BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure further ridiculous extrapolation does anything to support your point. It’s almost as if unrelated events at different times can and should be judged on their own merits without an inherent unconscious (or even conscious) bias.

Just because it doesn't align with your perspective/beliefs doesn't make it ridiculous.

Disappointing, I thought you were better than that.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure further ridiculous extrapolation does anything to support your point. It’s almost as if unrelated events at different times can and should be judged on their own merits without an inherent unconscious (or even conscious) bias.

Irony overload seeing as your entire view is based on your conscious bias

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

People will make their own conclusions without knowing the facts and they love doing it.
It is good to hear that the official bodies (the police) have determined nothing illegal is taking place.


As for the newspaper publishing underage photos, it was a different time back then. Just in the same way that they used to hang people for crimes in the UK but now thankfully this no longer takes place.
You can't compare what was fine in the past with what is the current law now.

Ah, so because it was a different time back then that justifies behaviours that occurred. Got it

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I still nothing.

I’m under no obligation to swallow the simple old fool spaffed 35 grand on Onlyfans so let’s feel sorry for him narrative.

I of course make no accusations of crime. I don’t base my moral compass upon what actions at any given time are lawful or not.

Particularly when wealthy, older people potentially exploit poorer, younger people.

Could you provide the evidence to support that the person in question was exploited, because otherwise that's speculation, conjecture & whataboutery

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Ah, so because it was a different time back then that justifies behaviours that occurred. Got it

They (and many other publications) did not do anything illegal, or publish underage pictures.
"underage" is defined by Law, and the law back then was 16, just like the Law for some sexual acts was 21, then 18, and now 16.

So yes, it 100% justified "behaviours that occurred" at the time.


The Sun however is now backtracking big time ;

The Sun says it didn't intend to suggest Edwards had done anything criminal and won't be publishing further claims about him

[Halcyon]

Exactly what Paul says above.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Could you provide the evidence to support that the person in question was exploited, because otherwise that's speculation, conjecture & whataboutery

I don’t see how it’s “whataboutery” I’m not drawing an equivalence to any other actions.

I’ve been quite clear throughout that on the basis of the information available it’s not possible to reach the conclusions others have. You will note my use of potentially in the post you quoted. I think that sufficiently qualifies my statement - I can’t provide evidence any more than anyone else speculating on the thread.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Irony overload seeing as your entire view is based on your conscious bias

I’m not making judgements, only pointing out that others are reaching conclusions that cannot yet be substantiated.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not making judgements, only pointing out that others are reaching conclusions that cannot yet be substantiated.

That is exactly what you are doing

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

That is exactly what you are doing

Where?

As I said before you are free to accept the narrative that’ll be pushed to rehabilitate him onto our screens (assuming the BBC internal complaints come to nothing).

Others are free to accept there’s a grey area of unacceptable behaviour for people in public life that remains on the right side of the law. Which is to date the only thing the police have confirmed - they haven’t found evidence of anything illegal.

[Sephiroth]

Whatever, y'all.

We're now talking about yesterday's man.

Next, please.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Others are free to accept there’s a grey area of unacceptable behaviour for people in public life that remains on the right side of the law. Which is to date the only thing the police have confirmed - they haven’t found evidence of anything illegal.

The great and the good are all rallying around him, as if he is the victim………sickening.


Robert Peston, Alasdair Campbell, Jon Sopel, Owen Jones to name a few, which makes sense as I remember how understanding the likes of those were with Prince Andrew, when he did nothing illegal…………….

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Robert Peston, Alasdair Campbell, Jon Sopel, Owen Jones to name a few

With an outstanding investigation by the BBC into the Sun allegation, the lockdown breach, threatening behaviour confirmed by BBC News and - as reported by the BBCs own Victoria Derbyshire - multiple allegations of misconduct from junior employees.

One can only wonder how anyone being bullied or harassed at a major news organisation by a more senior member of staff feels at this very minute.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The great and the good are all rallying around him, as if he is the victim………sickening.

The problem is this got so much attention because of the suggestion of illegal activity. If they came out and said there was legal, but morally questionable, sexual activity between consenting adults then it's not clear it would be published. Likewise 'BBC Presenter broke lockdown rules to have an affair' might be a story that people would be angry about if it had been the initial story to break.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Robert Peston, Alasdair Campbell, Jon Sopel, Owen Jones to name a few, which makes sense as I remember how understanding the likes of those were with Prince Andrew, when he did nothing illegal…………….

Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault by the alleged victim.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The great and the good are all rallying around him, as if he is the victim………sickening.


Robert Peston, Alasdair Campbell, Jon Sopel, Owen Jones to name a few, which makes sense as I remember how understanding the likes of those were with Prince Andrew, when he did nothing illegal…………….

If he has had his reputation trashed through the conduct of legal activity with another consenting individual, then he is a victim of Press character assassination and deserves sympathy. If his self-destructive behaviour is an outflow of his poor mental health then he deserves sympathy for his condition and best wishes for his recovery.

*At the same time* he is the one who gate-keeps many of the nation’s deepest moments of significance and it’s quite reasonable for us to expect a higher standard of behaviour from him than ‘it’s legal’ - much as we expected, and got, that from the Queen, whose death he announced.

Coming to a balanced, compassionate and pragmatic view of all this requires an attention to nuance that the internet does not typically do very well. Everyone here might benefit from a little quiet reflection rather than setting out their hot-take reactions and then defending them to the death.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

With an outstanding investigation by the BBC into the Sun allegation, the lockdown breach, threatening behaviour confirmed by BBC News and - as reported by the BBCs own Victoria Derbyshire - multiple allegations of misconduct from junior employees.

One can only wonder how anyone being bullied or harassed at a major news organisation by a more senior member of staff feels at this very minute.

All of it is, at present, allegations with no proof that it actually happened.


Time will tell whether these things actually happened or not.


Quite possible his friends and colleagues are coming out and supporting him at the moment because the guy is ill in hospital and also because he is innocent until proven guilty.


If we had trial by media, the S*n would have ensured the whole of Liverpool was in jail in 1989. Now I do not like Liverpool fans much, but the way the S*n treated them and perpetuated, even amplified the lies coming out of SYP at the time regarding the disaster, was an absolute disgrace and should never have been allowed.



It's also no surprise that it is the same publication at the centre of these allegations, which let us not forget the legal system has investigated and dismissed.


I am not saying whether HE has done what is alleged or not, I have little interest in making a judgement on this myself, partially because we have a legal system which decides this. If he has broken internal BBC procedures then this should again be down to the BBC to decide. Nor am I suggesting what he allegedly did was morally right or not because that isn't my position to judge either. But he is also not going to be guilty of it because the S*n says he is.


As for the 2nd paragraph, one would hope the BBC would have a respect charter or similar for employees, with the facility of raising any concerns or allegations about bullying to either a senior manager or member of the HR dept (and yes, I know the latter is primarily to protect the ER from being sued if they don't follow correct processes with the EE, but bullying/constructive dismissal cases could well come under that banner). Some larger companies even have anonymous hotlines for this kind of thing.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The problem is this got so much attention because of the suggestion of illegal activity. If they came out and said there was legal, but morally questionable, sexual activity between consenting adults then it's not clear it would be published. Likewise 'BBC Presenter broke lockdown rules to have an affair' might be a story that people would be angry about if it had been the initial story to break.



Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault by the alleged victim.

Matt Hancock may well beg to differ on the affair question. Like Johnson and the party lies, it basically finished him as a politician.


You're spot on, though Damien.


There was only interest in this because not only did the S*n whip it into a frenzy that a senior BBC presenter had asked a young teen for pictures to fund his drug habit, but there was also the mystique that said person couldn't be named, and the question as to whether any laws have been broken.


This was allowed to carry on for a few days simply because details couldn't go out.



But now the police have decided there is no illegal activity to answer (why is this - if he has been getting naked pics off a 17 yr old this is clearly off the face of it illegal, so there is potentially either the case it didn't happen at all, or the kid said he was 18, or there was reasonable belief they were etc etc), the person has been named, there's no aura over it now.


It might not be in the best interests for anyone to produce any more details. If they turned round now and said, for example, that yes the kid was 17, but that he told HE he was 19 and his social media profile was aged up, then OK that's technically not allowed but how far is one meant to go? There's still also the implication there that a man in his 60s was interested in sexual pics of a teen lad which seems a bit icky on presumably most people's moral compasses, even if the lad is 18 and it's technically not breaking any laws.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

If he has had his reputation trashed through the conduct of legal activity with another consenting individual then he is a victim of Press character assassination and deserves sympathy.,

So his age vs the age of the youth (may have been a minor, may have not at some time) + his fame/power and the small matter of £35K. Plus nothing at all has been reported of the mental and physical state of the youth ……other than there may have been a drug dependency issue………..

I think I’ll keep my sympathy on hold.

Coming to a balanced, compassionate and pragmatic view of all this requires an attention to nuance that the internet does not typically do very well. Everyone here might benefit from a little quiet reflection rather than setting out their hot-take reactions and then defending them to the death.

Oh, I agree.

But I am unsettled at what seems to be a campaign to absolve him of any agency, due to his “mental Health”. There seems to have been scant regard for the youth, so far.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The problem is this got so much attention because of the suggestion of illegal activity. If they came out and said there was legal, but morally questionable, sexual activity between consenting adults then it's not clear it would be published. Likewise 'BBC Presenter broke lockdown rules to have an affair' might be a story that people would be angry about if it had been the initial story to break.



Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault by the alleged victim.

Accused….she was not under age, was there freely and was paid out twice. With no suggestion of illegality.