[News] Huw Edwards

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well I have a first class degree so I don’t think I can be as thick as you suggest . My opinion may differ from yours however we live in a democracy and I’m entitled to say what I think .

Fair enough. But your understanding of mental health is shockingly poor.

So that rules out a first in medicine or sociology.

And it is 'affecting', not 'effecting' (your post above). So that rules out a first in English.

It was PE, wasn't it.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Correct. But as someone who we trust to read us our news I'm not sure.
He will obviously lose his job which, I believe, is correct. But not for what he has done but more for being who he is and what he has done.

What makes you think he will lose his job?
The narrative now seems to be he didn’t do anything illegal so it’s sort of ok and none of anyone’s business. And that he deserves sympathy for the state he is now in.
More likely there will be a half hour special where he gets the chance to say sorry, cosy shots with the family at home etc, and before long he’s back reading the news.
Not saying any of this is right or wrong, but it’s not inevitable he will lose his job. The BBC often protects its own.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What did he say, I have him on ignore?

Fifth* form mockery of the bullying kind. Real man, and all that. Too hard to be depressed, and to 'normal' to tolerate 'other'.

I have nothing to learn from these sorts.

*Left after CSEs. Probably to work for his dad, in his white van.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Fifth* form mockery of the bullying kind. Real man, and all that. Too hard to be depressed, and to 'normal' to tolerate 'other'.

I have nothing to learn from these sorts.

*Left after CSEs. Probably to work for his dad, in his white van.

You're quite special as a poster on here, these comments are indeed 'special'.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

The point I as trying to make , is there is a wide spectrum of mental health issues and how people are effected .

Towards the higher end you have people walking around Times Square muttering to themselves and occasionally shouting if someone walks too near them .

Then you also have someone like Huw Edwards who despite clearly suffering from mental health issues previously is still able to go on national tv , read the news , take instructions from an earpiece , look in the right camera and function at a high level .

All I am saying is that someone like him who can clearly function at a high level despite his issues , should then at the very least be able to put a statement out in his name when this story broke , rather than leaving it to his wife who must be mortified. It’s not like he’s not media savvy is it .

That’s why I used the phrase man up . It’s not a phrase I would use very often as I think it can have negative connotations however in this instance I feel it’s appropriate.

I’m not belittling his mental health issue but I feel he could still have taken more responsibility for handling it better .

Arguably one of the greatest words in the English language is ‘bollocks’ and it applies perfectly in this instance.

 

[trueblue]

A lot of it still applies. The comparison to Saville is arguable. But it still results in being suspended, having his marriage severely damaged, if not completely ruined, being responsible for his children having to deal with these same claims, and the fear and paranoia of all the possible outcomes (from losing his job, being abandoned by friends and family to being attacked by a posse of locals).

Haven't read through all this thread so I'm not sure of the context of the above - and I think we're probably on the same side of the argument overall. Just want to go further and point out that any comparison people make to Savile is not 'arguable', it's outrageous. Edwards, on the available facts to this point, has done nothing illegal. Sure, his private life appears to be a mess and there are allegedly some issues with work colleagues that are hardly uncommon and would be dealt with internally by any other company. It's disgusting for anyone to mention him in the same breath as one of the most horrendous paedophiles in history.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Arguably one of the greatest words in the English language is ‘bollocks’ and it applies perfectly in this instance.

And he's written 'effected' again.

When I was 15 I would of got the cane for that.

Anyway, I suspect I have made my point now.....LBTS seems like a nice lad so it would be wrong of me (etc. etc.).....just stop belittling mental health issues, OK, @Live by the sea,? You clearly know f*** all about it.

 

[Acker79]

Haven't read through all this thread so I'm not sure of the context of the above - and I think we're probably on the same side of the argument overall. Just want to go further and point out that any comparison people make to Savile is not 'arguable', it's outrageous. Edwards, on the available facts to this point, has done nothing illegal. Sure, his private life appears to be a mess and there are allegedly some issues with work colleagues that are hardly uncommon and would be dealt with internally by any other company. It's disgusting for anyone to mention him in the same breath as one of the most horrendous paedophiles in history.

Yup, we're on the same side.

That point is about the hypothetical situation in which we're wrong and more info comes out revealing the person was underage when photos were purchased (to explain how my point still applied even if current assumptions are wrong). I suspect some would argue that buying underage photos is comparable to abusing children. I would not agree (at least not when the person is above the age of consent to actually have sex), but can see people honestly making that argument (especially when it involves a trusted BBC tv personality).

 

[Live by the sea]

Fifth* form mockery of the bullying kind. Real man, and all that. Too hard to be depressed, and to 'normal' to tolerate 'other'.

I have nothing to learn from these sorts.

*Left after CSEs. Probably to work for his dad, in his white van.

As my father still lives in NYC that would be difficult plus I’ve never been in a white van in my life !

You clearly have at least one thing to learn - Manners .

I simply said he should take ownership of this issue in the newspapers and not leave it to his wife .

 

[dejavuatbtn]

And he's written 'effected' again.

View attachment 163520

When I was 15 I would of got the cane for that.

Anyway, I suspect I have made my point now.....LBTS seems like a nice lad so it would be wrong of me (etc. etc.).....just stop belittling mental health issues, OK, @Live by the sea,? You clearly know f*** all about it.

Ah, the joys of a Grammar School education. I well remember my dear old mum running up to the school to give Tabrett “what for” after I went home with a bleeding backside. I don’t think it was for spelling though.

 

[trueblue]

Yup, we're on the same side.

That point is about the hypothetical situation in which we're wrong and more info comes out revealing the person was underage when photos were purchased (to explain how my point still applied even if current assumptions are wrong). I suspect some would argue that buying underage photos is comparable to abusing children. I would not agree (at least not when the person is above the age of consent to actually have sex), but can see people honestly making that argument (especially when it involves a trusted BBC tv personality).

Understood. Makes sense. Even if there were any truth in the allegations that he had engaged in some form of sexual online exchange with a 17 year old, it'd still be a gigantic stretch to equate that with Savile's horrific decades of vile abuse. You're right though, plenty would be prepared to try.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As my father still lives in NYC that would be difficult plus I’ve never been in a white van in my life !

You clearly have at least one thing to learn - Manners .

I simply said he should take ownership of this issue in the newspapers and not leave it to his wife .

He was admitted to hospital. He wasn’t in a fit state to make a statement which is why his wife did.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

It's good that we've managed to stay on the subject and not resort to personal insults.

Oh...

Never change, NSC.

 

[crookie]

Fifth* form mockery of the bullying kind. Real man, and all that. Too hard to be depressed, and to 'normal' to tolerate 'other'.

I have nothing to learn from these sorts.

*Left after CSEs. Probably to work for his dad, in his white van.

I like your posts normally Harry, but your breezingly slander about white vans I take exception to. I drive one !!

 

[cunning fergus]

Haven't read through all this thread so I'm not sure of the context of the above - and I think we're probably on the same side of the argument overall. Just want to go further and point out that any comparison people make to Savile is not 'arguable', it's outrageous. Edwards, on the available facts to this point, has done nothing illegal. Sure, his private life appears to be a mess and there are allegedly some issues with work colleagues that are hardly uncommon and would be dealt with internally by any other company. It's disgusting for anyone to mention him in the same breath as one of the most horrendous paedophiles in history.

Is it more appropriate to compare Edwards to Schofield or Prince Andrew? Rich and powerful men who are also able to hide their tracks so to speak? Maybe they are all innocent of a de facto crime; but we all know they were sailing close to the wind at best or abusing their influence at worst. Time will tell, but it’s telling on here how many would want to #preyforhuw yet the no doubt poor and powerless “victims” can go swing. There’s outrageous.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I was going to get involved and then thought this is better off in the bearpit. Life's too short.

 

[trueblue]

Is it more appropriate to compare Edwards to Schofield or Prince Andrew? Rich and powerful men who are also able to hide their tracks so to speak? Maybe they are all innocent of a de facto crime; but we all know they were sailing close to the wind at best or abusing their influence at worst. Time will tell, but it’s telling on here how many would want to #preyforhuw yet the no doubt poor and powerless “victims” can go swing. There’s outrageous.

There we go again. The black and white world of modern Britain. Expressing distaste for the systematic destruction of Huw Edwards does not automatically equate to approving of his alleged behaviour. If a young person has genuinely been hurt, that’s terrible for them too and they deserve every support. The response is simply not proportionate to the gravity of the allegations, that’s my particular point. It’s a complicated, multi-faceted situation where we know next to nothing of the true circumstances and really have no right to know, particularly where the complainants are adults fully capable of making their own decisions (as they appear to be). Nuance is the key word but ‘nonce’ seems to be the one swathes of our population can’t wait to leap to at every opportunity. We barely seem to have moved on from pitchfork wielding mobs screaming ‘burn the witch’. It’s pathetic.

 

[cunning fergus]

There we go again. The black and white world of modern Britain. Expressing distaste for the systematic destruction of Huw Edwards does not automatically equate to approving of his alleged behaviour. If a young person has genuinely been hurt, that’s terrible for them too and they deserve every support. The response is simply not proportionate to the gravity of the allegations, that’s my particular point. It’s a complicated, multi-faceted situation where we know next to nothing of the true circumstances and really have no right to know, particularly where the complainants are adults fully capable of making their own decisions (as most, if not all, appear to be). Nuance is the key word but ‘nonce’ seems to be the one swathes of our population can’t wait to leap to at every opportunity. We barely seem to have moved on from pitchfork wielding mobs screaming ‘burn the witch’. It’s pathetic.

Like I said time will tell, and maybe Huw didn’t approach teenagers online for pics or transfer them thousands of pounds for nothing in particular? Maybe he didn’t break lockdown rules to visit young people in their homes for cups of tea. But then he could very easily dispel the innuendo by coming out (no pun intended) and proving that. His convenient mental breakdown stokes the rumour fire it doesn’t douse it………….so illegal or not it is reasonable at this point to conclude he’s been up to shit that for the general public will look a bit noncey. The #prayforHuw brigade won’t agree, but it’s no different to the “innocence” of P Andrew or Schofield. Powerful men with money on the hip up to no good.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I like your posts normally Harry, but your breezingly slander about white vans I take exception to. I drive one !!

Apologies for the sweepingly inflammatory metaphor. In the future, for the purpose, I'll use 2002 BMW

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As my father still lives in NYC that would be difficult plus I’ve never been in a white van in my life !

You clearly have at least one thing to learn - Manners .

I simply said he should take ownership of this issue in the newspapers and not leave it to his wife .

That wasn't all you said. And if you think I think that.....

Never mind. <sigh>

I appreciate that some think a metaphor is an apostrophe with a full stop over it, and a semicolon is a small intestine. It is what it is.