drug addict. The police found no criminality and they were under a lot of pressure given the baying mob wanted a public flogging !
Evidently the BBC consider the issue serious enough to have suspended the individual in question, and for the BBC itself to have been giving the story top billing for the past three days.
Poor leadership from the BBC. In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
I'm no fan of the BBC, but I think the BBC have played it with a straight bat and done nothing wrong here.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Now of course you're talking about a very different example, involving a director of government services in a democratic society who could be construed as celebrating anti-democratic and discriminatory values. That to my mind is getting more into my prior understanding of "gross misconduct" outside the workplace, unlike paying for porn.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
No, the argument is who cares what happened if it was legal and between consenting adults?
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
Well that is not how employers, or wider society, incresingly view it, especially in the post Me Too era. If, say, a 60 year old guy were offering a 22 year old woman a role in a film he was directing, in return for her giving him sex, that would not be a criminal matter. One might argue it is simply a transaction between consenting adults. But, his employer, and the wider public, might take a dim view of the matter.
The Sun says it will "provide the BBC team with a confidential and redacted dossier containing serious and wide-ranging allegations which we have received, including some from BBC personnel".
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
The age of consent is 16 so that does not make him a paedophile.
It does mean he was acting in a less than desired moral way at the time but a paedophile, no.
Albeit it is illegal to take photos of under 18s outside your own family but the police are taking no further action in this case
Note the repeated use of the world "child". They were desperate to paint him as a gay kiddy fiddler. Not only was this a lie, they knew it was a lie.
The age of consent in many areas is 18, not 16.
That especially applies to photographs/video - as well as eg for school teachers or others in positions of authority over the children.
17 is a child by law in some areas, and not in other areas. Its grey not black and white.
But the Police have investigated and said no crime, so that's the end of it.
You are torturing the term "age of consent". There are other limits in some circumstances, granted, and as you say the notion of child is variable, but the question in this case revolved around the higher age limit for photos, but that's not the age of consent.
But is Batman Returns (Pfieffer, De Vito) a Christmas film?
Who cares? It's got Michelle Pfieffer in it.
The Fabulous Baker Boys: when her beauty was at its absolute pinnacle. And incidentally a Christmas film.
Rather sadly, given she's playing a junkie and is whippet thin to match, it's Scarface. She was luminous.
Thing is she can really act as well. She’s been in some good films, but some really terrible ones too. But every film she’s in is some 10-20% better just by virtue of her presence.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
What a load of shite. This is the Murdoch press attacking the BBC, and Huw’s privacy and mental health is the collateral damage.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Agreed. You have nailed it.
The argument seems to be "who cares what happened? If The Sun is against him, I'm for him."
No, the argument is who cares what happened if it was legal and between consenting adults?
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
Well that is not how employers, or wider society, incresingly view it, especially in the post Me Too era. If, say, a 60 year old guy were offering a 22 year old woman a role in a film he was directing, in return for her giving him sex, that would not be a criminal matter. One might argue it is simply a transaction between consenting adults. But, his employer, and the wider public, might take a dim view of the matter.
This is an example of behaviour in a workplace - where it is far simpler to evidence why the employer's trust in the employee has been breached.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Yes, quite. I'd like to see the local government contract that says "If you engage in legal sexual activity that we don't like, we'll take away the pension to which you've contributed". Certain jobs - perhaps including newsreaders - may have a catch-all clause saying they mustn't behave in a manner that causes embarassment to the institution, but not, I'd suggest, a job like housing officer.
As for the public interest, what is it? Why does it affect us what a newsreader does in bed? The public interest is that we don't make public life so hazardous that only the foolhardy and the shameless dare to take any public-facing job.
I'd say the same if it was the Guardian exposing a GBTV personality. I don't care what their sex life is like, and nor should a newspaper.
Takagi-san: Huw Edwards Hans Gruber: The S*n Leon: the coked-up "bubby" with the Rolex
Edwards hasn't been stitched up here. It wasn't a sting. He has behaved extremely dubiously. All the Sun have done is reported it. Stop trying to make him into a martyr.
They claimed his "victim" was a 17 year old child.
Child porn images. Groomed for cash.
Which makes Edwards a paedophile, does it not?
They claimed being the operative word...should the police investigate certainly and if guilty he should be a rolf a like. If not guilty it has destroyed a mans life and that of his family for no more than gossip
Not really. His behaviour in threatening a young man was pretty disgusting. He also broke lockdown rules at a time when he was telling people to stay home.
Almost everyone who wasn't in a care institution or prison etc. broke lockdown rules.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun was making clear that they hold elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
By that argument Boris Johnson should be let off scott free. Thanks for confirming you didnt take lockdown seriously though.
Do you disagree on the substantive premise though that most people in Britain broke lockdown rules? Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Actually i know many people who took lockdown incredibly seriously. Thanks for confirming your cavalier attitude to spreading a virus during a pandemic though.
Welcome to PB
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
Isn’t the allegation here that the chap was under 18? Which would make it soliciting child porn? And a crime?
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
I'm talking about Sean_F's outline of a scenario, not anything else. To my mind, gross misconduct means the ability to breach the usual contract and legal rights of employments. With all due respect to HR as a specialty, that makes me think I'd rather hear from the lawyers.
In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
Why was it upheld though?
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?
Comments
I hope he gets well and he and his family find some peace in the coming days, weeks and months.
That especially applies to photographs/video - as well as eg for school teachers or others in positions of authority over the children.
17 is a child by law in some areas, and not in other areas. Its grey not black and white.
But the Police have investigated and said no crime, so that's the end of it.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/37021/how-do-these-apollo-mission-control-displays-work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2v4kH_PsN8
Basically, a series of projections and recordings to overlay stuff.
You may disapprove and that's up to you. But an awful lot of people watch an awful lot of pornography. It's all legal, and what happens in private - wife and kids or not - is non of our Business.
The only thing that may be an issue now is the allegations of inappropriate behaviour that have been mentioned.
2. October 2024
3. The number of votes for Conservative candidates will be less than that for Labour
4. Depending on when you mean "dinner" I find this time of year is best served with chicken Caesar salad with fruit to follow, with a light crisp wine for the evening
A less fair point for the people like Death Rigby and Burley who were screaming at Ministers why aren't they locking down sooner, harder etc
Barbara Woodhouse
I am not defending Huw so much as condemning the deplorable Sun.
It is far from clear who is in the right or wrong and exactly what for.
Take, purchase or distribute pornographic images of 16/17 year olds and you can spend time at His Majesty's Pleasure.
What about the threatening messages to the 17 year old and attempts to meet during lockdown? Confirmed, I believe, by the BBC
What about the, I think, at least three (one current, two ex?) Beeb employees who have complained already about his inappropriate messages?
And is anyone confident that that's it?
I don't want him hounded, but I also don't want the objects of his curious sexual desires to be silenced if they want to speak out
I'm surprised anyone would want to commit themselves to being on his side before hearing what might be to come
It’s vomit inducing though to see people like Lee Anderson scoring points over this . And it’s been clear for years that some Tories want to destroy the BBC .
If he is found to have behaved inappropriately at work then that would be a different matter.
If the young person was under 18, then there'd have been a crime committed but the Police have said there wasn't.
Also how do we know he wasn't arrested at some time during the past few days? He probably was, to judge from what the Independent wrote in that URL.
Sounds to me that whoever put this story into the Sun and kept it running was making clear that they hold photoint or elint of him being at those railway stations when he shouldn't have been. Goodness knows what else they hold photoint or elint of him doing.
I hinted at his history of depression before his name was released. (So did Jeremy Vine.) It's not surprising that he's done a Challenor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Challenor
Let's hope his health bears up. One thing he won't be doing while he's (said to be) in "hospital" is giving his side of the story.
Was "WFZ" behind this? Cui bono?
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1618.html
It's quite easy to form a reasonable opinion at say p=0.75 from the public version of that judgment what sector the national and international figure WFZ works in.
Quite easy to guess too with lower p what the place was where he was arrested in 2022, and indeed who he is.
and
I became a sex worker but I am surprised someone asked me for sexy pictures
If you go on onlyfans in that line you are explicitly saying I am a sexworker
The guy bought what she/he was selling is all
There do seem to be other allegations too emerging.
We don't know how long he has been having these relationships. I do wonder if future generations will have these sorts of exposures. I think Huw wouldn't have had such a glittering career if outed younger in the Eighties or nineties.
What this now seems to boil down to, certainly in the events that were reported before today (but that have been ruled out as criminal activity) is a man who has made some very bad errors of judgment in the way he has pursued sexual thrills and spoken to people online, but not in a way that affected his job*. I understand why people might enjoy reading the salacious details, but I am not sure it should have passed as publishable content.
I do on a personal level feel desperately sorry for all involved because I cannot imagine how awful it must be to have such a spotlight shone on you. At the end of the day yes he has created this situation for himself and his family in the way he has behaved but I struggle to see a justification as to why the public needed to know all this in the way it came out.
*I am aware that there are some suggestions of improper behaviour with colleagues but that is a separate issue - if for the sake of argument someone had whistleblown on potentially inappropriate behaviour at work, as a public-facing figure I can see more of an argument for reporting.
They knew full well Huw would end up outed to the world and that it would ruin his career. And that they had no real evidence of a crime.
Yet they went ahead and published in such a way that shielded them from libel, yet had the same impact as if they had named him on day one.
Cowards.
Natalie Banus IIRC.
Those pictures were legal then but not now so, presumably, people could not now own them or copies of magazines, from the time, for that era that had then legal images of 16 or 17 year olds.
An individual "prankster" did it and faked the header to make it look like a newspaper. It was then reported during testimony at levenson as fact, but it was untrue.
Thanks.
Possible behaviour by either Boris Johnson or myself is of little importance. We're only two adults out of ~60m.
Yes, sure, why the hell not?
I haven’t had any tomatoes yet, but both the plums and the cherries are coming on nicely
I’ve had so many mini cucumbers that I’m already giving them away
And I think most people in Britain tried to stick to the rules. Most Brits are fairly rule abiding, even in unwritten rules like queueing etiquette.
Yes, if he's done nothing wrong and it doesn't affect his job, then what's the issue?
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side do you bury the survivors?
2) is pineapple on pizza a warcrime?
3) are you @SeanT?
Howard: Look at this cute picture of Halley in the bath.
Leonard: Aw, that's great.
Howard: Want me to send it to you?
Leonard: No, on your phone it's cute, on my phone it's a crime.
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side We are all @SeanT
Except for @SeanT
London branch of the bacon covering themselves in glory yet again it seems to me. Establishment circling the wagons.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
I couldn't care less if it was the Sun, the Mirror, Heat magazine or the Grauniad against him. What happens between two consenting adults is nobody else's business, end of story.
This is the Murdoch press attacking the BBC, and Huw’s privacy and mental health is the collateral damage.
No surprises where your sympathies lie, though.
Good to see @Pagan2 and @BartholomewRoberts have their heads screwed on.
Its been investigated, the Police have said no crime committed.
So either the Police are doing something dodgy (not unheard of), or no crime was committed, or a crime was committed but there's no evidence in which case innocent until proven guilty applies anyway.
Either way though, no crime committed, unless new evidence to the contrary comes out.
In Cummings-speak, this is a denial-of-service attack on the BBC and they have walked into it and are now flailing about self-destructively.
Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
March 2019 - 26.2m
March 2020 - 25.9m
March 2021 - 25.2m
March 2022 - 24.8m
March 2023 - 24.4m
So down 400k in the last 12 months and not far off down 2 million in the last 4 years - although note that some of the fall in 2020/21 was dead people and old people who had moved being deleted from the system (people who the BBC had previously been paid for automatically when the Government paid for all over 75s).
And this at a time when the population and number of households in the country continues to rise.
Almost 3 million households have now formally declared to the BBC that they don't need a TV licence. And the BBC believes the evasion rate is now over 10% (having historically been about 7%).
Contrary to popular perception, the BBC is going to be absolutely desperate to get rid of the TV licence when the Royal Charter expires at the end of 2027 - because at this rate of decline they are going to face permanent and severe contraction.
The only question now is will Starmer agree to a "media levy" on all households - which will annoy everyone who doesn't now have a TV Licence - but if he doesn't the BBC is in big trouble - and far, far bigger trouble than anything to do with Huw Edwards.
1) if a planet crashes on the Ukraine /Republic of China border, on what side In HR world it’s not breaking laws, it’s Bringing The Company Into Disrepute.
I mentioned the other day, the story of some traders who drank some very expensive wine at a lunch. They paid for the wine with their own money. They committed no crime. They even tipped 15% on the vast bill They were sacked when it got in the papers - and it was upheld in court.
If a serious allegation is made, then it should be investigated. Pending investigation then a suspension is entirely appropriate, but in such circumstances a suspension is not a sanction and is not a predetermination of wrong doing.
The Police have investigated him and found no crime committed. So that draws a line under that element.
The BBC need to investigate and see if any internal policies that don't amount to crimes have been violated. EG any allegations of bullying etc may not be crimes but may be disciplinary offences.
But its entirely possible that at the end of the investigation the BBC, like the Police, clear him of any wrongdoing.
Being salacious is not gross misconduct any more than its not a crime.
The Sun says it will "provide the BBC team with a confidential and redacted dossier containing serious and wide-ranging allegations which we have received, including some from BBC personnel".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469
As for the public interest, what is it? Why does it affect us what a newsreader does in bed? The public interest is that we don't make public life so hazardous that only the foolhardy and the shameless dare to take any public-facing job.
I'd say the same if it was the Guardian exposing a GBTV personality. I don't care what their sex life is like, and nor should a newspaper.
Lunch is during the work day and alcohol at lunchtime is a murky area nowadays.
If the traders had drank some very expensive win on a Friday night when they weren't due back to work until Monday, then would it have been upheld in court?