[News] Huw Edwards

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not sure what he decided to do meant more privacy

Did we not have a dance on NCS some years ago where it eventually became evident you weren't following my narrative? Or was that another Dan?

 

[BBassic]

Yep. We will see in the coming days. Either the sun or the police are going to look pretty stupid. Get your popcorn out.

Given the Sun are already backing off and saying they never alleged criminality I'd say they know the ice they're on is thinner than the gene pool in Croydon.

 

[dangull]

Did we not have a dance on NCS some years ago where it eventually became evident you weren't following my narrative? Or was that another Dan?

Possibly, I don't want to fall out

 

[clapham_gull]

This wasn't a "political" decision by the Sun, it was purely commercial. Murdoch's has always wanted the BBC out of the way. He would have personally seething the nation (for instance) tuned into the BBC for the Royal Funeral coverage.

They ran the story with little evidence but quite cleverly knowing it would put the BBC into a head spin in a way that any public sector organisation inevitably ends up in when dealing with a crises. They are the public sector for fucks sake.

Based on the current evidence it has back fired and is definitely incongruous with the public mood.

 

[Bodian]

Re The Sun.
The paper said it has evidence that the man/woman sold pictures when they were 17.
It’s been reported 18 is the cut off when it comes to legality.
Stripping away the “the sun lies” hysteria for a moment, it’s fantasy to think they would have published that story if they didn’t have evidence. Yes the paper has done bad things over the years, but on the whole their output on controversial stories like this is heavily legalled. This story was worded in such a way that it had clearly been legalled.
It’ll be Interesting to hear what the sun says about this. It‘s highly unlikely it is a case of them simply making it up cos they’re evil people doing evil things, as entertaining an explanation as that is.

If they have such evidence, they should pass (have passed) it to the Police. Withholding evidence of a crime is almost a crime in itself.

But of course, what they (carefully and deliberately) actually said was something like 'money paid since the young person was 17'. 18+ is 'since they were 17'. They carefully did not say 'when they were 17'.

 

[pb21]

Given the Sun are already backing off and saying they never alleged criminality I'd say they know the ice they're on is thinner than the gene pool in Croydon.

Just seen that, the absolute thundercunts.

 

[Napper]

You didn't get the criminal case you wanted, so now resort to lying.

You lose.

If you don’t see any issue with it then more fool you

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have an inkling people may regret being so quick to defend certain parties in this case.

Unless he's a paedo I don't see why. The 'nothing illegal' conclusion from the old bill seems conclusive.

If he has been a tit on dating apps, broken covid rules to meet up with someone, then he's a bit sad and his career is probably over (vide Angus Deayton).

However, many of us have been attacking the way the Sun has operated, rather than defending what Edwards did.

Oooh - someone on R5 just said someone's 'son'. In that case, well, I withdraw* all my criticism of The Sun.

*Not really. Being facetious. I think I have also been clear.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Possibly, I don't want to fall out

 

[BBassic]

If you don’t see any issue with it then more fool you

If he's done nothing criminal then it's really nobodies f***ing business.

 

[Napper]

If he's done nothing criminal then it's really nobodies f***ing business.

I know the clamour to be pc , not offend and be seen as anything goes but wow !!!

I’d suggest in the real world people are disgusted by him and his morals ( that’s how I’ve seen and heard it )

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If they have such evidence, they should pass (have passed) it to the Police. Withholding evidence of a crime is almost a crime in itself.

But of course, what they (carefully and deliberately) actually said was something like 'money paid since the young person was 17'. 18+ is 'since they were 17'. They carefully did not say 'when they were 17'.

It is an actual crime.

They will now have to put up, or risk being sued into oblivion.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

If that is what happened I would agree. As the lawyers for the young person have said that the original allegations were "rubbish", we cannot know at the moment if any exploitation has gone on though.

Maybe the young person had good financial reasons for saying it was rubbish

 

[Guinness Boy]

A grey 60 ish man paying for pics of young boys .

Disgusting .

His poor family

“Young boys” means school age. No one’s saying he’s a Paedo. Except you (who probably reads The Sun).

At worst, a bloke old enough to get married has been paid thousands of pounds to get videoed having a wank and has blown that cash on drugs.

It happens all the time in the hetro world although in the slightly less glamorous setting of a trafficked teen lady giving a smelly old man a happy ending so she can buy enough opiates to forget her situation for a while.

I must have missed your outrage in those cases.

 

[Weststander]

If you don’t see any issue with it then more fool you

You’ve got to separate:

Criminal law - confirmed no case to answer.

From:
The Court Of Public Opinion, where we split into two.

a) Moral police, you?, are disgusted that a middle aged man has allegedly carried on to a limited extent with a young adult. Versus;
b) The likes of me who wait to see if there’s anything concrete evil in what Huw Edwards did. Always with care for the wellbeing of the only parties that matter. People such as Flack have committed suicide, think about that for one moment.

One thing I’ll never accept is being lectured to by The Scum, Talk TV, Murdoch, Mirror, Express. Collectively destroying lives for years. They don’t have the best interests of the family at heart.

 

[BBassic]

I know the clamour to be pc , not offend and be seen as anything goes but wow !!!

I’d suggest in the real world people are disgusted by him and his morals ( that’s how I’ve seen and heard it )

It's not about being PC. For what it's worth I don't agree with any of it.

But it isn't our business and it isn't news. Because LEGALLY the police have found no wrongdoing.

 

[clapham_gull]

One of things that has annoyed me is how very very badly briefed a number of "pundits" have been on the various news stations.

Not so much their opinion, but facts as known so far.

Just watching that Tugensomeone MP on Sky News, he wasn't even aware of the last police statement.

Previously they had an ex Sun editor and there were at least a couple of things he said that simply weren't correct.

Questions need to be seriously asked about how the story was reported and that includes the BBC.

 

[Napper]

“Young boys” means school age. No one’s saying he’s a Paedo. Except you (who probably reads The Sun).

At worst, a bloke old enough to get married has been paid thousands of pounds to get videoed having a wank and has blown that cash on drugs.

It happens all the time in the hetro world although in the slightly less glamorous setting of a trafficked teen lady giving a smelly old man a happy ending so she can buy enough opiates to forget her situation for a while.

I must have missed your outrage in those cases.

Whatever you say to fit an agenda and campaign

Boy or girl - it’s pretty low from him

That’s all I’m saying on it for now

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you don’t see any issue with it then more fool you

We all see issues, but not the ones you're making up.

 

[Stat Brother]

Seems about right