This Just In!

[glasgowcyclist]

I don't think you need to be 'tabloidy' to find it sordid an older man is using the web to buy pics of naked or semi-naked teenagers.

It’s a gay dating app. You describe it as a “sordid website”, tarring all those who use it as sordid, regardless of their behaviour. This is a gutter press approach.

Now, you may find someone’s alleged purpose for his use of that site (remember, the young man involved told the paper that the entire story was rubbish but they ran it anyway) disgusts you but that’s no justification for implying that all homosexuals are sordid.

 

[Cirrus]

I tend to agree, but if he's being realistic, Edwards ought to realise his public persona should more or less match his private one.

Appreciate that and I suppose it’s part of the baggage that comes with being famous etc. But it doesn’t make it right

 

[matticus]

Has Huw Edwards behaved acceptably for a man in his position?

It's a simple enough question

Simple answer: yes of course he has!

He's done nothing to mislead or harm viewers of the news. So what if he's a normal human being with character flaws?

He is employed by the BBC to read the news and present other current affairs content. Why does that put in a position where a higher standard of behaviour applies than to you or me as ordinary retired or partly retired blokes

Exactly - He's not the farking pope 😆

 

[matticus]

I don't think you need to be 'tabloidy' to find it sordid an older man is using the web to buy pics of naked or semi-naked teenagers.

Before the web, wasn't this a major part of the Sun's business model?
They don't only publish crosswords, TV reviews and footy reports!

 

[Cirrus]

Hopefully it doesn’t escalate into a Caroline Flack episode.

 

[Pale Rider]

It’s a gay dating app. You describe it as a “sordid website”, tarring all those who use it as sordid, regardless of their behaviour. This is a gutter press approach.

Now, you may find someone’s alleged purpose for his use of that site (remember, the young man involved told the paper that the entire story was rubbish but they ran it anyway) disgusts you but that’s no justification for implying that all homosexuals are sordid.

I am talking about the behaviour of Edwards, as you well know.

If you think it's fine and wholesome for an older man to be encouraging teenagers to sell soft porn pics of themselves, bully for you, and no doubt some on here will applaud your 'forward thinking'.

My view is such behaviour is sordid, and as far as I can gather, widespread, which makes the websites that facilitate it equally sordid.

Hopefully it doesn’t escalate into a Caroline Flack episode.

Agreed.

I formed the impression the poor woman may have been poorly advised that her boyfriend refusing to cooperate with the cops would make it all go away.

It could have done, but didn't.

Unfortunately, she had already pinned all her hopes on being able to stop the prosecution.

 

[monkers]

If you think it's fine and wholesome for an older man encouraging teenagers to sell soft porn pics of themselves, bully for you, and no doubt some on here will applaud your 'forward thinking'.

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, we don't know what happened. The alleged victim of The Scum allegation says he is not a victim of the alleged perpetrator of the alleged crimes. He may or may not be telling the truth. There may be reasons for him to lie, but WE JUST DON'T KNOW, and like every other human being, Edwards has the right to presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial, which can not happen if people like you feel that the law isn't sufficient, and that true justice is only served when the moral values spouted by scummy hacks are permitted on the scales.

If privacy is unimportant, why are you here using a fake name and an avatar? Take all the time you need.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Personal insults will only impress the hard of thinking.



Do you think Edwards should be able to do anything provided he breaks no law?

If so, fine, but it appears many people think a man in his position should hold himself to a higher standard.

Of course he should not and I haven’t seen anyone saying that. He should face the disciplinary procedure of his employer and accept whatever sanction is given for his actions…both to the young person in question and others he is reported to have abused. I suspect that, even if he has done nothing illegal, the real damage to his career has been done because public perception is extremely important in his job.

That perception will initially have been made much worse by the rather disingenuous and sly reporting of The Sun which first gave the impression that there was possibly some criminality, just taking enough advice from their legal department to avoid directly saying so. They are not stupid and understand people’s baser instincts.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Prince Andrew didn't get this sort of support on here if I recall and I don't remember him actually being prosecuted for anything?

 

[Pale Rider]

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, we don't know what happened. The alleged victim of The Scum allegation says he is not a victim of the alleged perpetrator of the alleged crimes. He may or may not be telling the truth. There may be reasons for him to lie, but WE JUST DON'T KNOW, and like every other human being, Edwards has the right to presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial, which can not happen if people like you feel that the law isn't sufficient, and that true justice is only served when the moral values spouted by scummy hacks are permitted on the scales.

If privacy is unimportant, why are you here using a fake name and an avatar? Take all the time you need.

You've posted many times about scummy hacks and a scum industry, but you now seem to be saying #notallhacks.

Which is it?

Slippery as an eel springs to mind.

You keep on blathering about the legal system.

It has nothing to do with this case unless a crime has been committed, which it appears it hasn't.

Of course, the coppers said 'at this time', because they know full well more skeletons might yet fall out of the cupboard.

As regards usernames, a long time before you arrived the gaffer told us we should use usernames, not real names, which is why the overwhelming majority of posters do so.

They are not stupid and understand people’s baser instincts.

Absolutely.

Prince Andrew didn't get this sort of support on here if I recall?

I've been thinking the same.

Seems some on here have fallen under Edwards' cult of personality of being a decent, reliable, favourite uncle sort of fellow.

 

[monkers]

It has nothing to do with this case unless a crime has been committed, which it appears it hasn't.

Then the actions of scummy hacks working for a scummy newspaper in a scum infested industry isn't justifiable is it.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

Of course there are proper journalists - they are not the ones implicated in the scummy stories though are they. They kept out of it. You've chosen not to, chosen to be noticed in here. Now people have noticed you.

But you haven't answered my question yet, but I did say 'take all the time you need' so fair enough.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If it was Nigel Farage doing the same would the response on here by as supportive? When people CC doesn't like get cancelled it's just being held accountable, when it's someone CC likes it's persecution.

Yes, the Sun milked it for the maximum sordidness, but as with Phillip Schofield, it might not be illegal but if you profit from a tv persona built around being a certain kind of person, and then stuff like this comes to light, there will be a loss of support.

If it was our kids at 17, daft as teenagers are, being solicited for such photos, would we be sympathetic to the 50 plus year old doing the soliciting?

 

[Ian H]

Prince Andrew didn't get this sort of support on here if I recall and I don't remember him actually being prosecuted for anything?

How much hush money did he his mother pay out?
Besides which he was well-known as an arrogant, obnoxious prince charmless a long time before that scandal erupted, so few reserves of sympathy to draw on.

 

[Pale Rider]

But you haven't answered my question yet, but I did say 'take all the time you need' so fair enough.

As regards usernames, a long time before you arrived the gaffer told us we should use usernames, not real names, which is why the overwhelming majority of posters do so.

Selective comprehension, yet again.

Why pick on me for following forum rules and not others?

I'm losing count of the number of standards you have.

 

[monkers]

Selective comprehension, yet again.

Why pick on me for following forum rules and not others?

I'm losing count of the number of standards you have.

Because nobody else is saying that any presumed rights of the press do not hold preponderance over actual human rights, or maybe they are using their moral judgement that you've mentioned to make their own minds up.

Why do you think Sean promotes the policy of not revealing your identity? Maybe it's something to do with recognising the need for privacy, and not promoting pile-ons on individuals, and preventing stalking? Just maybe he has our safety in mind? You can have a free second go at the question if you like. Take all the time you need.

Try counting with your hands in your pockets, you might even make it to eleven. But you shouldn't need to get past three, truth, lawfulness, and democracy. These are the things that I value, but not the things that seem to interest you.