BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.

Interesting use of words:

perpetrator

a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act: "the perpetrators of this horrific crime must be brought to justice"

You have obvious convicted the man so where is your evidence?

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.

But I literally don't get the point of the own children thing. I see 18 year olds drinking themselves silly each week and I think nothing off it, but if I had an 18 year old, I'd be worried sick. Plenty of 18 year olds have Onlyfans and I personally see nothing wrong with it, if it was my child, I'd be mortified, but I still don't see the point, I wouldn't want my child going in the army and to 'war' but I see nothing wrong in it.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

That represented as a Venn diagram would presumably have some overlap.


If this "kid" was indeed over 18 the whole time, then legally there is nothing wrong, if they were in contact when he was 17 but no images or cash were exchanged until after he had turned 18, again, legally nothing wrong.


We have to accept that in terms of legality the police looked at the evidence they had and decided there was no case.



There are indeed some who would question the morality of the decision but it is possible both for this to be done when the actions are themselves legal but do not register as appropriate with an individual. For example it is possible to get married, split up with your partner, get a divorce and marry again but would a Catholic church allow you to marry again? Some people think separating from a marriage is morally wrong especially if you're leaving it for someone else (as you're breaking a promise you made to be with your married partner for life) but it is allowed under law. It is also possible to think that HE's actions were immoral but legal.


Personally I wouldn't have an interest in teenagers even if they're 18 or 19 and in every possible sense of the word classed as adults. A 18 or 19 year old is under half my age and that's quite a significant age gap - even more so if you're in your 60s. You'd almost be in a relationship with someone similar age to a grandchild, but technically this is legal.



The kid having (apparently) a drug habit with the money this (apparently) funded adds another moral slant onto it, indeed, why did the police not do anything about a 18 yr old boy taking illegal drugs? Maybe they did and we didn't know. Maybe it is all made up.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.

What’s the moral difference between a 40 year old doing this, and a 60 year old?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You are a Christian man aren’t you? And a father. So if a man of influence ( which Huw Edwards is, no argument) was soliciting photographs of your naked 18yr old son or daughter……would you just dismiss it as just immoral, and move on?…………or would you want to rip out his spine.

I know what I would want to do.

What *I* may want to do is not always (or even sometimes) the RIGHT thing to do.

I most probably would be livid that a man so much older was lusting after my 18 year old but there would be very little I could (legally) do to stop it. Don’t get me wrong if I saw him down the street and we came face to face then I’d likely explode but as they’re both consenting adults I’d end up worse off and most probably lose my job

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Interesting use of words:

perpetrator

a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act: "the perpetrators of this horrific crime must be brought to justice"

You have obvious convicted the man so where is your evidence?

Every flipping news report on the topic!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Every flipping news report on the topic!

There’s no evidence for conviction reported in the papers as far as I know.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There’s no evidence for conviction reported in the papers as far as I know.

Not you, OB! Ian has accused me of convicting Edwards.
The evidence of his immorality (perpetrator) is all over the media.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Not you, OB! Ian has accused me of convicting Edwards.
The evidence of his immorality (perpetrator) is all over the media.

Sorry, Seph, but I think that other people’s morality is none of our business. We should just let it be and do something more important.

All people seem to do these days is criticise others.

[Sephiroth]

Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!

I see you have attained full cult membership, congrats!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!

I hope your neck recovers quickly from your whiplash injury, caused by your sudden 180 degree turnaround…




Thinking about it, it was more like this…

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I hope your neck recovers quickly from your whiplash injury, caused by your sudden 180 degree turnaround…

Could be inline for a significant payout for that one, where there's blame there's a claim.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sorry, Seph, but I think that other people’s morality is none of our business. We should just let it be and do something more important.

All people seem to do these days is criticise others.

Doesn't happen often, but couldn't agree more. Well said, spot on etc

[Pierre]

Well as has been said, no more to be gained from this discussion. Maggy never answered the question.

But I’ll be keeping the receipts from this discussion as it seems everything is OK on here as long as it’s legal.

Just so the next time some one is angry and attacks the morality of a Tory MP, Pop star or comedian that squirrels away millions in perfectly “legal” tax avoidance schemes.

Or when a Prime Minister’s wife avoids up to £20m in tax with non-dom status. “Legally”paying £30,000 a year to keep the status.

Or MPs, of all colours, expensing a new kitchen.


So until next time.