[News] Huw Edwards

[The Fits]

Just because some people seem to be very confused here... It is illegal to purchase etc photos of someone UNDER 18. The Met and the local police force has said that there is nothing they've seen that suggests Edwards has broken the law. Therefore unless the Sun have withheld information anyone suggesting Edwards has bought photos off someone under 18 is making things up.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

I look forward to your further revelations, when you have a fact to inform them.

 

[clapham_gull]

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 )

I'm been living in rural Sussex for a while and most small c Conservative people I've spoken to thinks it's a personal matter and nothing to do with them.

Whether that's because they married their cousins I couldn't possible comment.

(joke)

I could easily find more dubious behaviour in this village historically.

 

[banjo]

I look forward to your further revelations, when you have a fact to inform them.

I recon you’ll have him on ignore by then HWT.

 

[Guinness Boy]

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

Right now he’s a 61 year old man with mental health problems and a confused sexuality who is being used as a political football by a tabloid in financial trouble.

If that changes I’m capable of changing my opinion but, at the time of typing, that’s where we are.

 

[Weststander]

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

Or NOT a boy or girl at all!

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

What was he thinking being a high profile figure induging in this pervy behaviour.
Social media was always a risk it would come out to the media.

He is clearly going through mental illness which, as someone on here who sadly went through it themselves, causes people to make very ill judged decisions. It speaks volumes that his wife is sticking with him and clearly being his guiding light in all of this.

The dregs of society are lapping this up and by dregs, I mean the filthy right wing.

 

[The Clamp]

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.

Fair point.

I’m not gonna comment on his particular circumstance but in general I am highly suspicious of old men paying for young people to send them pornographic pictures of themselves.

While not an illegal act in itself I see potential concerns of safeguarding, exploitation and welfare.

I think anyone who is solely focusing on the Sun newspaper aspect of the story and ignoring these very real concerns is being incredibly naive.

 

[Jim in the West]

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'.

Hang on a minute…if I say I’ve been drinking alcohol since I was 17, the logical interpretation is that I drank alcohol whilst I was 17….not that I only started drinking alcohol when I was 18. Surely??
Are the Sun attempting to rest their case on some sort of bizarre re-interpretation of the English language?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Unless I'm mistaken, we don't ACTUALLY know what happened (or didn't happen), do we?

What I do know is that a) from what I saw over the past few days there were lots of questions being asked about the BBC, but very few about The Sun and b) Rishi "I think we should wait until the conclusion of the report" Sunak was *very* quick to give his twopenneth on the ever-evolving situation. And have a few digs at the BBC at the same time.

Funny that...

 

[nicko31]

All of this.

The story is less about the individual and more about Murdoch using all of his outlets (I watched a bit of Talk TV the other night when they were talking about it and it was hideous!) to get one over on the BBC.

Murdoch in the UK...

The Sun
The Times
The Sunday Times
Talk Sport
Talk Radio
Times Radio
Talk TV

FFS lets have some laws on cross media ownership

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

Precisely.

I happen to know of a celeb, on the way somewhere in a limo with his agent, who stopped the car to chat with a fan who had spotted him in heavy traffic. He got out of the car, spotted a public toilet, and shagged her in it, using the disabled cubicle. Which was appropriate as the woman was indeed in a wheelchair.

All perfectly legal, however. And this would probably only add to the celeb's legend if it were known.

OK, that's an extreme case. But the clouds of coke that still consolidate and aerate the corridors of power are a dirty secret nobody wants to reveal.

No, this is as @Machiavelli I think it was, mentioned, all about money. Defunding the BBC. A carefully revealed and carefully curated story. The Sun can run away now, no harm done to it. Probably. Job done. We shall see....

 

[BBassic]

in general I am highly suspicious of old men paying for young people to send them pornographic pictures of themselves.

This is generally speaking the entire business model of OnlyFans.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Unless I'm mistaken, we don't ACTUALLY know what happened (or didn't happen), do we?

What I do know is that a) from what I saw over the past few days there were lots of questions being asked about the BBC, but very few about The Sun and b) Rishi "I think we should wait until the conclusion of the report" Sunak was *very* quick to give his twopenneth on the ever-evolving situation. And have a few digs at the BBC at the same time.

Funny that...

Defund the BBC. Defund them now. And give News International a Tax Break.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Some of the 'expert' views might be interesting to revisit at a later date.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I recon you’ll have him on ignore by then HWT.

He's harmless. Well, a bit of a danger to himself, perhaps.

But he's succinct. I put up with Das Reich for years owing to his Neanderthal brevity.

It's hard to get exercised when there are too few words to populate a narrative.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

What was he thinking being a high profile figure induging in this pervy behaviour.
Social media was always a risk it would come out to the media.

Whilst I see your point, this is clearly very out of character for him and has been an ongoing issue with his health. Unless new evidence comes out, then I think he is in a very dark place currently. This can push someone over the edge and that is just disgusting in my book. Would not be bothered if he was clearly a scumbag, but in this case, it's yet again the right wing scum papers who love partnering with the extreme anti BBC nut jobs peddling their love for nonce stories to sell papers and push their anti BBC agenda. The BBC is liked by the educated and the uneducated see it as some kind of dangerous dodgy organisation.

 

[Weststander]

Unless I'm mistaken, we don't ACTUALLY know what happened (or didn't happen), do we?

What I do know is that a) from what I saw over the past few days there were lots of questions being asked about the BBC, but very few about The Sun and b) Rishi "I think we should wait until the conclusion of the report" Sunak was *very* quick to give his twopenneth on the ever-evolving situation. And have a few digs at the BBC at the same time.

Funny that...

Labour also blundered on this, I watched Rachel Reeves on TV at the weekend say the scandal was "deeply concerning".

Asked about an alleged delay in investigating the complaint, Ms Reeves told Sky News: "I think that's the concerning thing, that someone makes a complaint - a very serious complaint - and then puts on the telly the next night and they're still there.

And that's not good enough."


I wish all politicians would’ve kept their noses out of it. There was an unseemly clamour to join the pile on.

Starmer could use this an opportunity to distance Labour from this nasty modern phenomena of reactive opinions on everything even where it could become a legal case. I don’t hold much hope …. scared of Murdoch and social media.

 

[Bodian]

Hang on a minute…if I say I’ve been drinking alcohol since I was 17, the logical interpretation is that I drank alcohol whilst I was 17….not that I only started drinking alcohol when I was 18. Surely??
Are the Sun attempting to rest their case on some sort of bizarre re-interpretation of the English language?

The Sun finds itself in line of fire over report on Huw Edwards

Days after publication, the newsreader is in hospital with mental health issues and the paper is rapidly backtracking

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Clamp]

This is generally speaking the entire business model of OnlyFans.

Yes it is. I have deep concerns about OnlyFans.