There isn't much of a left left now, but one weakness of what used to pass for the left in Britain and of the relics of it that still exist has been that while they commendably detested the Scum (credit where it's due!), they had little to say about the BBC.
The government department or propaganda ministry called the BBC is about as establishmentarian and, when it really comes down to it, as "one nation" TORY as it is possible to be.
The left has been unable to say this. (One exception I can think of is Craig Murray. I don't even know whether he'd call himself on the left, but he'd probably agree with the previous paragraph.)
Then you can look at say David Attenborough or Michael Wood and tell me they're not pushing white-boy globalist British neo-colonialism.
"The so-called Islamic State group", lol. Nobody on what passes for the left even rips into that kind of terminology. They haven't got the sense.
Is Michael Wood still going? If you wrote that line on a Saturday morning, people would be asking about the weather in Saint Petersburg (eta ah, I see they already have). Up till then, yes, you are right, and many on the left have said as much.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
Yes, the parents were anxious. But what, exactly, could the BBC have done that would have addressed that anxiety? Becuase it's very clear that, in a formal sense, nothing punishable had happened.
They could have had a better set of communications with the parents. But would saying "it's not any of our business" over a coffee sat on a sofa have made any difference to how this has played out?
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
He is best ignored. I can never work out if he is also had / having some mental breakdown, or after gaining a bit of traction saying some mildly controversial things, he has leaned in so far to the "trolling" / "generate outrage" approach to getting noticed he has now fallen head long off the side of a cliff.
I am a believer that there is a new form of mid-life crisis among (mildly) famous people who appear to require constant reinforcement that comes from large social media engagement.
Either way, his actions are not worth the oxygen of publicity.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
The BBC have done nothing wrong.
They received a complaint, they investigated it. They tried to contact the parents by email - the parents didn't respond to the email. They tried to call them - the parents didn't answer the call or return it.
What else should they have done in your eyes?
The BBC probably gets unsubstantiated allegations against presenters all the time from weirdos and cranks, they need to take allegations seriously and investigate if there's evidence but if nobody even replies when they're contacted then what more can the BBC do?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
Huw Edwards is just collateral damage in the battle to undermine the BBC. The fact that, after the announcement of the death of QE2 and the subsequent coronation, he was practically the face of the Corporation put a big target on his back, and these ruthless, cynical people didn´t care if their insinuations and outright lies drove a man to a nervous breakdown.
In the 54 years since Murdoch took over the S*n it, has been a tawdry, negative, nasty rag promoting its proprietor´s twisted political agenda and conducting his personal and commercial vendettas, including his long running battle against public service broadcasting.
Personally I hope that The S'n gets sued to oblivion. The Times is just as bad, it just uses longer words.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
Yes, the parents were anxious. But what, exactly, could the BBC have done that would have addressed that anxiety? Becuase it's very clear that, in a formal sense, nothing punishable had happened.
They could have had a better set of communications with the parents. But would saying "it's not any of our business" over a coffee sat on a sofa have made any difference to how this has played out?
The one thing I would say is nothing is 'very clear' in this sad saga
I would also comment it does not have to be criminal - it could be bringing the BBC into disrepute
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
Er… not knowing who the best chancellor would be is complicated by many of the candidates not having been chancellor. In the face of it that is rather good for Reeves.
Yup, it’s drift back. The hard core Tory vote is 22% or something near to that. The next 3% is pretty much hard core.
Starmer & Co. continue to poll at near their maximum possible.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
I'd suggest that one of the reasons that Edwards is so highly regarded as a front man is that, although he's been around a long time, nobody actually knows what his personal politics are - which makes him right for the BBC. I haven't got a clue what he really thinks. Whereas I do have a view on some of the likely replacements.
He's fairly clearly Welsh nationalist in some form - and was adjudged biased in at least one program he made, on that basis.
...In September 2008, the BBC Trust ruled that a documentary presented by Edwards on the subject of Welsh politics had broken the organisation's editorial guidelines. The programme, entitled Wales: Power and the People – Back to the Future, addressed the topic of the Welsh Assembly, with Edwards stating, "to achieve its full potential it needs even greater support for the people of Wales than it's received so far ... the more people that take part, the stronger and healthier our democracy in Wales will be." Following a complaint, the governing body concluded that Edwards' words were not objective and even-handed on the subject, saying, "It is not the role of BBC presenters to encourage audiences to exercise their right to vote on particular occasions." It was also found that the documentary as a whole was biased against the Conservative Party...
But I agree that generally his distinguishing feature is blandness.
The full report is interesting in that respect. To my reading it upholds the complaint about urging people to vote for the assembly (but more in the language than the action) and upholds a complaint that there was a lack of people in the programme with more positive view of Thatcher specifically. I don't find a general finding of bias against the Conservative Party, although it's possible I missed that if not somewhere obvious.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Even an idiot can be correct occasionally. It’s a point made by many, on all sides of the political spectrum, that disappearing to the Priory for a few weeks, to sort out your demons, is an opportunity only afforded to the very wealthy. Many of whom have been in legal trouble, and get a good lawyer to explain that they have a problem with drink/drugs/sex, for which they are seeking treatment, as mitigation in sentencing for offences that would see the rest of us looking at eating prison food.
Women's football wibble: "On proposals to provide one source of funding from levelling FA Cup prize money across the men's and women's game, she added: "I'd hope there would not be a backlash.
"There are so many issues and women's sport has struggled for so long I'd hope there'd be an understanding but with anything there'll always be someone who will challenge it.
"I could have said equalise prize money right now but that would have taken down the pyramid of men's football. We should absolutely be going for equal prize money [in the future] from the FA Cup and the FA should be putting a timescale on that.""
Prize money is a consequence of revenue and income generated. It's not given to the men because they're men, but because men's football is a massive sport. And while women's football has grown a lot lately, it's nowhere near in the same league. When women can generate the same revenue, they'll deserve the same prize money. When they generate more than the men, they'll deserve more prize money than the men.
The sport where I found it most ridiculous that there was a great furore about equalising men's and women's prize money was tennis. The women's game in tennis is a sport that generates a lot of attention, but while equalising the payouts they didn't change the fact that men's grand slam tennis is best of 5 sets, while women's is best of 3 sets.
So each women's match in a grand slam can be over in about an hour, while a men's match can take 5 hours and often spill into a second day.
Women's grand slam tennis should be best of 5 sets IMHO.
Womens' tennis, however, is more interesting, as there are fewer aces served.
It is all boring crap
Is there anything you actually like, Malc? Other than turnips and Alex Salmond, obviously.
I like my wife , real football, horse racing , reading , the great outdoors, beer , Porsche, Pizza , wine............. + many more , watching golf / cycling is reasonable , like watching skiing. I could go on.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Presumably the police have gained access to the communication system involved, and agreed with everyone concerned that they were no explicit pictures of minors involved.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures came later and were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Even an idiot can be correct occasionally. It’s a point made by many, on all sides of the political spectrum, that disappearing to the Priory for a few week, to sort out your demons, is an opportunity only afforded to the very wealthy. Many of whom have been in legal trouble, and get a good lawyer to explain that they have a problem with drink/drugs/sex, for which they are seeking treatment, as mitigation in sentencing for offences that would see the rest of looking at eating prison food.
I’ve mentioned before a psychiatrist friend (NHS) who was put under pressure to get some people into the “medical” track, as way of getting them out of facing criminal consequences.
As with many other issues, such ADHD, there is a genuine issue. And there is genuine abuse of the issue - twisting it to other ends.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Presumably the police have gained access to the communication system involved, and agreed with everyone concerned that they were no explicit pictures of minors involved.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
Exactly, its the evidence that matters.
There's an element of MRDA to the alleged victim saying the offence didn't happen.
If it didn't happen, then of course they'd say it didn't happen.
But if it did happen, they could be scarred, and say it didn't happen as a result.
So we can't take a denial from the alleged victim as the end of the matter. There needs to be a proper investigation, and that has happened.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Good luck finding an NHS in-patient mental health bed in your own town generally. You will be lucky if the only bed is only 50 miles away.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Even an idiot can be correct occasionally. It’s a point made by many, on all sides of the political spectrum, that disappearing to the Priory for a few week, to sort out your demons, is an opportunity only afforded to the very wealthy. Many of whom have been in legal trouble, and get a good lawyer to explain that they have a problem with drink/drugs/sex, for which they are seeking treatment, as mitigation in sentencing for offences that would see the rest of looking at eating prison food.
I’ve mentioned before a psychiatrist friend (NHS) who was put under pressure to get some people into the “medical” track, as way of getting them out of facing criminal consequences.
As with many other issues, such ADHD, there is a genuine issue. And there is genuine abuse of the issue - twisting it to other ends.
To be clear, I don't for one moment believe Edwards is faking it - I have no reason to, you do need a GP referral, he has a long track record of admitted depression which I do not believe was just preparing the ground for this. But absent BUPA cover and/or independent wealth, I doubt he would now be in hospital.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Good luck finding an NHS in-patient mental health bed in your own town generally. You will be lucky if the only bed is only 50 miles away.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Even an idiot can be correct occasionally. It’s a point made by many, on all sides of the political spectrum, that disappearing to the Priory for a few week, to sort out your demons, is an opportunity only afforded to the very wealthy. Many of whom have been in legal trouble, and get a good lawyer to explain that they have a problem with drink/drugs/sex, for which they are seeking treatment, as mitigation in sentencing for offences that would see the rest of looking at eating prison food.
I’ve mentioned before a psychiatrist friend (NHS) who was put under pressure to get some people into the “medical” track, as way of getting them out of facing criminal consequences.
As with many other issues, such ADHD, there is a genuine issue. And there is genuine abuse of the issue - twisting it to other ends.
To be clear, I don't for one moment believe Edwards is faking it - I have no reason to, you do need a GP referral, he has a long track record of admitted depression which I do not believe was just preparing the ground for this. But absent BUPA cover and/or independent wealth, I doubt he would now be in hospital.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Presumably the police have gained access to the communication system involved, and agreed with everyone concerned that they were no explicit pictures of minors involved.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures came later and were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
We should move on, and let's. The less the better re this 'story' imo.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Good luck finding an NHS in-patient mental health bed in your own town generally. You will be lucky if the only bed is only 50 miles away.
Given the experience of a friend - a suicide attempt that was judged to be serious and an ongoing issue was the only thing that seemed to get immediate response.
The main news for once isn't the Government so perhaps there's a bit of drift back.
That seems to be the pattern currently. A quiet week or two allows those undecideds (who we all know will eventually find a reason to vote Tory) to get comfortable enough to tick the blue box.
Then another government screw up or outrage renders it more PC to say undecided again (or Refuk or independent), so they do.
Meanwhile the long term trend will continue to be based on perceptions of economic competence and the state of public services.
Having spent a few days this week in hospital I would say the local NHS is under the usual major strain but not having one of its breaking point moments. 4 hours to be seen in A&E, then parked on a trolley in a bay in resus for 2 hours as there were no beds available, which is just averagely shit UK healthcare.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Presumably the police have gained access to the communication system involved, and agreed with everyone concerned that they were no explicit pictures of minors involved.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures came later and were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
We should move on, and let's. The less the better re this 'story' imo.
Particularly since there seems to be next to no actual evidence available as to what actually happened.
Until there is, it’s all building castles in the sky.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
Clearly you hate the Sun as do many. I think it will be a long time until the full story comes out and for now it’s basically a tragedy for Huw Edwards’ family, a tragedy for Huw Edwards even if his behaviour was truly less than ideal to individuals, his family, colleagues it’s still a tragedy.
The problem is that this is currently a “my team” v “the team I hate” argument.
I find it very hard to believe that if one of the following was happening then the same angst and anger would be displayed by one group and would be displayed by another.
If exactly the same accusations had been levelled in the Guardian at a senior Sun exec.
The NYT did the same to a senior Fox News presenter.
The Mirror did the same to a GB News presenter.
It’s very easy to attack the messenger because the messenger has been a bad actor in the past but if the messenger is delivering news that shines a light on bad deeds then it’s still shining a light on bad deeds despite the motivation you might feel is behind it.
The Daily Mail efforts re Stephen Lawrence doesn’t absolve them of the other shit they do but it doesn’t change they exposed the wrongs.
It could turn out that this story is purely about a man who has mental health issues who blew out a bit but nothing illegal (as it’s clear it’s not) and it would have been better if the Sun had not gone in all guns blazing but also the BBC should have listened earlier and stepped in to help.
It could turn out that there is more to come such as, and this is purely hypothetical, a public figure was being a bit of a monster to people which was also being reflected in how he treated junior colleagues which affected their wellbeing in the workplace and made them fear for their career if they pushed back. In this case then surely in this day and age we are all for people in positions of hierarchy abusing those positions and damaging the mental health of juniors being rooted out. This raises the question of whether the BBC, the national broadcaster, is carrying out its duty of care to staff which is of public interest and concern.
Shining a light on abuses in organisations and industries is a good thing even if the way it’s done is grim. We might not have had people like Epstein and Weinstein exposed if people were more concerned about the messenger than the message - if the political outlook of a paper who exposed them was against yours then you would I hope have been pleased that they exposed.
So to focus on the idea that this is all about the Sun kicking the BBC for ideological reasons is to distract from the seriousness or no of what has happened otherwise you go down the Trumpian route of saying that anything you disagree with is politically motivated and fake news.
Its true that I despise The S*n and all it stands for. But what they have done isn't specific to them. The phone hacking thing broke News of the World, but Piers Moron's Mirror was also waist deep in the same shit.
I look at this kind of predator journalism and nod my head as justification for why I quit the industry after a year. There is a very basic principle - print the truth. I have no concern about columnists or even editorial pieces spinning the truth, that is fair game.
This wasn't spin. This wasn't knowing something to be a lie and printing it anyway. Repeatedly. That they have since tried to claim they alleged no criminality despite their claims of such still being all over their website just makes it worse.
Yes its Murdoch media at it again which makes it worse. But had the Daily Star done this I would be similarly appalled. As I suspect would many of the people here defending this newspaper because actually you do on some level support the "hack the legs out of the woke blob" strategy which is in play.
Y0u seem to have taped a lightproof paper bag over your head on day 1 of this story. NOBODY is defending rhe Sun. Nobody has defended the Sun. The Sun are shitbags. People are just pointing out to you that your spartist template turns out not to fit. Celebs are celebs. People like stories about them. Especially in the silly season. The end.
There's been quite a lot of defence of both The S*n and the "BBC should still fire him" narrative on here. You can't say NOBODY because that patently isn't true. And out there in media land the pile on is still going on - the bottom feeding media still wants a bite even though the meal has been taken out of the water.
So lets take a few steps back from my alleged "Spartist template" (nice turn of phrase btw - have you considered journalism and go back to basics. The guy has been massively libelled and once he recovers himself from mental hospital should sue. The size of the damages will be higher because of the fact that he ended up in hospital.
Well I am not seeing it. I also don't buy your "with one bound he was free" narrative, even on the agreed facts he is someone I would go to great lengths to distance myself from, and who knows what is to come?
I am not right wing.
The interesting part of this is the nature of man's relationship with pornography. I am not particularly interested in what turns you on. Or Huw Edwards. Or S*n journalists.
The reason why we have strict laws in this area is to protect people - both the creators of said porn to stop them being abused / exploited / trafficked etc. And the users of said porn to ensure that what they are viewing is legal.
We can have a moral debate about should a 60 year old man be whacking off to images of 18 year old men. And another one about whether him being married makes a difference to that debate.
What I don't think we should have is a morality police hit mob. Where what gets you or I off legally is a matter for public scrutiny and judgement. Because once we start overturning rocks looking for mud, all we will see is mud. Because almost everyone can be judged by morality police hate mobs of being deviant from the norm. Because there is no norm.
It's more a question of commissioning porn than consuming it. If all he'd done was buy it then there would never have been a story.
Commissioning porn isn't news. OnlyFans has existed for a good few years now.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
Clearly you hate the Sun as do many. I think it will be a long time until the full story comes out and for now it’s basically a tragedy for Huw Edwards’ family, a tragedy for Huw Edwards even if his behaviour was truly less than ideal to individuals, his family, colleagues it’s still a tragedy.
The problem is that this is currently a “my team” v “the team I hate” argument.
I find it very hard to believe that if one of the following was happening then the same angst and anger would be displayed by one group and would be displayed by another.
If exactly the same accusations had been levelled in the Guardian at a senior Sun exec.
The NYT did the same to a senior Fox News presenter.
The Mirror did the same to a GB News presenter.
It’s very easy to attack the messenger because the messenger has been a bad actor in the past but if the messenger is delivering news that shines a light on bad deeds then it’s still shining a light on bad deeds despite the motivation you might feel is behind it.
The Daily Mail efforts re Stephen Lawrence doesn’t absolve them of the other shit they do but it doesn’t change they exposed the wrongs.
It could turn out that this story is purely about a man who has mental health issues who blew out a bit but nothing illegal (as it’s clear it’s not) and it would have been better if the Sun had not gone in all guns blazing but also the BBC should have listened earlier and stepped in to help.
It could turn out that there is more to come such as, and this is purely hypothetical, a public figure was being a bit of a monster to people which was also being reflected in how he treated junior colleagues which affected their wellbeing in the workplace and made them fear for their career if they pushed back. In this case then surely in this day and age we are all for people in positions of hierarchy abusing those positions and damaging the mental health of juniors being rooted out. This raises the question of whether the BBC, the national broadcaster, is carrying out its duty of care to staff which is of public interest and concern.
Shining a light on abuses in organisations and industries is a good thing even if the way it’s done is grim. We might not have had people like Epstein and Weinstein exposed if people were more concerned about the messenger than the message - if the political outlook of a paper who exposed them was against yours then you would I hope have been pleased that they exposed.
So to focus on the idea that this is all about the Sun kicking the BBC for ideological reasons is to distract from the seriousness or no of what has happened otherwise you go down the Trumpian route of saying that anything you disagree with is politically motivated and fake news.
Its true that I despise The S*n and all it stands for. But what they have done isn't specific to them. The phone hacking thing broke News of the World, but Piers Moron's Mirror was also waist deep in the same shit.
I look at this kind of predator journalism and nod my head as justification for why I quit the industry after a year. There is a very basic principle - print the truth. I have no concern about columnists or even editorial pieces spinning the truth, that is fair game.
This wasn't spin. This wasn't knowing something to be a lie and printing it anyway. Repeatedly. That they have since tried to claim they alleged no criminality despite their claims of such still being all over their website just makes it worse.
Yes its Murdoch media at it again which makes it worse. But had the Daily Star done this I would be similarly appalled. As I suspect would many of the people here defending this newspaper because actually you do on some level support the "hack the legs out of the woke blob" strategy which is in play.
Y0u seem to have taped a lightproof paper bag over your head on day 1 of this story. NOBODY is defending rhe Sun. Nobody has defended the Sun. The Sun are shitbags. People are just pointing out to you that your spartist template turns out not to fit. Celebs are celebs. People like stories about them. Especially in the silly season. The end.
There's been quite a lot of defence of both The S*n and the "BBC should still fire him" narrative on here. You can't say NOBODY because that patently isn't true. And out there in media land the pile on is still going on - the bottom feeding media still wants a bite even though the meal has been taken out of the water.
So lets take a few steps back from my alleged "Spartist template" (nice turn of phrase btw - have you considered journalism and go back to basics. The guy has been massively libelled and once he recovers himself from mental hospital should sue. The size of the damages will be higher because of the fact that he ended up in hospital.
Well I am not seeing it. I also don't buy your "with one bound he was free" narrative, even on the agreed facts he is someone I would go to great lengths to distance myself from, and who knows what is to come?
I am not right wing.
The interesting part of this is the nature of man's relationship with pornography. I am not particularly interested in what turns you on. Or Huw Edwards. Or S*n journalists.
The reason why we have strict laws in this area is to protect people - both the creators of said porn to stop them being abused / exploited / trafficked etc. And the users of said porn to ensure that what they are viewing is legal.
We can have a moral debate about should a 60 year old man be whacking off to images of 18 year old men. And another one about whether him being married makes a difference to that debate.
What I don't think we should have is a morality police hit mob. Where what gets you or I off legally is a matter for public scrutiny and judgement. Because once we start overturning rocks looking for mud, all we will see is mud. Because almost everyone can be judged by morality police hate mobs of being deviant from the norm. Because there is no norm.
I don't classify this as pornography. Asking a random bloke one-on-one for custom-made snaps is a different thing from downloading preexisting images of King Dong in a state of arousal.
OnlyFans. Pay for what you want the model to do. If they are willing to do it, and you are willing to pay what they want for doing it, and you can have anything you like.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
His name was being bandied about on social media, but then, so were others. If you simply read the story, would you think "that's Huw Edwards they're talking about?" Actually, he's one of the last people I would ever have suspected.
If their story were based upon statements given by the parents, I think a PI defence could be mounted.
And if other allegations about the man, which seem to be swirling about right now, were to prove well-founded, I don't think he'd be well-advised to go to court.
Not when the alleged victim had told them it was a pack of lies before they published.
If the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged crime then that's not relevant.
A crime is a crime if it involves a child whether the child cooperates or not. If there is a serious allegation with evidence then that can lead to a conviction even if the child denies it happened.
If someone makes a complaint to the police along these lines then they have to investigate - it is too serious not to. Especially when a child is involved because very understandably they can be in denial of what occurred.
We know that. But this is different. The "child" was 17 when the crimes were alleged to take place. When we have estranged parents giving their story to a red top, and the supposed victim very clearly saying not only is it a lie but that he's estranged from his parents, the investigation is unlikely to take very long. And by the look of it the polis gave it a cursory look and said "no crime committed".
If you are the editor of The S*n or any other media outlet, you are not the police. You don't get to adjudicate on what may or may not be a crime. You can't choose to set aside the word of the alleged victim denying your story and print anyway because its juicy and suits your agenda.
Well you can. If you want to have your arse sued off.
If they have a credible source they can quote they absolutely can and should set aside the words of someone who was a child when the alleged is offence occurred.
Let's say hypothetically that a parent discovers their child has been abused and the abuser has been recording the abuse and the parent stumbled upon the evidence. Child continues to deny any abuse occurs even though there's video evidence that it did.
Should this be a non story because of the word of a child? Or should the word of the parents and the evidence they have be sufficient to proceed even though the child denies that which there is documentary evidence towards.
When it comes to children it's not only the victim who can complain - and for damned good reasons.
The issue here is the apparent lack of evidence to substantiate the story, not that the child concerned said it didn't happen.
In this case, the "child" is 20 years old and was 17 so perhaps a more credible witness than the much younger child you seem to be describing. You were taken in by the Sun's deliberately misleading language. So were other newspapers. But when in a hole, stop digging.
I wasn't taken in, I said from the start that I'm not making any judgment and its for the Police to investigate and we should not leap to either "a crime has been committed" or "no crime has been committed" until the investigation has closed.
Well, its closed now. So that's that. That the "child" was 17 at the time of the alleged offence makes them . . . "a child" in the eyes of the law.
Whether they're 7 or 17 is immaterial, the law is 18, so anything lower than 18 is a child, no ifs, no buts and equivocation.
And whether they're 20 now or not is immaterial too. The law is about the age of the child in question at the time the alleged offence happened, not what age they are now.
The issue here is that the Police have found apparently no evidence of criminal activity, not that the alleged victim denies it, had there been evidence it would be a different matter again regardless of what the alleged victim says, but if there's no evidence then that's that, case closed.
Why are you never prepared to accept you were wromg instead of doing ludicrous hand stands and rapid moving of goalposts? This is the technique of your one time champion Boris 'Almost certainly the best Prime Minister since the war with the possible exception of Thatcher'. Like Boris Johnson you sound like an overgrown schoolboy in a second rate debating socierty who just has to show they're always right. You suck the air out of adult discussion.
Because I wasn't wrong?
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Presumably the police have gained access to the communication system involved, and agreed with everyone concerned that they were no explicit pictures of minors involved.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures came later and were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
We should move on, and let's. The less the better re this 'story' imo.
Particularly since there seems to be next to no actual evidence available as to what actually happened.
Until there is, it’s all building castles in the sky.
This kind of story just doesn’t justify the mass coverage. Like the Schofield palaver. Best ignored.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
Further to this, there's a TV drama with Anna Pacquin called 'Flack' about a 'crisis management PR expert' - there's a couple of series on catch up, it's darkly funny and breathtakingly cynical, and very pertinent to recent events.
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
Clearly you hate the Sun as do many. I think it will be a long time until the full story comes out and for now it’s basically a tragedy for Huw Edwards’ family, a tragedy for Huw Edwards even if his behaviour was truly less than ideal to individuals, his family, colleagues it’s still a tragedy.
The problem is that this is currently a “my team” v “the team I hate” argument.
I find it very hard to believe that if one of the following was happening then the same angst and anger would be displayed by one group and would be displayed by another.
If exactly the same accusations had been levelled in the Guardian at a senior Sun exec.
The NYT did the same to a senior Fox News presenter.
The Mirror did the same to a GB News presenter.
It’s very easy to attack the messenger because the messenger has been a bad actor in the past but if the messenger is delivering news that shines a light on bad deeds then it’s still shining a light on bad deeds despite the motivation you might feel is behind it.
The Daily Mail efforts re Stephen Lawrence doesn’t absolve them of the other shit they do but it doesn’t change they exposed the wrongs.
It could turn out that this story is purely about a man who has mental health issues who blew out a bit but nothing illegal (as it’s clear it’s not) and it would have been better if the Sun had not gone in all guns blazing but also the BBC should have listened earlier and stepped in to help.
It could turn out that there is more to come such as, and this is purely hypothetical, a public figure was being a bit of a monster to people which was also being reflected in how he treated junior colleagues which affected their wellbeing in the workplace and made them fear for their career if they pushed back. In this case then surely in this day and age we are all for people in positions of hierarchy abusing those positions and damaging the mental health of juniors being rooted out. This raises the question of whether the BBC, the national broadcaster, is carrying out its duty of care to staff which is of public interest and concern.
Shining a light on abuses in organisations and industries is a good thing even if the way it’s done is grim. We might not have had people like Epstein and Weinstein exposed if people were more concerned about the messenger than the message - if the political outlook of a paper who exposed them was against yours then you would I hope have been pleased that they exposed.
So to focus on the idea that this is all about the Sun kicking the BBC for ideological reasons is to distract from the seriousness or no of what has happened otherwise you go down the Trumpian route of saying that anything you disagree with is politically motivated and fake news.
Its true that I despise The S*n and all it stands for. But what they have done isn't specific to them. The phone hacking thing broke News of the World, but Piers Moron's Mirror was also waist deep in the same shit.
I look at this kind of predator journalism and nod my head as justification for why I quit the industry after a year. There is a very basic principle - print the truth. I have no concern about columnists or even editorial pieces spinning the truth, that is fair game.
This wasn't spin. This wasn't knowing something to be a lie and printing it anyway. Repeatedly. That they have since tried to claim they alleged no criminality despite their claims of such still being all over their website just makes it worse.
Yes its Murdoch media at it again which makes it worse. But had the Daily Star done this I would be similarly appalled. As I suspect would many of the people here defending this newspaper because actually you do on some level support the "hack the legs out of the woke blob" strategy which is in play.
Y0u seem to have taped a lightproof paper bag over your head on day 1 of this story. NOBODY is defending rhe Sun. Nobody has defended the Sun. The Sun are shitbags. People are just pointing out to you that your spartist template turns out not to fit. Celebs are celebs. People like stories about them. Especially in the silly season. The end.
There's been quite a lot of defence of both The S*n and the "BBC should still fire him" narrative on here. You can't say NOBODY because that patently isn't true. And out there in media land the pile on is still going on - the bottom feeding media still wants a bite even though the meal has been taken out of the water.
So lets take a few steps back from my alleged "Spartist template" (nice turn of phrase btw - have you considered journalism and go back to basics. The guy has been massively libelled and once he recovers himself from mental hospital should sue. The size of the damages will be higher because of the fact that he ended up in hospital.
Well I am not seeing it. I also don't buy your "with one bound he was free" narrative, even on the agreed facts he is someone I would go to great lengths to distance myself from, and who knows what is to come?
I am not right wing.
The interesting part of this is the nature of man's relationship with pornography. I am not particularly interested in what turns you on. Or Huw Edwards. Or S*n journalists.
The reason why we have strict laws in this area is to protect people - both the creators of said porn to stop them being abused / exploited / trafficked etc. And the users of said porn to ensure that what they are viewing is legal.
We can have a moral debate about should a 60 year old man be whacking off to images of 18 year old men. And another one about whether him being married makes a difference to that debate.
What I don't think we should have is a morality police hit mob. Where what gets you or I off legally is a matter for public scrutiny and judgement. Because once we start overturning rocks looking for mud, all we will see is mud. Because almost everyone can be judged by morality police hate mobs of being deviant from the norm. Because there is no norm.
It's more a question of commissioning porn than consuming it. If all he'd done was buy it then there would never have been a story.
Commissioning porn isn't news. OnlyFans has existed for a good few years now.
As someone with a degree in journalism you ought to be less naive about what is newsworthy.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
It's quite at odds with the views I've read on most social media.
I passed an open polling station this morning. By-election in Dinnington, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough (It's a fair way from Rotherham, wwc ex mining)
Good test for Labour in the red wall - new seat in 2021, currently the Tories have control of all 3 councillors in the ward.
Last election:
Highest vote
1137 Con 36.2% 799 Lab 25.5% 601 Ind 19.2% 316 Green 10.1% 284 Lib Dem 9.0%
Average vote:
965 Con 34.4% 750 Lab 26.7% 495 Ind 17.6% 312 Green 11.1% 284 Lib Dem 10.1%
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Big G also has less excuse than the rest of us, given he lives in Wales so he should know how to spell it properly...
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
It's quite at odds with the views I've read on most social media.
“Views”, “social media”
Not sure I’d describe what I see on social media as “views”. That suggests thought, reason etc.
It seems to me this is a story about the Sun's two great pejudices. Homophobia and the BBC. This looked perfect. Their problem was that what they were able to dredge up was going to be an invasion of privacy and they could lose their shirts.
So what they had to do was look for a public interest angle. So they went down the 'concerned parents had contacted them' route.
This was tricky because the 'boy' was 20. So perhaps the relationship started three years ago? Tricky as well. Would a gay dating site allow you on if you were a minor? Not looking good but having won their only 'journalism award' last year for a particularly sordid story they weren't going to let this one slip away so they took the cautious way out and reported it without a name. The safest but most malign thing they could have done.
From here on in its up to the public. The BBC under Davie are just a shadow of what they were. They have no position on anything anymore and many of the good people have left. The Sun is the trash it's always been. But this is a watershed for both tand what happens next is important
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
Clearly you hate the Sun as do many. I think it will be a long time until the full story comes out and for now it’s basically a tragedy for Huw Edwards’ family, a tragedy for Huw Edwards even if his behaviour was truly less than ideal to individuals, his family, colleagues it’s still a tragedy.
The problem is that this is currently a “my team” v “the team I hate” argument.
I find it very hard to believe that if one of the following was happening then the same angst and anger would be displayed by one group and would be displayed by another.
If exactly the same accusations had been levelled in the Guardian at a senior Sun exec.
The NYT did the same to a senior Fox News presenter.
The Mirror did the same to a GB News presenter.
It’s very easy to attack the messenger because the messenger has been a bad actor in the past but if the messenger is delivering news that shines a light on bad deeds then it’s still shining a light on bad deeds despite the motivation you might feel is behind it.
The Daily Mail efforts re Stephen Lawrence doesn’t absolve them of the other shit they do but it doesn’t change they exposed the wrongs.
It could turn out that this story is purely about a man who has mental health issues who blew out a bit but nothing illegal (as it’s clear it’s not) and it would have been better if the Sun had not gone in all guns blazing but also the BBC should have listened earlier and stepped in to help.
It could turn out that there is more to come such as, and this is purely hypothetical, a public figure was being a bit of a monster to people which was also being reflected in how he treated junior colleagues which affected their wellbeing in the workplace and made them fear for their career if they pushed back. In this case then surely in this day and age we are all for people in positions of hierarchy abusing those positions and damaging the mental health of juniors being rooted out. This raises the question of whether the BBC, the national broadcaster, is carrying out its duty of care to staff which is of public interest and concern.
Shining a light on abuses in organisations and industries is a good thing even if the way it’s done is grim. We might not have had people like Epstein and Weinstein exposed if people were more concerned about the messenger than the message - if the political outlook of a paper who exposed them was against yours then you would I hope have been pleased that they exposed.
So to focus on the idea that this is all about the Sun kicking the BBC for ideological reasons is to distract from the seriousness or no of what has happened otherwise you go down the Trumpian route of saying that anything you disagree with is politically motivated and fake news.
Its true that I despise The S*n and all it stands for. But what they have done isn't specific to them. The phone hacking thing broke News of the World, but Piers Moron's Mirror was also waist deep in the same shit.
I look at this kind of predator journalism and nod my head as justification for why I quit the industry after a year. There is a very basic principle - print the truth. I have no concern about columnists or even editorial pieces spinning the truth, that is fair game.
This wasn't spin. This wasn't knowing something to be a lie and printing it anyway. Repeatedly. That they have since tried to claim they alleged no criminality despite their claims of such still being all over their website just makes it worse.
Yes its Murdoch media at it again which makes it worse. But had the Daily Star done this I would be similarly appalled. As I suspect would many of the people here defending this newspaper because actually you do on some level support the "hack the legs out of the woke blob" strategy which is in play.
Y0u seem to have taped a lightproof paper bag over your head on day 1 of this story. NOBODY is defending rhe Sun. Nobody has defended the Sun. The Sun are shitbags. People are just pointing out to you that your spartist template turns out not to fit. Celebs are celebs. People like stories about them. Especially in the silly season. The end.
There's been quite a lot of defence of both The S*n and the "BBC should still fire him" narrative on here. You can't say NOBODY because that patently isn't true. And out there in media land the pile on is still going on - the bottom feeding media still wants a bite even though the meal has been taken out of the water.
So lets take a few steps back from my alleged "Spartist template" (nice turn of phrase btw - have you considered journalism and go back to basics. The guy has been massively libelled and once he recovers himself from mental hospital should sue. The size of the damages will be higher because of the fact that he ended up in hospital.
Well I am not seeing it. I also don't buy your "with one bound he was free" narrative, even on the agreed facts he is someone I would go to great lengths to distance myself from, and who knows what is to come?
I am not right wing.
The interesting part of this is the nature of man's relationship with pornography. I am not particularly interested in what turns you on. Or Huw Edwards. Or S*n journalists.
The reason why we have strict laws in this area is to protect people - both the creators of said porn to stop them being abused / exploited / trafficked etc. And the users of said porn to ensure that what they are viewing is legal.
We can have a moral debate about should a 60 year old man be whacking off to images of 18 year old men. And another one about whether him being married makes a difference to that debate.
What I don't think we should have is a morality police hit mob. Where what gets you or I off legally is a matter for public scrutiny and judgement. Because once we start overturning rocks looking for mud, all we will see is mud. Because almost everyone can be judged by morality police hate mobs of being deviant from the norm. Because there is no norm.
I don't classify this as pornography. Asking a random bloke one-on-one for custom-made snaps is a different thing from downloading preexisting images of King Dong in a state of arousal.
OnlyFans. Pay for what you want the model to do. If they are willing to do it, and you are willing to pay what they want for doing it, and you can have anything you like.
Bestiality? Snuff? Self-autopsy whist living? Carving off one's own face? Do you want to think about that for a moment?
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
First, the police have said there's no evidence at all of criminal activity, and are no longer investigating. So "at worst has broken the law" might just as well be said of you - but isn't a basis for news reports in either case.
Secondly, we're discussing the extent of existing privacy law. "Only for important people they like" is your usual bollocks; note the efforts taken not to identify the other party involved.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
As with nearly everything about this, we don't know.
The obvious guess would be a mix of both.
But we have no data.
Maybe Rumsfeld should have added a category for "We don't know, but are unable to admit we don't know. So we build pyramids of bullshit and moonbeams to fill in the hole."
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The main concern is how this came out and was reported. I think most of us here felt the approach taken by The Sun was very “nudge-nudge” and gossipy and it feels like this grossly amplified the coverage and set the story on a very frenzied path.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
First, the police have said there's no evidence at all of criminal activity, and are no longer investigating. So "at worst has broken the law" might just as well be said of you - but isn't a basis for news reports in either case.
Secondly, we're discussing the extent of existing privacy law. "Only for important people they like" is your usual bollocks; note the efforts taken not to identify the other party involved.
Apart from that, top comment.
We should not confuse the police taking no further action with exoneration. They are two very different things.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
I have no issue with the story being run - as long as the story is true. The original story highlighted a 17 year old and claimed that the photos could be criminal in nature, essentially saying the individual was a nonce. That seems to not be the case, and it seems to be clear that the Sun didn't have the evidence to make that claim before publishing. It is not acceptable for papers to randomly call people nonces on spurious evidence.
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
That's my expectation too (and not just on pb). The 'he can't help it, he's gay' argument attracts rather more sympathy than the 'he's not satisfied with his wife and wants a younger model' one. See: Schofield.
But I know others think the opposite and we don't really have a counterfactual.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
As with nearly everything about this, we don't know.
The obvious guess would be a mix of both.
But we have no data.
Maybe Rumsfeld should have added a category for "We don't know, but are unable to admit we don't know. So we build pyramids of bullshit and moonbeams to fill in the hole."
And thinking about my own struggles with packs of black dogs, it's remarkable how long one can remain dysfunctionally functional before the final collapse. And sometimes the last straw is something that is quite trivial.
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
Some people on PB have characterized the Sun as extremely cruel behavior They are (unsurprisingly) correct. They then further argue that this should be prevented. This is an argument in favor of polite speech.
Some people on PB argue that regardless of content speech should not be constrained in that manner. This is an argument in favor of free speech.
Both points of view are legitimate and practical: they can be assessed. But neither POV will survive ten seconds in the real world. Consequently we lie to ourselves and pretend we have free speech whilst continually modifying our opinions from case-to-case, pretending we have underlying principles whilst betraying them daily.
Free speech does not and has never existed in Britain, because people do not want it to. The only task for a statistician is to measure it.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
The one thing that puzzles me is why involve an employer in what someone does in their private life. If I received intimate pictures of someone much younger than me, but no law was broken why would my employer be informed and why would my employer feel the need to take action? What I do legally in my private life has absolutely nothing to do with my employment.
That is not necessarily the case, as a matter of employment law.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
First, the police have said there's no evidence at all of criminal activity, and are no longer investigating. So "at worst has broken the law" might just as well be said of you - but isn't a basis for news reports in either case.
Secondly, we're discussing the extent of existing privacy law. "Only for important people they like" is your usual bollocks; note the efforts taken not to identify the other party involved.
Apart from that, top comment.
We should not confuse the police taking no further action with exoneration. They are two very different things.
How does that relate to my comment ? If there's no evidence of criminal activity, which is what the police have explicitly stated, then it's not the basis for a news story. "Exoneration" isn't something I even referred to - in relation to potential criminal charges in this context, it's a meaningless term.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
I have no issue with the story being run - as long as the story is true. The original story highlighted a 17 year old and claimed that the photos could be criminal in nature, essentially saying the individual was a nonce. That seems to not be the case, and it seems to be clear that the Sun didn't have the evidence to make that claim before publishing. It is not acceptable for papers to randomly call people nonces on spurious evidence.
The evidence - IIRC - was the testimony of the teen’s parents. I’d say that’s sufficient to run a story
Honestly this is all so much cant. If it was discovered Andrew Neil was paying a 19 year heroin-addict girl for nude pictures - and threatening her - that would be news. No one on here would object. So it’s pure hypocrisy to claim that this Edwards story should never have reached the public eye
In the end it’s all down to a slightly unhinged hatred of The Sun. Fair enough. Whatever gets your rocks off
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
Which other editor would have used their front page to strongly imply criminal behaviour, without evidence ?
And without that, would the story have run in the same manner ?
Mr. Boulay, I largely agree but would that women's football also has the problem all other sports in the UK and much of Europe face: men's football is the biggest game in town by a bloody mile. Achieving equal income/revenue/pay would be an astonishing feat.
I agree on the high on its own supply comment too, which is encouraged by the media giving it more coverage than support would suggest is reasonable on its own (I get why they start with men's football, then women's, then move to other sports, but women's football on its own is well behind many other sports).
I did watch the Euros when England won, but I have zero interest in the club game. I don’t see it ever being more than a minority concern.
The only club football I've seen live this century is women's. Several reasons: 1) It's much cheaper. I'd happily pay £5 to watch a women's game. I wouldn't pay £30 to watch a men's game - particularly not when you multiply it up by all tge family members you might want to take. 2) It's hard not to take an instant dislike to male footballers. Part of the enjoyment of watching sport for me is being pleased for those who have done well. Hard to do this with most men's footballers. 3) The game may not be at the same level - but to my untrained eye it is nicer to watch. Possibly because the game is less physical, the technical skill is easier to see and enjoy. 4) The crowd is also nicer. I don't think I'd take my daughters to a live men's football match. I don't mind partisan, but a sport where you have to keep supporters of opposing clubs separate, or they will fight, is ridiculous. Football fans often remark about how surprising it is to see opposing, say, rugby fans mingling - but it's football - specifically men's football - which is the outlier here. I don't want to be paying out £30 for a 90 minute hatefest. 5) Also, one of my daughters quite fancies being a professional footballer. Taking her to see players she can aspire to ape is a nice thing to do. 6) Ooh, also, I can park.
As against that, as, I think, Foxy has pointed out in the past, outside the top 3 or 4 teams there isn't much jeopardy in the WSL. It's a bit like the Scottish Premier League.
I'm not, though, calling for equal pay for women's football. That would take away most of what makes it good. It would no longer be cheap and accessible.
Where is the jeapordy any different in EPL or other English leagues. It is similar to SPL in that the same couple of teams win it every year and the same few bounce up and down at the bottom with a large mediocre middle.
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Big G also has less excuse than the rest of us, given he lives in Wales so he should know how to spell it properly...
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
First, the police have said there's no evidence at all of criminal activity, and are no longer investigating. So "at worst has broken the law" might just as well be said of you - but isn't a basis for news reports in either case.
Secondly, we're discussing the extent of existing privacy law. "Only for important people they like" is your usual bollocks; note the efforts taken not to identify the other party involved.
Apart from that, top comment.
We should not confuse the police taking no further action with exoneration. They are two very different things.
We absolutely should.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If there's no evidence of guilt then the person is exonerated. Unless or until some actual damned evidence turns up.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
As with nearly everything about this, we don't know.
The obvious guess would be a mix of both.
But we have no data.
Maybe Rumsfeld should have added a category for "We don't know, but are unable to admit we don't know. So we build pyramids of bullshit and moonbeams to fill in the hole."
It's publicly known and was known before this story that Huw Edwards has suffered from mental health problems on and off for 20 years:
@Leon - I detest the Sun, I detest the BBC too, and I think Huw Edwards is a dirty old b*stard, even in relationship to some of the things he is alleged to have done that seem to have been legal (aren't I awfully judgemental?). At the same time I have sympathy with him as a fellow human being and I hope his health improves - not only because I look forward to hearing his side of the story, but also because I don't wish ill health, mental or physical, on anyone. He's sick in the pejorative sense and he's also probably ill. He's done a Challenor AND he's ill. Sorry if that possibility is too difficult for some people to grasp. Meanwhile, he's presumably also a crafty swine, as are other senior figures at the BBC and at the "Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport". (Would anybody deny that?) I also have sympathy with the youngsters, indeed much more so than with Edwards, and I fear their lives may be detrimentally affected by this story although I hope they're not. Is this combination allowed?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
The issue is the way it was reported and the evidence for the way it was reported.
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
So we can a new ailment to the list
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
I have no issue with the story being run - as long as the story is true. The original story highlighted a 17 year old and claimed that the photos could be criminal in nature, essentially saying the individual was a nonce. That seems to not be the case, and it seems to be clear that the Sun didn't have the evidence to make that claim before publishing. It is not acceptable for papers to randomly call people nonces on spurious evidence.
The evidence - IIRC - was the testimony of the teen’s parents. I’d say that’s sufficient to run a story
Honestly this is all so much cant. If it was discovered Andrew Neil was paying a 19 year heroin-addict girl for nude pictures - and threatening her - that would be news. No one on here would object. So it’s pure hypocrisy to claim that this Edwards story should never have reached the public eye
In the end it’s all down to a slightly unhinged hatred of The Sun. Fair enough. Whatever gets your rocks off
Testimony of estranged mother and step dad which, when the Sun approached their adult child about, the adult child said was untrue. No visual on any texts, no receipts for money transfers, nothing. We don't even know if the allegations of drug use are true, the Sun have no evidence other than the testimony of two other people. Its credulous to suggest this is a reasonable journalistic standard - any two people can claim someone is a nonce and the papers can run it.
The potential threatening was a secondary story, again worded in the most negative manner. That story was about a different young adult in their early 20s meeting a man on a dating app, learning he was famous, and then that messaging him angrily when the young man suggested on social media he might out him - something that is pretty understandable, if not wise. It may go into the territory of criminality if he threatened violence or harassed the young man, but at the end of the day that's not an uncommon interaction between men who have sex with men when one of those men is married and not public about dating men.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
There are several European countries that have outlawed payment for sex completely (as has Northern Ireland). Many feminists believe we should follow suit. Any newspaper with a substantial feminist representation among its journalists would run with the story if it was M/F.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
Any editor would have run some version of this story, if they had a reliable source for it.
Especially if many in the industry were aware of multiple internal complaints about him, that had been brushed away by BBC management.
Stuart Purvis, a former ITN Executive commented to Kay Burley this morning that the BBC simply failed to address this issue correctly from the the onset
Apparently the mother and step father of the young person involved were extremely stressed about the relationship their vulnerable youngster had with Huw Edwards and actually went direct to the BBC to discuss the matter and make a complaint
The BBC apparently failed to act and in their frustration the parents decided to make their concerns public and chose the Sun newspaper
The rest is history, and the role of the Sun is controversial, but let's not forget this started with very worried parents and has escalated to a point where there are now multiple complaints about Hugh Edward's behaviour, including those featured on the BBC Newsnight programme last night of staff within the BBC who allege unacceptable interactions with him
As someone who has experienced a very sick son with PTSD and anxiety, who is only slowly recovering after 3 years of intense phycological help there has to be sympathy for Hugh Edwards family, and especially the stress on his wife, but there are also complainants who have a right for their complaints to be listened to, reviewed, and if proven action taken
I'm reminded of the question a wise manager once taught me for changing the tone of argumentative meetings:
"What do you want to happen?"
What did the parents want to happen? Their child not to be estranged and doing what they were doing, presumably.
What did they want the BBC to do about that, though? Sack Edwards? Tell him off? Put him under a curfew? Really?
Once the police had said there was nothing in law against what was going on, there wasn't much to be done that I can see.
The parents were in a horrible situation, one of the nightmares every parent fears. But sometimes nightmares happen and there's no authority that can fix them. And going to the press, especially to a red top, especially The Sun, probably makes things worse.
Your last sentence comes back to the BBC failing to satisfy very anxious parents about any action they would take over their complaint and their desperation about their perceived danger their child was in
I would suggest that it seems that little thought is being given, not only to the desperate parents, but also the other complainants who have not involved the Sun
As far as Hugh Edwards is concerned I have always considered him to be of the left but he did not, in my view, let that affect his journalism
Sadly he has been under treatment for mental health issue for 20 years and the family have a long road ahead
‘Hugh’ Edwards is in serious danger of becoming the new ‘Kier’ Starmer or Angela ‘Raynor’.
FFS.
Have you ever worked out why typos and misspelt names on PB upset you so much?
The story about the three BBC colleagues he sent messages to was apparently being investigated by Victoria Derbyshire before The Sun released their initial teen pics story
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
Any editor would have run some version of this story, if they had a reliable source for it.
Especially if many in the industry were aware of multiple internal complaints about him, that had been brushed away by BBC management.
If they had a reliable source for it.
This is the crux of the issue. Is an estranged mother and step dad enough evidence of anything a young person is doing with their life? I haven't spoken to my biological dad and step mother in over 5 years - they could make any claim about my life and it would be the same level of evidence that the Sun used.
The story did not say "based on messages seen by the Sun" or "based on bank transfers seen by the Sun" or "after comments with the victim, who spoke to the Sun" or "based on comments with the perpetrator after being asked for comment by the Sun". It was 2 people, who had been told by the police what they described didn't sound criminal, and the Sun running a story claiming that some BBC presenter was a criminal nonce.
BREAKING: The Government has suffered a major defeat as the High Court rules that its “strike-breaking” agency worker regulations are unlawful.
The important judgement means employers can no longer use agency staff to fill in for striking workers during industrial action.
Preposterous.
Anyone who wants to strike should absolutely have a right to withhold their own labour.
Nobody should ever have a right to withhold anyone else's labour though.
If strikers don't want to work, but others do, then the strikers should lose their jobs and the others get them accordingly. If you're not happy with that, then don't strike, but if nobody else wants your job then the strikers can get what they want perhaps.
The story about the three BBC colleagues he sent messages to was apparently being investigated by Victoria Derbyshire before The Sun released their initial teen pics story
It does seem to be challenging to develop laws which can stop the Sun lying, but still enable Private Eye to do investigative journalism.
Two basic principles which make that doable now: 1. Basic journalism ethics - do not knowingly print lies. PE regularly digs into topics which leave it accused of lying, but I am very clear their team never actively print something they know is false. As the S*n just did 2. Basic defamation laws. If a media outlet libels you, sue them. I hope Edwards does so to the S*n and they go the way of News of the World. PE is regularly threatened with being sued - most recently by Ben Houchen International Airport and Simon Ding Dong Clarke for their ongoing expose into the Teesport scandal. And yet no litigation follows which suggests the gobshite twins know they would lose.
Auberon Waugh said that the Eye printed a story if it was funny, and worried afterwards, whether or not it was true. The Eye never had much in the way of assets to sue against.
Edwards would have to prove innuendo on the part of the Sun (ie people reading the story would guess that they were referring to Edwards.) The Sun might well have a public interest defence (if it were truly the case that an eminent man were paying an addict for sexual images); and Edwards might be in danger of being awarded only nominal damages, given his current reputation, even if he won his case.
"His current reputation" which has been trashed by the lies knowingly printed by The S*n? Any PI defence their lawyers want to try and hide behind was demolished when they chose not to publish the facts and instead embellished the story into a pack of lies.
As for them not printing his name, they printed enough so that we all knew days before the final big reveal yesterday. Well established in defamation law that you don't actually need to print a name if it is clear who the person is. Especially as they went back for another few days of P1 leads denouncing the BBC.
Clearly you hate the Sun as do many. I think it will be a long time until the full story comes out and for now it’s basically a tragedy for Huw Edwards’ family, a tragedy for Huw Edwards even if his behaviour was truly less than ideal to individuals, his family, colleagues it’s still a tragedy.
The problem is that this is currently a “my team” v “the team I hate” argument.
I find it very hard to believe that if one of the following was happening then the same angst and anger would be displayed by one group and would be displayed by another.
If exactly the same accusations had been levelled in the Guardian at a senior Sun exec.
The NYT did the same to a senior Fox News presenter.
The Mirror did the same to a GB News presenter.
It’s very easy to attack the messenger because the messenger has been a bad actor in the past but if the messenger is delivering news that shines a light on bad deeds then it’s still shining a light on bad deeds despite the motivation you might feel is behind it.
The Daily Mail efforts re Stephen Lawrence doesn’t absolve them of the other shit they do but it doesn’t change they exposed the wrongs.
It could turn out that this story is purely about a man who has mental health issues who blew out a bit but nothing illegal (as it’s clear it’s not) and it would have been better if the Sun had not gone in all guns blazing but also the BBC should have listened earlier and stepped in to help.
It could turn out that there is more to come such as, and this is purely hypothetical, a public figure was being a bit of a monster to people which was also being reflected in how he treated junior colleagues which affected their wellbeing in the workplace and made them fear for their career if they pushed back. In this case then surely in this day and age we are all for people in positions of hierarchy abusing those positions and damaging the mental health of juniors being rooted out. This raises the question of whether the BBC, the national broadcaster, is carrying out its duty of care to staff which is of public interest and concern.
Shining a light on abuses in organisations and industries is a good thing even if the way it’s done is grim. We might not have had people like Epstein and Weinstein exposed if people were more concerned about the messenger than the message - if the political outlook of a paper who exposed them was against yours then you would I hope have been pleased that they exposed.
So to focus on the idea that this is all about the Sun kicking the BBC for ideological reasons is to distract from the seriousness or no of what has happened otherwise you go down the Trumpian route of saying that anything you disagree with is politically motivated and fake news.
Its true that I despise The S*n and all it stands for. But what they have done isn't specific to them. The phone hacking thing broke News of the World, but Piers Moron's Mirror was also waist deep in the same shit.
I look at this kind of predator journalism and nod my head as justification for why I quit the industry after a year. There is a very basic principle - print the truth. I have no concern about columnists or even editorial pieces spinning the truth, that is fair game.
This wasn't spin. This wasn't knowing something to be a lie and printing it anyway. Repeatedly. That they have since tried to claim they alleged no criminality despite their claims of such still being all over their website just makes it worse.
Yes its Murdoch media at it again which makes it worse. But had the Daily Star done this I would be similarly appalled. As I suspect would many of the people here defending this newspaper because actually you do on some level support the "hack the legs out of the woke blob" strategy which is in play.
Y0u seem to have taped a lightproof paper bag over your head on day 1 of this story. NOBODY is defending rhe Sun. Nobody has defended the Sun. The Sun are shitbags. People are just pointing out to you that your spartist template turns out not to fit. Celebs are celebs. People like stories about them. Especially in the silly season. The end.
There's been quite a lot of defence of both The S*n and the "BBC should still fire him" narrative on here. You can't say NOBODY because that patently isn't true. And out there in media land the pile on is still going on - the bottom feeding media still wants a bite even though the meal has been taken out of the water.
So lets take a few steps back from my alleged "Spartist template" (nice turn of phrase btw - have you considered journalism and go back to basics. The guy has been massively libelled and once he recovers himself from mental hospital should sue. The size of the damages will be higher because of the fact that he ended up in hospital.
Well I am not seeing it. I also don't buy your "with one bound he was free" narrative, even on the agreed facts he is someone I would go to great lengths to distance myself from, and who knows what is to come?
I am not right wing.
The interesting part of this is the nature of man's relationship with pornography. I am not particularly interested in what turns you on. Or Huw Edwards. Or S*n journalists.
The reason why we have strict laws in this area is to protect people - both the creators of said porn to stop them being abused / exploited / trafficked etc. And the users of said porn to ensure that what they are viewing is legal.
We can have a moral debate about should a 60 year old man be whacking off to images of 18 year old men. And another one about whether him being married makes a difference to that debate.
What I don't think we should have is a morality police hit mob. Where what gets you or I off legally is a matter for public scrutiny and judgement. Because once we start overturning rocks looking for mud, all we will see is mud. Because almost everyone can be judged by morality police hate mobs of being deviant from the norm. Because there is no norm.
I don't classify this as pornography. Asking a random bloke one-on-one for custom-made snaps is a different thing from downloading preexisting images of King Dong in a state of arousal.
OnlyFans. Pay for what you want the model to do. If they are willing to do it, and you are willing to pay what they want for doing it, and you can have anything you like.
Bestiality? Snuff? Self-autopsy whist living? Carving off one's own face? Do you want to think about that for a moment?
Wowsers. We're talking about anything *legal*. yes I am sure there is plenty of illegal available as well, but that isn't the subject at hand.
Paying a model to do something specific within the bounds of the law is not deviant or abnormal - this is the modern porn industry.
Lozza Fox has waded into the debate, demonstrating his usual lack of empathy, claiming that if Huw Edwards was a "real man" he wouldn't take refuge in a mental hospital but face up to the consequences. Strangely, this point has been made by left-leaning academics I follow on twitter; albeit they put a class spin on it, claiming working class people have to face the law while middle -class people take refuge in mental hospitals.
I feel despair that there is still so much ignorance about mental health in this country. Like BigG, I have had a relative receive repeated hospital treatment for depression. The idea that you can check into a mental hospital as though it was a hotel makes me angry.
It may make you angry, but it is true. Yes, on the NHS it is gatekept to fuck to keep out people who just want everything to stop and clean sheets and 3 meals a day for a week or two. It is also unwise to try to finesse your way past the gatekeeping, because the other people who have passed the test are not people you want to be on a ward with. But in scenario B it is exactly like checking in to a hotel. Tap up at a Priory establishment with an Amex card and a GP referral and the most searching question you'll be asked is what time you would like breakfast.
Quite. Edwards' mental breakdown may not be fake, but let's just say if he hadn't had one, it would have been quite advisable to have one, for many obvious reasons.
You would have to be made of absolute steel not to have something like this cause some form of mental break, Id have thought.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
Is the mental breakdown as a result of the press interest in the story? Or has the mental breakdown been going on for some time and was what led to the various bits of quite odd behaviour? i.e. is it "you've made him have a mental breakdown, go away" or is it "all these stories that are coming out are because he is having a mental breakdown"? I had thought it the latter but others seem to be inferring the former.
As with nearly everything about this, we don't know.
The obvious guess would be a mix of both.
But we have no data.
Maybe Rumsfeld should have added a category for "We don't know, but are unable to admit we don't know. So we build pyramids of bullshit and moonbeams to fill in the hole."
It's publicly known and was known before this story that Huw Edwards has suffered from mental health problems on and off for 20 years:
@Leon - I detest the Sun, I detest the BBC too, and I think Huw Edwards is a dirty old b*stard, even in relationship to some of the things he is alleged to have done that seem to have been legal (aren't I awfully judgemental?). At the same time I have sympathy with him as a fellow human being and I hope his health improves - not only because I look forward to hearing his side of the story, but also because I don't wish ill health, mental or physical, on anyone. He's sick in the pejorative sense and he's also probably ill. He's done a Challenor AND he's ill. Sorry if that possibility is too difficult for some people to grasp. Meanwhile, he's presumably also a crafty swine, as are other senior figures at the BBC and at the "Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport". (Would anybody deny that?) I also have sympathy with the youngsters, indeed much more so than with Edwards, and I fear their lives may be detrimentally affected by this story although I hope they're not. Is this combination allowed?
Addendum: my personal experience of personnel from the Scum and the BBC is that the former were definitely a lower form of life than the latter, being essentially pond life, which they knew, whereas the latter were so dimwittedly incompetent it made you want them to go away just as fast as you wanted the Scum to go away.
Cf. the difference between an estate agent, double glazing salesman, or degenerate element with a camera on a pole trying to photograph the underwear hanging on your clothes line, and some idiot from the local council carrying a clipboard.
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
Unless its your own journalist, then you cover it up ala Guardian.
No media outlet can really take the moral high ground on scandals like this. The BBC have since Savile, the issues with McAlpine and Cliff Richard, and more recently Bashir and Tim Westwood. The Guardian had a sex pest working for them for 20 years, they printed lies about Milly Dowler story and more recently Aaron Banks who they went for week in, week out for months (and even excluding the legal action, every week had to print a retraction of the previous story). News UK of course phone hacking, Liverpool, etc etc etc.
What I would say is the BBC on this occasion have been very quick to report on themselves with new stories of misbehaviour, that could well turn out to be more problematic than the original one.
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
There are several European countries that have outlawed payment for sex completely (as has Northern Ireland). Many feminists believe we should follow suit. Any newspaper with a substantial feminist representation among its journalists would run with the story if it was M/F.
That's not what the argument is about, though, is it ? The fuss about the Sun is how they reported this story, not that they reported it at all.
As I said upthread, there are unresolved arguments about the extent of the existing privacy law we have - it's an uncertain and developing area. I'd tend to be on the side of openness, rather than have a law which completely prevents such stories.
But that doesn't excuse or justify irresponsible journalism - which in this case was publication of claims without the evidence to back them up.
The story about the three BBC colleagues he sent messages to was apparently being investigated by Victoria Derbyshire before The Sun released their initial teen pics story
Interesting... Derbyshire said that on the radio today?
Incidentally I suspect Huw Edwards is probably getting more sympathy/protection because this is all homosexual interaction. If he’d been paying some 17-18 year old druggie GIRL I reckon a few pb-ers would be somewhat less keen to defend him
I think the exact opposite - do we imagine a paper that was publishing nudes of 16 year old girls in the last decade would care this much if a BBC presenter was paying for nudes of a 17-18 year old girls; considering that paper still has topless 18 year olds occasionally within its pages?
The Guardian or Mirror would care. I'm quite sure they'd run with a story about a 61 year old very eminent man paying a far younger woman with a drug habit to provide him with pornographic pictures. It would fit the Me Too narrative perfectly.
Precisely. Of COURSE they’d run it
It's a story. The trouble is the Sun overegged the pudding by insinuating a paedo angle. They've now backtracked from that.
The Sun should have played it straight. Newsreader paying crack addicts for nudes is a story. Newsreader bullying his colleagues is a story. But what the Sun published was demonstrably false, as some of us suspected right from the start because the Sun's language was so coy and prissy as it danced around the central allegation.
Having said that, on its own the story is not much of a story. Celebs in May to December relationships are ten a penny and aside from the odd joke, does anyone really care? It does need at least one other factor to make the front pages.
Comments
Savanta UK
🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention
📈15pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 45 (-1)
🌳Con 30 (+2)
🔶LD 10 (-1)
➡️Reform 5 (+1)
🌍Green 3 (-1)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
⬜️Other 4 (=)
2,242 UK adults, 7-9 July
(chg 30 June - 2 July)
They could have had a better set of communications with the parents. But would saying "it's not any of our business" over a coffee sat on a sofa have made any difference to how this has played out?
48% do not know who is the best chancellor
🚨NEW
Best Chancellor Tracker
🔵 Jeremy Hunt 27%
🌹 Rachel Reeves 25%
❔ Don't know 48%
@Savanta_UK
I am a believer that there is a new form of mid-life crisis among (mildly) famous people who appear to require constant reinforcement that comes from large social media engagement.
Either way, his actions are not worth the oxygen of publicity.
Confused. Isn’t this you, Real Man, quitting Twitter because of depression, after being called out on #BBCQT for saying you found racism “boring”?
And didn’t you delete these when you returned, because they’re incompatible with your new Strong Man shtick? Now, THAT is cowardice!
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1679401262498865153?s=20
They received a complaint, they investigated it. They tried to contact the parents by email - the parents didn't respond to the email. They tried to call them - the parents didn't answer the call or return it.
What else should they have done in your eyes?
The BBC probably gets unsubstantiated allegations against presenters all the time from weirdos and cranks, they need to take allegations seriously and investigate if there's evidence but if nobody even replies when they're contacted then what more can the BBC do?
In the 54 years since Murdoch took over the S*n it, has been a tawdry, negative, nasty rag promoting its proprietor´s twisted political agenda and conducting his personal and commercial vendettas, including his long running battle against public service broadcasting.
Personally I hope that The S'n gets sued to oblivion. The Times is just as bad, it just uses longer words.
I would also comment it does not have to be criminal - it could be bringing the BBC into disrepute
I said withhold judgment until the Police have investigated and that was the right thing to do.
If the Police investigation had found bank transfers and photographic evidence electronically communicated when the person concerned was 17, then that would be a crime, whether the person concerned calls it one or not.
But they didn't, so that's it, case closed.
Yup, it’s drift back. The hard core Tory vote is 22% or something near to that. The next 3% is pretty much hard core.
Starmer & Co. continue to poll at near their maximum possible.
The parents may have known about communications with a 17-year-old, and of explicit pictures, but it turns out the explicit pictures came later and were of an 18-year-old.
No criminal offence, as there has to be a line drawn somewhere, so we all move on.
As with many other issues, such ADHD, there is a genuine issue. And there is genuine abuse of the issue - twisting it to other ends.
There's an element of MRDA to the alleged victim saying the offence didn't happen.
If it didn't happen, then of course they'd say it didn't happen.
But if it did happen, they could be scarred, and say it didn't happen as a result.
So we can't take a denial from the alleged victim as the end of the matter. There needs to be a proper investigation, and that has happened.
Safeguarding is not something you cut corners on.
Then another government screw up or outrage renders it more PC to say undecided again (or Refuk or independent), so they do.
Meanwhile the long term trend will continue to be based on perceptions of economic competence and the state of public services.
Having spent a few days this week in hospital I would say the local NHS is under the usual major strain but not having one of its breaking point moments. 4 hours to be seen in A&E, then parked on a trolley in a bay in resus for 2 hours as there were no beds available, which is just averagely shit UK healthcare.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66174352
Once again proving that the past Italy is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
Until there is, it’s all building castles in the sky.
The whole country is aware of what you’ve done and is speculating about your private and family life. It must be absolutely gut-wrenching. On top of that all the concern about the loss of career/income…
Public figures do of course attract attention and scrutiny but there surely have to be questions asked about the way such matters are reported and investigated.
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
Good test for Labour in the red wall - new seat in 2021, currently the Tories have control of all 3 councillors in the ward.
Last election:
Highest vote
1137 Con 36.2%
799 Lab 25.5%
601 Ind 19.2%
316 Green 10.1%
284 Lib Dem 9.0%
Average vote:
965 Con 34.4%
750 Lab 26.7%
495 Ind 17.6%
312 Green 11.1%
284 Lib Dem 10.1%
FFS.
Not sure I’d describe what I see on social media as “views”. That suggests thought, reason etc.
"gibbering from lower primates", possibly?
So what they had to do was look for a public interest angle. So they went down the 'concerned parents had contacted them' route.
This was tricky because the 'boy' was 20. So perhaps the relationship started three years ago? Tricky as well. Would a gay dating site allow you on if you were a minor? Not looking good but having won their only 'journalism award' last year for a particularly sordid story they weren't going to let this one slip away so they took the cautious way out and reported it without a name. The safest but most malign thing they could have done.
From here on in its up to the public. The BBC under Davie are just a shadow of what they were. They have no position on anything anymore and many of the good people have left. The Sun is the trash it's always been. But this is a watershed for both tand what happens next is important
The original story quite clearly suggested that underage pictures were involved, a crime. That seems not to be the case. It was denied by the individual involved before the story was published, and the Sun doesn't seem to have had any evidence of it before publishing. That is journalistic malpractice.
If they wanted the story to be "61 year old BBC presenter having affair and paying young sex workers for nudes" that would, indeed, be a story (although I still don't think we know if his wife was aware of this, and therefore it may not even have been an affair). I think it is more questionable if it was in the public interest, or is front page worthy, but it would be news. But that wasn't the story they ran.
I also think that it generally became a game of whispers and led to generalised attacks on the Beeb (with ministers saying it needed to get its house in order), it felt like a campaign to attack the BBC as a whole rather than an individuals personal indiscretion. I'm on the left and have no time for the BBC - it is far too in favour of the status quo, is ideologically driven to be in line with the neoliberal consensus and is actively transphobic. At the same time, if people are going to attack it, attack it for real reasons not fake ones.
And yes, it also matters that it's the Sun - a well known homophobic rag that is unscrupulous and tawdry all on its own trying to take the moral high ground and acting as a mouth piece for its rich owner who is known to hate the BBC and want to see it taken apart; an owner whose papers did the most heinous things in the name of a story (and profit) that was a major national and international scandal barely a decade ago. It's almost as if the Leveson inquiry and report was rather scathing of journalistic integrity and then bugger all happened about it because the papers are a big megaphone who can shout down any politician who may suggest enforcing any of the suggested regulations. Indeed, the Sun and its political endorsement is significantly coveted, so it is a well known political actor and its journalism cannot really be separated from that.
Secondly, we're discussing the extent of existing privacy law. "Only for important people they like" is your usual bollocks; note the efforts taken not to identify the other party involved.
Apart from that, top comment.
Murdoch Derangement Syndrome
This is a news story. Simple as. Any editor would have run with it
The obvious guess would be a mix of both.
But we have no data.
Maybe Rumsfeld should have added a category for "We don't know, but are unable to admit we don't know. So we build pyramids of bullshit and moonbeams to fill in the hole."
But I know others think the opposite and we don't really have a counterfactual.
Some people on PB argue that regardless of content speech should not be constrained in that manner. This is an argument in favor of free speech.
Both points of view are legitimate and practical: they can be assessed. But neither POV will survive ten seconds in the real world. Consequently we lie to ourselves and pretend we have free speech whilst continually modifying our opinions from case-to-case, pretending we have underlying principles whilst betraying them daily.
Free speech does not and has never existed in Britain, because people do not want it to. The only task for a statistician is to measure it.
1. Watching porn
2. Paying thousands for porn
3. Commissioning your own, private, porn.
It’s a bit like:
1. Joining the office Grand National sweepstake
2. Getting a subscription to the Racing Post
3. Being on the machines at 10am on payday
Or:
1. Going for a drink after work
2. Going for six drinks every night
3. Opening the whisky at breakfast time, a new bottle every day.
If there's no evidence of criminal activity, which is what the police have explicitly stated, then it's not the basis for a news story. "Exoneration" isn't something I even referred to - in relation to potential criminal charges in this context, it's a meaningless term.
Honestly this is all so much cant. If it was discovered Andrew Neil was paying a 19 year heroin-addict girl for nude pictures - and threatening her - that would be news. No one on here would object. So it’s pure hypocrisy to claim that this Edwards story should never have reached the public eye
In the end it’s all down to a slightly unhinged hatred of The Sun. Fair enough. Whatever gets your rocks off
That is not the story that ran...
And without that, would the story have run in the same manner ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRx5itQq-U
or via parliament.tv
"HE Fans" seems appropriate too now
Innocent until proven guilty.
If there's no evidence of guilt then the person is exonerated. Unless or until some actual damned evidence turns up.
The important judgement means employers can no longer use agency staff to fill in for striking workers during industrial action.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61553142
@Leon - I detest the Sun, I detest the BBC too, and I think Huw Edwards is a dirty old b*stard, even in relationship to some of the things he is alleged to have done that seem to have been legal (aren't I awfully judgemental?). At the same time I have sympathy with him as a fellow human being and I hope his health improves - not only because I look forward to hearing his side of the story, but also because I don't wish ill health, mental or physical, on anyone. He's sick in the pejorative sense and he's also probably ill. He's done a Challenor AND he's ill. Sorry if that possibility is too difficult for some people to grasp. Meanwhile, he's presumably also a crafty swine, as are other senior figures at the BBC and at the "Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport". (Would anybody deny that?) I also have sympathy with the youngsters, indeed much more so than with Edwards, and I fear their lives may be detrimentally affected by this story although I hope they're not. Is this combination allowed?
The potential threatening was a secondary story, again worded in the most negative manner. That story was about a different young adult in their early 20s meeting a man on a dating app, learning he was famous, and then that messaging him angrily when the young man suggested on social media he might out him - something that is pretty understandable, if not wise. It may go into the territory of criminality if he threatened violence or harassed the young man, but at the end of the day that's not an uncommon interaction between men who have sex with men when one of those men is married and not public about dating men.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc).
**Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then
***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out
****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
Especially if many in the industry were aware of multiple internal complaints about him, that had been brushed away by BBC management.
This is the crux of the issue. Is an estranged mother and step dad enough evidence of anything a young person is doing with their life? I haven't spoken to my biological dad and step mother in over 5 years - they could make any claim about my life and it would be the same level of evidence that the Sun used.
The story did not say "based on messages seen by the Sun" or "based on bank transfers seen by the Sun" or "after comments with the victim, who spoke to the Sun" or "based on comments with the perpetrator after being asked for comment by the Sun". It was 2 people, who had been told by the police what they described didn't sound criminal, and the Sun running a story claiming that some BBC presenter was a criminal nonce.
Anyone who wants to strike should absolutely have a right to withhold their own labour.
Nobody should ever have a right to withhold anyone else's labour though.
If strikers don't want to work, but others do, then the strikers should lose their jobs and the others get them accordingly. If you're not happy with that, then don't strike, but if nobody else wants your job then the strikers can get what they want perhaps.
Paying a model to do something specific within the bounds of the law is not deviant or abnormal - this is the modern porn industry.
Cf. the difference between an estate agent, double glazing salesman, or degenerate element with a camera on a pole trying to photograph the underwear hanging on your clothes line, and some idiot from the local council carrying a clipboard.
No media outlet can really take the moral high ground on scandals like this. The BBC have since Savile, the issues with McAlpine and Cliff Richard, and more recently Bashir and Tim Westwood. The Guardian had a sex pest working for them for 20 years, they printed lies about Milly Dowler story and more recently Aaron Banks who they went for week in, week out for months (and even excluding the legal action, every week had to print a retraction of the previous story). News UK of course phone hacking, Liverpool, etc etc etc.
What I would say is the BBC on this occasion have been very quick to report on themselves with new stories of misbehaviour, that could well turn out to be more problematic than the original one.
The fuss about the Sun is how they reported this story, not that they reported it at all.
As I said upthread, there are unresolved arguments about the extent of the existing privacy law we have - it's an uncertain and developing area. I'd tend to be on the side of openness, rather than have a law which completely prevents such stories.
But that doesn't excuse or justify irresponsible journalism - which in this case was publication of claims without the evidence to back them up.
The Sun should have played it straight. Newsreader paying crack addicts for nudes is a story. Newsreader bullying his colleagues is a story. But what the Sun published was demonstrably false, as some of us suspected right from the start because the Sun's language was so coy and prissy as it danced around the central allegation.
Having said that, on its own the story is not much of a story. Celebs in May to December relationships are ten a penny and aside from the odd joke, does anyone really care? It does need at least one other factor to make the front pages.
But if agency workers want to work, and employers want to hire them, then they should be able to do so.
Withholding your own labour should not give you a right to withhold someone else's.