BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Maggy

It nicely detracts from the shortcomings and poor behaviour of our government overall.

Nothing to do with the government. I know in this era we like to blame absolutely everything on the government to absolve ourselves of any blame for anything. But this is too much of a stretch.

Pity we allow ourselves to be distracted by what people do with other adults in private.

Interesting, as a teacher. How would you assess the scenario of a powerful/influential 60yr old man, paying thousands of pounds for naked photographs from one of your 6th form girls (or boys)?

Would you challenge that? Or Would that just be a distraction to you?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of anything illegal having happened.

"Morally corrupt" is a meaningless term, what one person considers corrupt, another does not.

Maggy's statement, and mine, were both absent of detail.

I - continuously - accept that there is no evidence available to the Met to indicate illegal activity in line with their statement.

I am however considering if a journalist must hold politicians to account on moral matters how they can do so if there are skeletons in their closets. Can they look a Minister, or even a Prime Minister, in the eye and hold them to account if deep down they know the other side of the table know they have skeletons in theirs.

The very fact the man had a mental breakdown at being exposed says to me 'no'.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

AFAIK, there is still no evidence of anything illegal having happened.

"Morally corrupt" is a meaningless term, what one person considers corrupt, another does not.

No doubt, if you found out a prominent even famous 60yr old man had struck up a relationship with your 17/18 yr old son or daughter and had coerced them into exposing themselves graphically in photographs for his sexual gratification, you’d be absolutely fine with that as no law had been broken?

“Have at it” , I’m sure you’d say. You’re not morally corrupt, not in my book.

[jfman]

I am absolutely appalled by much of what I've read over the last few days on this thread, and I don't intend to (but may) keep contributing as further evidence arises until there is clarity.

I don't agree with all of Pierre's statements but there's an underlying issue - we live in a country with legal standards, and moral standards, that we expect from politicians and others of public standing, or we just exist in one where the law is the law and go out and enjoy yourself otherwise.

The obvious risk - to someone in the journalism trade - at existing in a moral vacuum is that the politician across the table can expose you to your wife, your children, your parents, etc.

It embarrasses me that other forum members who I generally, and often wholeheartedly, associate with do not recognise this.

Many of us will have employers that request us to act beyond reproach for the risk we tarnish their reputation, in the private sector but most definitely in the public sector. I've no idea why the fifth highest paid member of BBC staff is exempt.

Originally Posted by Pierre

There are parallels and my point is not on the legalities of each scenario but the response to them by the wider talking heads.

Both men in positions of power, both preying on vulnerable adolescents.

One was, rightly, vilified.

Because in that case, it's alleged it wasn't consensual. There is a world of moral differences between consensual and non-consensual sexual activities. That's why the latter is illegal.

I largely agree with some of what you've been saying about this but the comparison to what Price Andrew is alleged to have done doesn't work.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It embarrasses me that other forum members who I generally, and often wholeheartedly, associate with do not recognise this.

Many of us will have employers that request us to act beyond reproach for the risk we tarnish their reputation, in the private sector but most definitely in the public sector. I've no idea why the fifth highest paid member of BBC staff is exempt.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

How does a journalist or presenter hold to account morally corrupt politicians if they too are morally corrupt

They can't and I don't envisage Edwards returning to such a role.

---------- Post added at 08:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Many of us will have employers that request us to act beyond reproach for the risk we tarnish their reputation, in the private sector but most definitely in the public sector. I've no idea why the fifth highest paid member of BBC staff is exempt.

It looks a but strange. Has the BBC decided not to pursue matters for now as he's in hospital and unlikely to return? Or has it just been caught on the hop?

Originally Posted by jfman

I am absolutely appalled by much of what I've read over the last few days on this thread, and I don't intend to (but may) keep contributing as further evidence arises until there is clarity.

I don't agree with all of Pierre's statements but there's an underlying issue - we live in a country with legal standards, and moral standards, that we expect from politicians and others of public standing, or we just exist in one where the law is the law and go out and enjoy yourself otherwise.

The obvious risk - to someone in the journalism trade - at existing in a moral vacuum is that the politician across the table can expose you to your wife, your children, your parents, etc.

It embarrasses me that other forum members who I generally, and often wholeheartedly, associate with do not recognise this.

Many of us will have employers that request us to act beyond reproach for the risk we tarnish their reputation, in the private sector but most definitely in the public sector. I've no idea why the fifth highest paid member of BBC staff is exempt.

Totally agree with this - probity is all (or should be).

However, we should bear in mind this was also an attack on the BBC by the Murdoch-owned Sun (and certain parts of the Conservative Party), intimating that someone had carried out criminal acts (the word "child" was used initially (to stoke outrage), before being replaced by "17 year old"), before retracting their accusations. Remember how this paper reported the Hillsborough disaster?

Should Huw Edwards have done what he did? No
Should it have been the lead item in the media for nearly a week? Also, (imho) No.

btw, look forward to the equal condemnation of Dan Wooton…

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They can't and I don't envisage Edwards returning to such a role.

---------- Post added at 08:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------


It looks a but strange. Has the BBC decided not to pursue matters for now as he's in hospital and unlikely to return? Or has it just been caught on the hop?

The BBC investigation has resumed.

BBC resumes Huw Edwards inquiry as no criminality found by police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66186092

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The BBC investigation has resumed.

BBC resumes Huw Edwards inquiry as no criminality found by police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66186092

Makes sense. So we don't know if he's been exempted or not as the investigation has only just been resumed.

[Sephiroth]

The virtue signalling of some on here who profess sym,patchy for Edwards should be put aside, imo.

An acid test is what would be in your mind if Edwards read the 10 o/c news again or similar?

For most normal people, there would be a feeling of disdain (btw as I have for Naga Munshitty for a different reason) that one wouldn’t have with another mainstream presenter.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The virtue signalling of some on here who profess sym,patchy for Edwards should be put aside, imo.

An acid test is what would be in your mind if Edwards read the 10 o/c news again or similar?

For most normal people, there would be a feeling of disdain (btw as I have for Naga Munshitty for a different reason) that one wouldn’t have with another mainstream presenter.

If there ends up being nothing behind the other accusations then I would not care if he read the news again. So he was a fool, Christ I have been a total idiot on many occasions

More sordid people in parliament as far as I am concerned. Would rather have someone whose biggest "sin" was to pay a sex worker than the fraudsters and self centred selfish pricks who run the country now

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The virtue signalling of some on here who profess sym,patchy for Edwards should be put aside, imo.

An acid test is what would be in your mind if Edwards read the 10 o/c news again or similar?

For most normal people, there would be a feeling of disdain (btw as I have for Naga Munshitty for a different reason) that one wouldn’t have with another mainstream presenter.

I'm not seeing any virtue signalling on here, just a good debate.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The virtue signalling of some on here who profess sym,patchy for Edwards should be put aside, imo.

An acid test is what would be in your mind if Edwards read the 10 o/c news again or similar?

For most normal people, there would be a feeling of disdain (btw as I have for Naga Munshitty for a different reason) that one wouldn’t have with another mainstream presenter.

I could never take Angela Rippon's newscasting seriously again after she got her legs out on Morecambe and Wise.

We want robots to tell the news, not imperfect human beings.

[Halcyon]

There is no such thing as a perfect human being.


He was good at his job and if found to have committed no crimes then he should be allowed to go back to his job.
The problem you'll get is things stick. For example if someone was accused of being a pedophile but then found not guilty, it would be very difficult to shake off and not have that negative association with you forever. It's the sad truth. People often love to see the bad and shock that makes it into the papers, but good news goes un-noticed.


I think he's definately made a few bad moves and as a person in the public spotlight he should have behaved better.

[ianch99]

Isn't this yet another case of the right wing press, in this case the Sun being directed by Murdock, triggering the predicable over the top Pavlovian reaction from the gullible. It seems the BBC is a target for the right wing and this is one of the confected attack pieces that generates all sorts of pearl clutching.

Meanwhile, we have almost zero coverage & "outrage" for this:

Arrested Tory MP has not been in parliament for year

A Conservative MP has not attended the House of Commons for over a year, following his arrest for sexual offences and misconduct in public office.

Andrew Rosindell has been under investigation by the Metropolitan Police since January 2020 and was formally detained in May last year.

He denies any wrongdoing and is on bail, which has been extended five times. He has not been charged.

Now this guy may be as innocent as Edwards, who knows, but I don't see the same moral outage. Says it all ...