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)
Maybe Edwards isn't gay, maybe he's bi, and maybe his marriage isn't an issue, as some marriages are open. This could be all about entirely consensual acts between adults. Then the only real issue is the age gap, which I accept I dislike and personally find ikky, and the payments, which I have less issue with because sex work is work (not that we even know he gave money for sex work, maybe he gave money to keep his name out of the press or as a gift because he's a rich old guy - a sugar daddy). That one of the people he gave money to may have used that money on drugs I also don't really care about, we don't know what drugs and I don't think drug use should be criminalised, nor is it really Edwards' issue what someone uses the money on once he's given it to them.
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?
We know that he had prior health issues. We have no way of knowing how this has affected his health.
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
Link? Then the question is how long before?
Huw Edwards’ Conduct Was Being Examined By BBC News Journalists Before The Sun’s Sex Pics Claims
BBC sources said Newsnight anchor Victoria Derbyshire was examining accusations about Edwards’ conduct in the days before The Sun made explosive claims about the star allegedly paying a teenager for explicit images.
Derbyshire’s reporting last week raised eyebrows among some BBC staff and it is not clear if senior editors in the news unit were aware of the work.
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
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.
Apply your theory to Hospital Consultants
How high do you want the vacancy rate to go?
Oh by the way your plan is just as illegal as the Tories one so tough titties Phil
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.
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.
I think that what it proves is that there a lot of power brokers in the BBC who hate each other, and relish the opportunity to report such news.
I remember when I first watched The Killing of Sister George, I thought that I was watching a documentary about the BBC, not a drama.
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
I mean, the papers don't talk about the real issues with Andrew Neil - his AIDs / HIV denials, the fact that he was the lead editor of a political magazine that has repeatedly defended the far right and actual fascists, that he is a climate change denier and his general attitude towards anyone on the left. The deference given to Neil is in and of itself part of the issues I have with the BBC and British political media in general.
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.
Hang on, you're suggesting that companies should be able to dismiss people engaged in legal strike activity - i.e. as part of a union, following a ballot that met required thresholds etc?
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
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.
Is the government really going to leave large chunks of the public sector out on strike with no attempt to settle through until the election?
If the strategy was "Labour in the pockets of the union barons who are destroying YOUR lives" then maybe. But one of the people's pledges is to fix the NHS. Hard to do when you let strikes go on without even trying to settle.
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
Link? Then the question is how long before?
Huw Edwards’ Conduct Was Being Examined By BBC News Journalists Before The Sun’s Sex Pics Claims
BBC sources said Newsnight anchor Victoria Derbyshire was examining accusations about Edwards’ conduct in the days before The Sun made explosive claims about the star allegedly paying a teenager for explicit images.
Derbyshire’s reporting last week raised eyebrows among some BBC staff and it is not clear if senior editors in the news unit were aware of the work.
That is quite a bombshell and suggests that there was a wider suspicion / disquiet about Edwards actions.
Again, it is hard to know without a timeline about how all this has gone down. Has he moved from buying mucky pictures and videos, to being more pushy / aggressive / inappropriate in recent times, it is a very small number of isolated incidents of a man undergoing mental trauma. Or is it more long standing pattern of behaviour. There does now seem to be around 8 different allegations of varying nature.
As I said down thread, I think the BBC should commission an independent investigation and the press not to be reporting on every twist and turn, and try to get to the bottom of this.
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.
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%
I’ll keep and eye on that one - near where I grew up; a fair few kids at my secondary school (Edlington) came from Dinnington.
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.
Is the government really going to leave large chunks of the public sector out on strike with no attempt to settle through until the election?
If the strategy was "Labour in the pockets of the union barons who are destroying YOUR lives" then maybe. But one of the people's pledges is to fix the NHS. Hard to do when you let strikes go on without even trying to settle.
And when at least one devolved government has got things under better control. Relatively, anyway.
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 ?
The Guardian, for one, if it had been a VERY famous rich man in his 60s, viewed as right wing, paying a drug addict teen girl for nudes
It’s all such a pile of hypocrisy - on all sides. Enough
The story is bleak and sad, for all concerned, I’m done with talking about it, for today
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.
Its journalism 101. Before you publish a story you need to have established the facts. Which is why you don't use a single source. Especially one whose perspective and honesty is directly questioned by the supposed victim who denies what your single source tells you.
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
Andrew Neil dating Pamela Bordes was news. Today, it probably would not be. Times change. There'd need to be more to it than just that. And your suggested added factors, while valid, seem to conflate two different parts of the Huw Edwards allegations. Are you deliberately muddying those waters.
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.
Should say - that's hardly unexpected - I think everyone who looked at the law said it was a badly written mess...
Won't this cause some difficulties in the NHS ?
I mean don't they use "bank" staff all the time. Unless "bank" and "agency" are different ?
That was the other absurdity of the government's plans. It's one thing to use temporary staff to cover illnesses, even a few hard-to-fill posts. The idea that there is a meaningful number of spare staff to reduce the impact of a strike is for the birds.
What did the government want to happen by proposing this 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
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Promotion becons for Clive Myrie I'd have thought.
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.
Yes I know I overegged the pudding. Couldn't resist, tho
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.
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.
Should say - that's hardly unexpected - I think everyone who looked at the law said it was a badly written mess...
Won't this cause some difficulties in the NHS ?
I mean don't they use "bank" staff all the time. Unless "bank" and "agency" are different ?
That was the other absurdity of the government's plans. It's one thing to use temporary staff to cover illnesses, even a few hard-to-fill posts. The idea that there is a meaningful number of spare staff to reduce the impact of a strike is for the birds.
What did the government want to happen by proposing this law?
In the case of the NHS, the supply of agency staff to fill in is somewhat linked to the number of staff on strike. Like they are connected, or something.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
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.
Should say - that's hardly unexpected - I think everyone who looked at the law said it was a badly written mess...
Won't this cause some difficulties in the NHS ?
I mean don't they use "bank" staff all the time. Unless "bank" and "agency" are different ?
Bank and agency are different
An NHS staff bank is an entity managed by a trust, or through a third party organisation who contracts with healthcare professionals to take on shifts at trust hospitals.
And they will be getting NHS rates of pay.
If you can't find bank staff you then have to hit the agency and that will have both a higher cost (agency charges) and probably a higher rate of pay.
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.
Yes. Portray Edwards as a dirty old man letching after twinks. Or a sex pest annoying younger colleagues. Or both. Suspect the former would have fizzled out as we're back to moral majority Tory MPs and right wing hacks demanding the man's head for doing something they have decided is deviant.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Yes, it is hard to see a way back for Huw Edwards, even if completely vindicated. His future might lie more with obscure documentaries about Wales than being national mourner-in-chief.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
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.
It is a mental decision, means a business can fail due to not being allowed to hire staff. It is no wonder this country is F***ed.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it 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
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family.
I agree with you.
See the comments on Boris Johnsons private life, and the private life of Ken Livingstone.
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Yes. The thing he was accused of he didn't do. So they pointedly accused him of being a nonce, and he categorically wasn't. That they have now backtracked and tried to claim they did no such thing is even sillier.
They had a perfectly good story. Dirty old man newsreader. And shat the bed by accusing him of paying someone underage based on a single source which was directly denied by the supposed victim.
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
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%
I’ll keep and eye on that one - near where I grew up; a fair few kids at my secondary school (Edlington) came from Dinnington.
As well as Rotherham there are 2 by-elections in Newham (both Lab) and 1 in Norfolk (Con).
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
You are making some assumptions there. How do you know he is any less committed to his wife and seeks an end to their marriage? There such a thing as an open marriage and a hedonistic view of life. For example, the upper classes are more open-minded in this regard than the puritanical lower classes I suspect.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You'll either end up with a motorbike or terrabytes of gay porn.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
I bought some machine tools as my midlife crisis. And took up rowing. A friend rebuilt his kitchen to have the state of the art Miele ovens he'd always wanted.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family.
I agree with you.
See the comments on Boris Johnsons private life, and the private life of Ken Livingstone.
Corbyn as well. It does appear that politicians and journalists lead somewhat exciting lives, compared to the rest of us.
It’s not old-fashioned to say that I stood up in front of a lady’s parents, in the church and with several dozen of our friends and family present, and said that I would look after her forever. That’s a promise worth keeping.
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...
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You'll either end up with a motorbike or terrabytes of gay porn.
Or arguing with people on the internet about politics for hours on end....ohhhh...
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family.
I agree with you.
See the comments on Boris Johnsons private life, and the private life of Ken Livingstone.
Corbyn as well. It does appear that politicians and journalists lead somewhat exciting lives, compared to the rest of us.
It’s not old-fashioned to say that I stood up in front of a lady’s parents, in the church and with several dozen of our friends and family present, and said that I would look after her forever. That’s a promise worth keeping.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
You are making some assumptions there. How do you know he is any less committed to his wife and seeks an end to their marriage? There such a thing as an open marriage and a hedonistic view of life. For example, the upper classes are more open-minded in this regard than the puritanical lower classes I suspect.
I don't think a class aspect comes into their views, I just think that with more resources comes more free time and ability to act on these things. Many people have open marriages.
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
Andrew Neil dating Pamela Bordes was news. Today, it probably would not be. Times change. There'd need to be more to it than just that. And your suggested added factors, while valid, seem to conflate two different parts of the Huw Edwards allegations. Are you deliberately muddying those waters.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
I bought some machine tools as my midlife crisis. And took up rowing. A friend rebuilt his kitchen to have the state of the art Miele ovens he'd always wanted.
There are plenty of non-insane options available.
I started a YouTube channel. Not sure if that is insane or not...
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
From talking to a number of people in the sector, it seems that the high end administration of charities is full of people who are quite unpleasant. Or actually insane, in a bad way.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Of course we don't know but I sincerely hope he came out to his wife before all this broke.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
I bought some machine tools as my midlife crisis. And took up rowing. A friend rebuilt his kitchen to have the state of the art Miele ovens he'd always wanted.
There are plenty of non-insane options available.
I started a YouTube channel. Not sure if that is insane or not...
Depends on what is on it. Multi-thousand pound "request" videos is probably a poor choice.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You do have the advantage that, even if you don't, it won't be on the front page of the national press, or even an inside page of the local paper.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
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
Andrew Neil dating Pamela Bordes was news. Today, it probably would not be. Times change. There'd need to be more to it than just that. And your suggested added factors, while valid, seem to conflate two different parts of the Huw Edwards allegations. Are you deliberately muddying those waters.
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
From talking to a number of people in the sector, it seems that the high end administration of charities is full of people who are quite unpleasant. Or actually insane, in a bad way.
What makes it worse, is that they all think they are good people doing good work, and therefore above criticism.
Look at the Kids’ Company woman, or the BLM execs who bought houses, or the Oxfam workers who thought paying for sex in poor countries was supporting the local economy.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
Since I'm a couple of posts up, I'll reply.
Of course it's wrong and selfish, to cheat* on your partner. I don't think 'society shrugs' based on the sexuality of an extra-marital affair, it just - generally - goes 'meh' because such things are common. The gay affair for married man generally gets more interest (if not necessarily more opprobrium) as we've seen. society largely shrugs in both cases.
The person I mentioned who got married to a man did a bad thing (in having the affair - had she ended the marriage relationship first then any criticism would related only to getting married in the first place if she was not sincere, although I believe she was, or trying to be). Absolutely. She hurt him; he was an innocent victim.
*I make no moral judgement where the relationship is with the knowledge or consent of the partner.
housands of Ukraine civilians are being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72 ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
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 and has made enough income to not need to work again
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You do have the advantage that, even if you don't, it won't be on the front page of the national press, or even an inside page of the local paper.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
By that logic, Victoria Derbyshire should not be investigating Huw Edwards. If it was required that only a whiter than white journalist could ever report on a story, I think the media would be shut down tomorrow as they wouldn't have enough staff left.
But the story is very complex, lots of unanswered question and that we now allegations beyond cheating on his wife and buying mucky videos.
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...
Oh dear - age does not come alone
But with sighs and groans, and a long waking now, and a long sleep hereafter
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
I'm surprised we havent had a post from you know who saying that monogamy didn't evolve, it is what the bible teaches us.
Government public sector pay announcement at 12.30
Interesting
6%. Currently non inflationary.
Was today's economic data better or worse than expected (-0.1% in May). I'm slightly selfishly hoping it's worse so there's a bit of dovish pressure on the BoE wrt interest rates.
Government public sector pay announcement at 12.30
Interesting
6%. Currently non inflationary.
Was today's economic data better or worse than expected (-0.1% in May). I'm slightly selfishly hoping it's worse so there's a bit of dovish pressure on the BoE wrt interest rates.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You do have the advantage that, even if you don't, it won't be on the front page of the national press, or even an inside page of the local paper.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
By that logic, Victoria Derbyshire should not be investigating Huw Edwards. If it was required that only a whiter than white journalist could ever report on a story, I think the media would be shut down tomorrow as they wouldn't have enough staff left.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
I'm surprised we havent had a post from you know who saying that monogamy didn't evolve, it is what the bible teaches us.
And then y.k.w. would have to be corrected with references to Genesis 16: 4-6 and so on. Lots of polygamy and first/second class wives in there.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
I disagree - the story will go away in good time. We are not still banging on about Schofield, are we?
You just did.
The Schofield story went away, but so did Schofield (I think?).
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
You do have the advantage that, even if you don't, it won't be on the front page of the national press, or even an inside page of the local paper.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
By that logic, Victoria Derbyshire should not be investigating Huw Edwards. If it was required that only a whiter than white journalist could ever report on a story, I think the media would be shut down tomorrow as they wouldn't have enough staff left.
What's Vicky Derbyshire done wrong ?
She had an affair with a BBC boss who was the husband of another presenter, Fi Glover. Glover at the time was a massive rising star, but presented shows that required a hand over from one to another. Glover was "forced" to leave her show and although had a fairly successful career, at the time she was the "star" really going places.
The BBC boss, Mark Sandell, was an editor of some big programmes, was eventually sacked for bullying and sexual harassment and expensive fiddling.
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
From talking to a number of people in the sector, it seems that the high end administration of charities is full of people who are quite unpleasant. Or actually insane, in a bad way.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
I'm surprised we havent had a post from you know who saying that monogamy didn't evolve, it is what the bible teaches us.
And then y.k.w. would have to be corrected with references to Genesis 16: 4-6 and so on. Lots of polygamy and first/second class wives in there.
And Jesus brought a new covenant and made clear in Matthew and Mark in the New Testament that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman for life
housands of Ukraine civilians are being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72 ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
Chechnya 2.0 was the plan for when they took the whole country. I'd be emptying the UK armed forces for the UA least we have to watch another genocide.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Yes, it is hard to see a way back for Huw Edwards, even if completely vindicated. His future might lie more with obscure documentaries about Wales than being national mourner-in-chief.
One thing he has, it seems, is the support of alot of his colleagues. Certainly the well known ones.
Unlike Phillip Schofield, who had made a few enemies, but his well known "friends" just happily ditched him.
His career is as dead as, for a different reason, Michael Barrymore.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
As with everything else in marriage/relationship - you surely find a deal you can both live with or conclude it's time to go your separate ways?
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
So that’s it. For the rest of their lives? I’m talking healthy men in their 50s here. Not 80-somethings
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
From talking to a number of people in the sector, it seems that the high end administration of charities is full of people who are quite unpleasant. Or actually insane, in a bad way.
Like many other organisations, really.
In banking and a few areas the worst offenders have been given the Good News. Due to scandals followed by actions etc.
I do wonder whether this has pushed the truly vile into organisations which haven’t reformed at all…
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out as one.
That is utter bollocks
There are dozens within 5 miles of me desperate to hook up right now.
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)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
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
Or a third rate journalist sticking up for other third rate journalists.
housands of Ukraine civilians are being held in Russian prisons. Russia plans to build many more https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72 ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
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
MAN DOES THING is a news story if he has done the thing.
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
He did do a thing, just not an illegal thing. If this behaviour had come out in the weeks before the death of the Queen, he wouldn't have had the gig of announcing it, that's for sure.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
Yes, it is hard to see a way back for Huw Edwards, even if completely vindicated. His future might lie more with obscure documentaries about Wales than being national mourner-in-chief.
One thing he has, it seems, is the support of alot of his colleagues. Certainly the well known ones.
Unlike Phillip Schofield, who had made a few enemies, but his well known "friends" just happily ditched him.
His career is as dead as, for a different reason, Michael Barrymore.
He does from people of a similar level to him. But now we have these allegations that he was inappropriate towards more junior members of staff. The BBC News team, to their credit, were quick to report on this.
Without the full facts (and if we get any new complaints), it impossible to tell how serious these other allegations are and what was the timeline i.e. is this something that has all happened very recently relating perhaps to a mental health issues or is it something that has gone on for a long time and people have been scared to speak out.
Comments
We can make guesses. But that is all.
BBC sources said Newsnight anchor Victoria Derbyshire was examining accusations about Edwards’ conduct in the days before The Sun made explosive claims about the star allegedly paying a teenager for explicit images.
Derbyshire’s reporting last week raised eyebrows among some BBC staff and it is not clear if senior editors in the news unit were aware of the work.
https://deadline.com/2023/07/huw-edwards-bbc-news-investigation-1235436791/
In this case he has not done the thing. So it isn't news. If I posted some made up crap about leading travel writer Sean Thomas Knox would you be saying "this is a new story?" No - you would be saying "this isn't true" followed by "see you in court".
News is reporting things that happened. Reporting things that didn't happen is called fiction writing. You know more about writing fiction than I do - making something up cannot be considered news.
And remember the basics - they knew this wasn't true. They had the parents complaint about the presenter and the lack of BBC action. But they also had the absolute denial by the alleged victim and his description of how he was estranged from his parents.
So a single source, completely denied by the subject of the story. Explicitly not something that any reputable news editor would run. Unsubstantiated, openly denied, and libellous. Yet they ran it anyway, then claimed they hadn't.
And you call this "a news story"?
How high do you want the vacancy rate to go?
Oh by the way your plan is just as illegal as the Tories one so tough titties Phil
I remember when I first watched The Killing of Sister George, I thought that I was watching a documentary about the BBC, not a drama.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
He was (and I assume still is) paid a ridiculous sum of money to read autocues. Part of the reason he gets so much is his 'trusted elder gent' image. That's gone forever now.
If the strategy was "Labour in the pockets of the union barons who are destroying YOUR lives" then maybe. But one of the people's pledges is to fix the NHS. Hard to do when you let strikes go on without even trying to settle.
"NHS staff strike over loss of right to provide agency cover for their own jobs in strikes."
Again, it is hard to know without a timeline about how all this has gone down. Has he moved from buying mucky pictures and videos, to being more pushy / aggressive / inappropriate in recent times, it is a very small number of isolated incidents of a man undergoing mental trauma. Or is it more long standing pattern of behaviour. There does now seem to be around 8 different allegations of varying nature.
As I said down thread, I think the BBC should commission an independent investigation and the press not to be reporting on every twist and turn, and try to get to the bottom of this.
It’s all such a pile of hypocrisy - on all sides. Enough
The story is bleak and sad, for all concerned, I’m done with talking about it, for today
The teen affected contacted the Sun before it published to say the parents account was completely untrue
The Sun published anyway and didnt tell us the victim said their story was bollocks
What did the government want to happen by proposing this law?
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept.
Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else.
Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
Times Radio
@TimesRadio
“Even though almost everybody in the building knew, to have that name confirmed still came as a shock to many here.”
Oliver Whitfield Miocic tells #TimesRadio the BBC is in shock as at least seven people have spoken out against Hugh Edwards.
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1679441989115232270
An NHS staff bank is an entity managed by a trust, or through a third party organisation who contracts with healthcare professionals to take on shifts at trust hospitals.
And they will be getting NHS rates of pay.
If you can't find bank staff you then have to hit the agency and that will have both a higher cost (agency charges) and probably a higher rate of pay.
I agree with you.
Same story really - middle aged man having a crisis makes some really poor decisions. I really hope I steer my way through that period of my life rather more successfully.
(Did they mean 'better'? That would be a harder call).
They had a perfectly good story. Dirty old man newsreader. And shat the bed by accusing him of paying someone underage based on a single source which was directly denied by the supposed victim.
If nothing else the editor should get fired.
Yesterday, the Treasury promoted their new anti-economic abuse toolkit with a video of Victoria Atkins visiting domestic abuse charity.
Advance, the anti-abuse charity, are themselves under investigation by the Charity Commission for… bullying. To make matters worse, the CEO Nicki Scordi, who is featured in the video, has herself been subject to complaints. According to one source for Civil Society, Scordi left staff “walking on eggshells from her frequent outbursts, reducing many employees to tears”, whilst another employee said she was manipulative and “demeaning”.
https://order-order.com/2023/07/13/government-promotes-anti-abuse-charity-under-investigation-for-bullying/
There are plenty of non-insane options available.
It’s not old-fashioned to say that I stood up in front of a lady’s parents, in the church and with several dozen of our friends and family present, and said that I would look after her forever. That’s a promise worth keeping.
That doesn't make it a bad thing.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
https://i.redd.it/7aw11cu9qhb21.png
BtW I live on that light purple zone.
I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that there are plenty of journalists working in the press today who have behaved just as badly as Edwards, and quite a lot who continue to behave worse. We just don't know about them, because nobody can be bothered to check. But that doesn't feel like a good way to draw a moral line.
Which is why some of the attempts to defend the Sun cause me to arch an eyebrow.
Look at the Kids’ Company woman, or the BLM execs who bought houses, or the Oxfam workers who thought paying for sex in poor countries was supporting the local economy.
Of course it's wrong and selfish, to cheat* on your partner. I don't think 'society shrugs' based on the sexuality of an extra-marital affair, it just - generally - goes 'meh' because such things are common. The gay affair for married man generally gets more interest (if not necessarily more opprobrium) as we've seen. society largely shrugs in both cases.
The person I mentioned who got married to a man did a bad thing (in having the affair - had she ended the marriage relationship first then any criticism would related only to getting married in the first place if she was not sincere, although I believe she was, or trying to be). Absolutely. She hurt him; he was an innocent victim.
*I make no moral judgement where the relationship is with the knowledge or consent of the partner.
Interesting
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-prisons-civilians-torture-detainees-88b4abf2efbf383272eed9378be13c72
ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian civilians woke long before dawn in the bitter cold, lined up for the single toilet and were loaded at gunpoint into the livestock trailer. They spent the next 12 hours or more digging trenches on the front lines for Russian soldiers.
Many were forced to wear overlarge Russian military uniforms that could make them a target, and a former city administrator trudged around in boots five sizes too big. By the end of the day, their hands curled into icy claws.
Nearby, in the occupied region of Zaporizhzhia, other Ukrainian civilians dug mass graves into the frozen ground for fellow prisoners who had not survived. One man who refused to dig was shot on the spot — yet another body for the grave.
Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are being detained across Russia and the Ukrainian territories it occupies, in centers ranging from brand-new wings in Russian prisons to clammy basements. Most have no status under Russian law.
And Russia is planning to hold possibly thousands more. A Russian government document obtained by The Associated Press dating to January outlined plans to create 25 new prison colonies and six other detention centers in occupied Ukraine by 2026.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in May allowing Russia to send people from territories with martial law, which includes all of occupied Ukraine, to those without, such as Russia. This makes it easier to deport Ukrainians who resist Russian occupation deep into Russia indefinitely, which has happened in multiple cases documented by the AP.
Many civilians are picked up for alleged transgressions as minor as speaking Ukrainian or simply being a young man in an occupied region, and are often held without charge. Others are charged as terrorists, combatants, or people who “resist the special military operation.” Hundreds are used for slave labor by Russia’s military, for digging trenches and other fortifications, as well as mass graves...
But the story is very complex, lots of unanswered question and that we now allegations beyond cheating on his wife and buying mucky videos.
Was today's economic data better or worse than expected (-0.1% in May). I'm slightly selfishly hoping it's worse so there's a bit of dovish pressure on the BoE wrt interest rates.
https://brillianttrains.com/east-berlin-transit/
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
The BBC boss, Mark Sandell, was an editor of some big programmes, was eventually sacked for bullying and sexual harassment and expensive fiddling.
Unlike Phillip Schofield, who had made a few enemies, but his well known "friends" just happily ditched him.
His career is as dead as, for a different reason, Michael Barrymore.
Involuntary celibacy can cause deep depression
I’m telling them all to go to hookers and just be discreet. Shoot me
I do wonder whether this has pushed the truly vile into organisations which haven’t reformed at all…
There are dozens within 5 miles of me desperate to hook up right now.
Says so on a webpage I accidentally caught !!!!
Without the full facts (and if we get any new complaints), it impossible to tell how serious these other allegations are and what was the timeline i.e. is this something that has all happened very recently relating perhaps to a mental health issues or is it something that has gone on for a long time and people have been scared to speak out.