Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

MightyAlex said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Piss off you grubby fuck. By that principle the Egyptian/Kentucky tourism boards* should have a direct line to your questionable Thai outgoings.

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Ghedebrav said:

EPG said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.

Two very different sets of needs.

Isn’t that basically the origin of the Sardaukar in Dune?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

Yes it was all the squealing Labour supporters that cost Theresa May her majority. All her Conservative supporters voted Tory as normal but MI5 rubbed out their votes. Use pens not pencils, sheeple!

Pagan2 said:

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Leon said:

PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle

We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so

And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion

Let the people decide

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.

Fairliered said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

Didn't he stand for Plaid Cymru?

I have heard that the stood as a councillor in Aberystwyth on a promise to reinstate grammar schools.

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.

JosiasJessop said:

Before everyone gets high-and-mighty about the Sun, remember they tried to expose Jimmy Savile before his death.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/437231/Jimmy-Savile-bragged-about-suing-over-child-abuse

Cookie said:

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.

You reckon if it had been someone from ITV of a similar standing (the only example I can think of being, er, Schofield) they wouldn't have bothered? Really?

It's a story about Huw Edwards because stories about famous people behaving seedily sell newspapers.

Cyclefree said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.

He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".

It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.

Except that it drowned out the pay awards news.

Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.

Pagan2 said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Cyclefree said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.

He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".

It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.

Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.

On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Pagan2 said:

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Which is an hr/police issue depending on the complaint. I am the first to complain about the misuse of public money. I don't see public money involved here in the alleged behavourior

Paying Huw Edwards an absolute shit tonne of money is a misuse of public money. Maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Huw Edwards paying teenagers for naked pictures is a misuse of his own money. And maybe that's why he always looked so smug.

Neither are great, but they are separate issues.

I feel some sympathy for him. Clearly this isn't a great position for a middle aged family man to be going through, even without doing it in the public eye. But it was entirely self-inflicted by his own almost inconceivably stupid behaviour. It wasn't a sting or anything like that. The spin that this is some right-wing stitch up is preposterous.

And there's clearly a lot of people in the BBC not altogether averse to seeing him hung out to dry.

Far more obviously an attack on the BBC timed to hit it at th etime of the pay awards news.

Except that it drowned out the pay awards news.

Had it been timed a week earlier so that the story had played out, then the awards were announced which brought it back up, then that would presumably have been bigger. Or if the awards were announced then a week later this happened it would presumably have been bigger too.

Doesn't mean they always get timings right. Some of the story was out of their control.

The overall timing is strongly suggestive.

Cookie said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do.
Forgive me.

I've done things which wouldn't bear too much scrutiny.
But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal.
It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Sorry you are wrong, I say this as someone who has no truck with the bbc. If the BBC had been funding it to keep their talent you are right....however if you pay someone a salary and they spend it in a way thats less than optimal it is not down to the employer. It is the same if a civil servant uses their salary to pay for prostitutes...once its paid out as salary its no longer public money

He just got £400,000 a year and a massive pay rise. Unfortunate timing

Luckyguy1983 said:

Pagan2 said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Cyclefree said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.

He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".

It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.

Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.

On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed

Yes it would, but I am not sure that I want to live in a country where there's a ban on reporting such things.

Pagan2 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Pagan2 said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Cyclefree said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

If Edwards hasn't done anything criminal, then it's none of my business, and I hope he can recover and find peace, even though I guess his career is now over. I get that it's a story for the Sun, and that the public like to hear about it but who amongst us hasn't done something a bit morally dubious when trying to get our rocks off or while seeking a bit of excitement? I'm just not feeling the outrage that twitter seems to be apoplectic about it.

He has a wife and 5 children. Spare a thought for them and how they might feel about him and his activities "seeking a bit of excitement".

It's not really a matter of interest for the rest of us and if he is now ill let's hope he gets the help he needs and his family some privacy.

Absolutely. And as you say, as a family they've got some tough times ahead and it's only just started.

On the whole the world would be a lot better place if we all minded our own business about the private lives of others unless a crime has been committed

Yes it would, but I am not sure that I want to live in a country where there's a ban on reporting such things.

I didn't call for a ban, I just think we would be better of if even so the media went...is this legal what they did....if so well really not our business. A ban would unfortunately lead to things being covered up that shouldn't be and yes there is a line here and I don't know how to reconcile it

Leon said:

PB in one of its fits of lefty harrumphing at the plebby tabloids is always a spectacle

We have a free press in this country. They are free to publish whatever stories they want within the law. If people want to read them, they are free to do so

And if the media outlet libels someone, anyone is free to sue them into oblivion

Let the people decide

squareroot2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Before everyone gets high-and-mighty about the Sun, remember they tried to expose Jimmy Savile before his death.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/437231/Jimmy-Savile-bragged-about-suing-over-child-abuse

How often does the Sun get its facts right? I wouldn't use the Sun to.wipe my bum..

Cookie said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

I'm afraid I've got to come clean. I was paid by the taxpayer, and on my stag do in Krakow I went to a lap dancing bar and looked at scantily clad women. I've also paid to fire an AK 74u in the Czech Repulic on another stag do.
Forgive me.

I've done things which wouldn't bear too much scrutiny.
But nothing - and you haven't either, if your admissions are typical of the scale of immorality you achieve - on the scale of paying £35,000 for nude pictures of someone only just legal.
It's not illegal, but you have to ask what your wife and kids would think if they knew - and if the answer is obviously negative, it's almost certainly something you shouldn't be doing. And if you're a high profile public figure, you have to be doubly careful.

DougSeal said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

What I don't want to see is Edwards making an apology along the "I'm sorry....error of judgement...under pressure...stress...self medicating..." lines. He's just got to own it. No excuses, just say "I've let my family down, and the BBC down. Sorry, can't help what my kink is, thats just how I am"
No one else is to blame, he was doing what he wanted.
I get sick of celebrities moaning and whining when they get found out. Just own it and then fade away.

What’s he got to apologise for?

RochdalePioneers said:

The S*n quite clearly put it about that Huw Edwards was a paedophile, paying an under-age child for illegal sex photos. This was explicitly not true, and I hope that he now sues the living shit out of them.

What is the story here - that a man pays to see saucy images of another man? So if I go and pay twinky (but legal) goodness on OnlyFans for access to images, or subscribe to someone's channel having found them on PornHub, how is that any different?

The S*n printed straight lies- that the man was a child - despite them being denounced by the supposed victim. So malicious falsehood, designed specifically to destroy his image and career.

Some of our more excitable posters occasionally respond to non-libellous statement about their side which they dislike with "thats libel". It isn't. But this is.

Park your opinions about the BBC. About lefties. About married men getting secretly turned on by hot male bodies. And look what happened here. If Huw isn't completely broken by this, and can recover himself back to mental fitness, I hope he destroys them.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

Just re-upping this.
I am fucking fuming.

This entire “story” is essentially an attack by Rupert Murdoch on the BBC and it seems the entire country has been happy enough to play along.

Poor Huw.
This is awful.