BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[jfman]

If said MP is subsequently identified I’d imagine yes, contempt of court rules would apply. In Scotland a blogger was jailed during the Salmond trial for referring to the women who accused him in such a way some could be identified.

Wooton is more whataboutery I’m afraid. He’s not a household name in any way, shape or form. Nor are his wages paid by the taxpayer.

I will accept the mod nudge to leave it there.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

If said MP is subsequently identified I’d imagine yes, contempt of court rules would apply. In Scotland a blogger was jailed during the Salmond trial for referring to the women who accused him in such a way some could be identified.

Wooton is more whataboutery I’m afraid. He’s not a household name in any way, shape or form. Nor are his wages paid by the taxpayer.

I will accept the mod nudge to leave it there.

Sorry, one last comment. Said MP was not subject to any court proceedings AFAIK for the last year (and still isn't) so I am unclear where the Contempt of Court rabbit hole came from. And, yet again, I was contrasting coverage (or lack of) of the unnamed MP.

Here is the article from the Times where they decided to name the MP:

If the truth about our MPs is hidden, democracy suffers

I urge you to read it. They do not refer to the threat of Contempt of Court because there isn't any.

Enough now ...

He’s been arrested in connection with a criminal investigation. If newspaper reporting around that causes “substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment” to a subsequent trial relating specifically to that case, then contempt of court has occurred, even if the man in question hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Act does not specifically ban the naming of him, but as naming him could lead to prejudicial reporting, newspaper editors are unlikely to do so unless there’s a clear public interest in doing so, and they believe they can do it in a very careful and controlled manner that they can robustly defend later on. In the case of a back-bench MP who is under suspicion and has been arrested for questioning but not charged, it’s probably not worth the risk - until the cloak of anonymity allows him to get re-selected by local party members who didn’t know what was going on. The story probably begins to take on a significance that’s worth the risk and effort of careful reporting with regards to the CCA at that point.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

He’s been arrested in connection with a criminal investigation. If newspaper reporting around that causes “substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment” to a subsequent trial relating specifically to that case, then contempt of court has occurred, even if the man in question hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Act does not specifically ban the naming of him, but as naming him could lead to prejudicial reporting, newspaper editors are unlikely to do so unless there’s a clear public interest in doing so, and they believe they can do it in a very careful and controlled manner that they can robustly defend later on. In the case of a back-bench MP who is under suspicion and has been arrested for questioning but not charged, it’s probably not worth the risk - until the cloak of anonymity allows him to get re-selected by local party members who didn’t know what was going on. The story probably begins to take on a significance that’s worth the risk and effort of careful reporting with regards to the CCA at that point.

100% this.

It’s worth noting that no newspaper named Edwards. His wife did.

Although it was widely deduced on social media platforms to the point it was untenable is down to his own error of judgement unless someone believes the BBC, with a complaint, with the prospect of a police investigation, with their own journalists uncovering internal complaints, with a duty of care to all of their own staff should have left him on air. An absolutely preposterous position to hold for the state broadcaster.

It’s very clear that some are being blinded by who it is and their own bias, rather than merits of the reporting of allegations.

Some of this thread will look absolutely atrocious for some upon reflection if the BBCs own internal complaints process sacks him.

[Sephiroth]

So what, Ian? The Huw Edwards story had itsown life which has now dwindled. The disgraced MP story will be dragged up again at the ‘right’ moment.

All good fun when there is no real victim.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So what, Ian? The Huw Edwards story had itsown life which has now dwindled. The disgraced MP story will be dragged up again at the ‘right’ moment.

All good fun when there is no real victim.

Good point, unless you count the people the MP is accused of indecently assaulting...

[jfman]

The BBC will agree the terms of reference for their inquiry at a full board meeting on Thursday and it’ll be published in due course.

Tim Davie essentially appeals for anyone with any information they think might be useful when he spoke to the Lords this afternoon. Stating the inquiry could take “weeks or a couple of months, or possibly longer”.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sectio...ink=media_news

The Eye has seen details of the complaint made by the stepfather of the young man at the centre of the initial story when he presented himself at the front desk of the BBC's office in Cardiff on 18 May. It specified that Edwards had first met him when he was 18 and there was no mention of photographs being exchanged, or any contact at all, prior to this age.

The stepfather also said the family had already contacted South Wales Police to report what was going on, but that the force had already told them nothing illegal appeared to have occurred. Although an amount of more than £30,000 exchanging hands was mentioned, there was no mention of it being used to buy drugs.

By the time the family's account appeared on the front page of the Sun on 8 July, however, it had become "giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images", and, inside, the even more loaded phrase "paid her crack-addicted child for sexual images".

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sectio...ink=media_news

But what story did the parents give to "The Sun"? They simply wanted the payments to stop. As such, certain matters might have been missed out when complaining to the BBC. Did they simply want the BBC to have words with the presenter, rather than a big fuss being kicked up over it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sectio...ink=media_news

Cat meets pigeons.

[Jaymoss]

Wonder if we will see the lynch mob climb down now?

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

But what story did the parents give to "The Sun"? They simply wanted the payments to stop. As such, certain matters might have been missed out when complaining to the BBC. Did they simply want the BBC to have words with the presenter, rather than a big fuss being kicked up over it.

Then why go to The Sun at all. I think this supposition is the same work of fiction The Sun come up with

The Sun would not have back tracked either had they actually published what they were told

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Wonder if we will see the lynch mob climb down now?

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------



Then why go to The Sun at all. I think this supposition is the same work of fiction The Sun come up with

The Sun would not have back tracked either had they actually published what they were told

Legally they CAN'T publish what they were told.
As I said, the parents wanted it to stop. The BBC didn't stop it, so they went to the media. If the BBC had acted, they wouldn't have had the need to go to the media. The age claim can from the mother, and was based upon when she had been shown the picture.
They DIDN'T go straight to the media. They took 2 other steps beforehand.

Originally Posted by nomadking

But what story did the parents give to "The Sun"? They simply wanted the payments to stop. As such, certain matters might have been missed out when complaining to the BBC. Did they simply want the BBC to have words with the presenter, rather than a big fuss being kicked up over it.

By the time the family's account appeared on the front page of the Sun on 8 July, however, it had become "giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images", and, inside, the even more loaded phrase "paid her crack-addicted child for sexual images".

Originally Posted by nomadking

As I said, the parents wanted it to stop. The BBC didn't stop it, so they went to the media. If the BBC had acted, they wouldn't have had the need to go to the media.

Why would the BBC stop it, or do anything (act) ?
Nothing illegal was happening according to the reports.

They (the parents) didnt have a "need" to do anything at all.

In fact, if the "child" was 18, they were actually an adult, entitled to do as they pleased.
It sounds rather like controlling parents having a tantrum when they didnt get their own way.

[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.