BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let’s not lose sight of the real goings on. A ‘household name’, married with 5 kids, had a secret life of lewdness until he was unmasked.

He’s free to be lewd, but the public interest is high when the lewd person is a ‘household name’, a m an of immense gravitas.

Cobblers. Nothing illegal. Hes not like a hypocritical politician criticising others, while doing differently themselves. Just a news reader with mental health issues.

We all I have our 'interests'.
E.g. I have a cactus collection The Sun will 'out me' one day I should think.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let’s not lose sight of the real goings on. A ‘household name’, married with 5 kids, had a secret life of lewdness until he was unmasked.

He’s free to be lewd, but the public interest is high when the lewd person is a ‘household name’, a m an of immense gravitas.

Boris isn’t the subject here…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Cobblers. Nothing illegal. Hes not like a hypocritical politician criticising others, while doing differently themselves. Just a news reader with mental health issues.

We all I have our 'interests'.
E.g. I have a cactus collection The Sun will 'out me' one day I should think.

Hmmm, cactus, Sun, out, ... where it don't shine.

Seriously though - you having a cactus collection explains a lot. Perfectly legal, of course, but you're not a "household name". So you put your cacti anywhere you like.


---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Boris isn’t the subject here…

What's your point?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let’s not lose sight of the real goings on. A ‘household name’, married with 5 kids, had a secret life of lewdness until he was unmasked.

He’s free to be lewd, but the public interest is high when the lewd person is a ‘household name’, a m an of immense gravitas.

It’s still his problem, not ours, Seph. Private lives should be kept private and we could all do with a lot less moralising.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Hmmm, cactus, Sun, out, ... where it don't shine.

Seriously though - you having a cactus collection explains a lot. Perfectly legal, of course, but you're not a "household name". So you put your cacti anywhere you like.


---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------



What's your point?

Maybe the point is that it’s Boris who can’t do anything right by members of this forum.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s still his problem, not ours, Seph. Private lives should be kept private and we could all do with a lot less moralising.

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------


Maybe the point is that it’s Boris who can’t do anything right by members of this forum.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Boris isn’t the subject here…

We aren't talking about how many kids he has every year either.

[Pierre]

As was, I thought, settled a long time ago. The legality of the episode is not the pertinent issue. A man of influence and power in his 60’s, corrupting a teenager, is the story.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe the point is that it’s Boris who can’t do anything right by members of this forum.

Given that he’s proven that’s the case there’s nothing wrong at all with calling him out for it especially when he’s shown to be corrupt, corruptible, dishonest plus all the rest and for a while was able to make choices and decisions that directly affect OUR lives.

Huw Edwards has shown himself to be a competent and respected newsreader until all this broke. He’s likely still a good newsreader but many feel let down and disappointed by him. Especially here in Wales, we’ve always been proud of him.

So really, you can’t seriously compare Bullshitting Boris to Huw Edwards in all this.

Originally Posted by Pierre

As was, I thought, settled a long time ago. The legality of the episode is not the pertinent issue. A man of influence and power in his 60’s, corrupting a teenager, is the story.

One of the stories - another is a major tabloid making stuff up about an adult (aged 18), perhaps to distract from the allegation that one of it’s previous senior employees had been engaged in corrupt, perhaps illegal, activities…

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As was, I thought, settled a long time ago. The legality of the episode is not the pertinent issue. A man of influence and power in his 60’s, corrupting a teenager, is the story.

Influence and power? He just reads the news from an autocue. As long as he can still do that then thats all that matters to us and his employer. He isn't the PM, and hasn't done anything illegal.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s the first time I’ve known you to be lost for words, Hugh.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s the first time I’ve known you to be lost for words, Hugh.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Russ

So really, you can’t seriously compare Bullshitting Boris to Huw Edwards in all this.

I didn’t.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

So really, you can’t seriously compare Bullshitting Boris to Huw Edwards in all this.

That would be “Bullshitting Boris” and Prevert “Huw Edwards”? Both public figures, both doing bad things.

[Russ]

Do you consider sending pictures to someone considerably younger as “perverted”? Really? “Immoral” maybe but “perverted”? Had the person he was communicated with been under 18 then I could see that but there’s nothing to prove that’s taken place.

Not what I’d call “perverted”.