BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 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



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

Not Really, I have absolutely no idea who this minor Tory MP is or do I care., and most likely neither do most of the country.

If he's guilty then he should face whatever penalty he receives. There's plenty of left wing rags and journos and TV channels can push the story if they want.


The Sun ran with the story but the Sun alone could not break it through into wider parlance. I don't, and never have, read the Sun. I found out through Social Media.

Edwards was known by millions, that's what made it a story. The BBC knew and did nothing, that's what made it a story.

In regards to the MP, having been arrested and continually bailed, I would ask what is taking the Police so long? They investigated and cleared Edwards in a matter of days.

Though the Conservatives should undertake their own internal investigation of the MP, as I'm sure he has broken standards, and discipline him as required.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 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.

One might politely suggest that someone employed by the BBC on over four hundred thousand pounds a year - as a newsreader - would have had the foresight to predict this and adjusted his behaviour accordingly.

[Sephiroth]

Talk about “confected” …….

Your piece is even more confected. You’ve got the right wing in there, the gullible, Murdoch, Pavlovian, outrage.

There are more outrageous matters than Rosindell you could have chosen, many of which command threads here.

The press will be limited as to what they could say about Rosindell. It's only this week he was finally named. I am not sure why they are now naming him since it's been a year but as the investigation continues the press can't say anything other than that he is under investigation.

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Edwards was known by millions, that's what made it a story. The BBC knew and did nothing, that's what made it a story.

What made it a story originally was the accusation he solicited illegal images.

In regards to the MP, having been arrested and continually bailed, I would ask what is taking the Police so long? They investigated and cleared Edwards in a matter of days.

There aren't any accusations in the case of Edwards anymore. Presumably, police looked at the images in question and found them legal. A pretty quick and easy thing to investigate.

With the MP there are accusations that are harder to prove/disprove although I have no idea what they do that takes so long. There is a footballer that's been on bail for a year as well.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

The press will be limited as to what they could say about Rosindell. It's only this week he was finally named. I am not sure why they are now naming him since it's been a year but as the investigation continues the press can't say anything other than that he is under investigation.

On timing, I think the fact he was selected for as a candidate for the next GE with the local party unaware has been deemed “newsworthy”.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

There aren't any accusations in the case of Edwards anymore. Presumably, police looked at the images in question and found them legal. A pretty quick and easy thing to investigate.

I’m not even convinced their assessment went as far as that.

From their own statement

Detectives from the Met’s Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.

In reaching this decision, they have spoken to a number of parties including the BBC and the alleged complainant and the alleged complainant’s family, both via another police force. There is no further police action. As such, the Met has advised the BBC it can continue with its internal investigation.”

I interpret that as the parents being asked to put up or shut up. On top of the firm, unequivocal statement from the victim themselves issued through their lawyers, it’s hard to see what lawful basis they’d have to go around snooping in people’s devices.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

One might politely suggest that someone employed by the BBC on over four hundred thousand pounds a year - as a newsreader - would have had the foresight to predict this and adjusted his behaviour accordingly.

You are missing my point. It is not the person involved, rather the wider target i.e. the BBC and the attack vector via the Sun and its owner.

Yes, the man involved has made serious misjudgements but then so have so many others where we have deafening silence. This is not about the person in question, never has been.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Talk about “confected” …….

Your piece is even more confected. You’ve got the right wing in there, the gullible, Murdoch, Pavlovian, outrage.

There are more outrageous matters than Rosindell you could have chosen, many of which command threads here.

So let me ask this question: who has, so far, behaved more egregiously? An elected MP, previously Chairman of the Conservative Party, arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office or the BBC presenter who has so far, it seems, committed no offence.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not Really, I have absolutely no idea who this minor Tory MP is or do I care., and most likely neither do most of the country.

If he's guilty then he should face whatever penalty he receives. There's plenty of left wing rags and journos and TV channels can push the story if they want.


The Sun ran with the story but the Sun alone could not break it through into wider parlance. I don't, and never have, read the Sun. I found out through Social Media.

Edwards was known by millions, that's what made it a story. The BBC knew and did nothing, that's what made it a story.

In regards to the MP, having been arrested and continually bailed, I would ask what is taking the Police so long? They investigated and cleared Edwards in a matter of days.

Though the Conservatives should undertake their own internal investigation of the MP, as I'm sure he has broken standards, and discipline him as required.

I'd like to think that being an MP is a job known by many and that the as the Conservative Party "did nothing" you would be equally, or even more, outraged ... or maybe not ....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are missing my point. It is not the person involved, rather the wider target i.e. the BBC and the attack vector via the Sun and its owner.

Yes, the man involved has made serious misjudgements but then so have so many others where we have deafening silence. This is not about the person in question, never has been.

There's a massive gap between missing your point and simply not agreeing with it. The finger pointing at others with dubious behaviour is a red herring.

So let me ask this question: who has, so far, behaved more egregiously? An elected MP, previously Chairman of the Conservative Party, arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office or the BBC presenter who has so far, it seems, committed no offence.

I'd like to think that being an MP is a job known by many and that the as the Conservative Party "did nothing" you would be equally, or even more, outraged ... or maybe not ....

You could paste that invitation alongside a textbook definition of contempt of court.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are missing my point. It is not the person involved, rather the wider target i.e. the BBC and the attack vector via the Sun and its owner.

Yes, the man involved has made serious misjudgements but then so have so many others where we have deafening silence. This is not about the person in question, never has been.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------



So let me ask this question: who has, so far, behaved more egregiously? An elected MP, previously Chairman of the Conservative Party, arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office or the BBC presenter who has so far, it seems, committed no offence.[COLOR="Silver"]

<SNIP>

So let me ask this question: who has, so far, behaved more egregiously? An elected MP, previously Chairman of the Conservative Party, arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office or the BBC presenter who has so far, it seems, committed no offence

Huw Edwards is known by millions and held in great respect. This popularity has been his downfall because of reports that he has indulged in behaviour of which most people disapprove.

The MP's behaviour - well no surprise there and hardly anybody has heard of him.

This is the reality and why you're banging on in such outrage at what's happening is baffling.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Huw Edwards is known by millions and held in great respect. This popularity has been his downfall because of reports that he has indulged in behaviour of which most people disapprove.

The MP's behaviour - well no surprise there and hardly anybody has heard of him.

This is the reality and why you're banging on in such outrage at what's happening is baffling.

I think the lack of outrage when the former Chairman of the Conservative Party is arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office really says it all both in terms of the current state of the country and how far we have come.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

There's a massive gap between missing your point and simply not agreeing with it. The finger pointing at others with dubious behaviour is a red herring.



You could paste that invitation alongside a textbook definition of contempt of court.

This is not finger pointing, rather a contrast.

Regards the red herring of contempt of court, consider the levels of publicity & outrage when the name of the BBC presenter was not known.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think the lack of outrage when the former Chairman of the Conservative Party is arrested for sexual offences and misconduct in public office really says it all both in terms of the current state of the country and how far we have come.

This is not finger pointing, rather a contrast.

Regards the red herring of contempt of court, consider the levels of publicity & outrage when the name of the BBC presenter was not known.

I'm still not sure what you point actually is. You are comparing apples with pears.

Contempt of court is a specific crime that applies once someone has been arrested for an offence. That did not happen in one case and has in the other. The Conservative Party are put in a difficult position. Given the nature of the offence, length of investigation, the longer it is out of the limelight the better. For any accusers as much as anything else. You don't want a mob of idiots calling them liars on the internet, just as a mob assuming guilt is undesirable to the process.

If you want to make a sport out of going after any Tory there's plenty of others that would be safer to go after at this time.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm still not sure what you point actually is. You are comparing apples with pears.

Contempt of court is a specific crime that applies once someone has been arrested for an offence. That did not happen in one case and has in the other. The Conservative Party are put in a difficult position. Given the nature of the offence, length of investigation, the longer it is out of the limelight the better. For any accusers as much as anything else. You don't want a mob of idiots calling them liars on the internet, just as a mob assuming guilt is undesirable to the process.

If you want to make a sport out of going after any Tory there's plenty of others that would be safer to go after at this time.

Again, you are missing the point: two people, both unnamed. One lynched in the court of moral public outrage, the other unnoticed.

Spot the difference ..

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Again, you are missing the point: two people, both unnamed. One lynched in the court of moral public outrage, the other unnoticed.

Spot the difference ..

The Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Can I just check your stance - because this might actually be the issue. Do you think the Huw Edwards story wasn't newsworthy?

Originally Posted by jfman

The Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Hello darkness, my old friend …

At journalist training I became deeply acquainted with this piece of legislation (as well as various pieces of defamation law).

A judge can have someone arrested, dragged to court and then subject them to summary conviction under the Contempt Act and send them immediately to jail. No trial, no bail, no jury. Newspaper editors tend not to mess about with it.

What is this thread about.Because I'm failing entirely to see any point to it.It's just a pointless argument between two people who can't apparently agree to disagree. Showing your ages methinks.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Can I just check your stance - because this might actually be the issue. Do you think the Huw Edwards story wasn't newsworthy?

Just a closing thought (don't want to upset anyone ), can you be held in Contempt of Court if you publish an article about an anonymous MP? Answers on a postcard!

And to answer your question: yes, it was newsworthy but the story about the MP was equally so, which was my point all along.

BTW, expect a deluge of moral outrage about the emerging Wootton story ..