This Just In!

[Bromptonaut]

Agreed, but Edwards' position of "it's all fine and dandy provided no one finds out", which is not acceptable.

Is that Edwards' position?

He's not said a word. His wife though spoke on his behalf

 

[Bromptonaut]

You may find it disgusting, but it's obviously true.

I'm not denying a causal link.

If something you've done brings your world crashing down on your head you don't need a prior history of severe depression to go off the rials.

It was the pejorative 'took to his bed' that I objected to.

I've has sufficient encounters with other people's depression as a son, father, partner, friend and manager to know it's not funny and it's not to be taken casually as you did.

 

[icowden]

Dose that bitter diatribe also apply to Huw Edwards?

He's a newsreader not a journalist (other than for about 6 months before he got a job on the news team).

 

[icowden]

No it isn't.

Anyone waking up to find themselves on the front of The Sun in these circumstances is bound to have an adverse reaction to it.

Moral of the story is if you don't want to be in The Sun, don't mess around on sordid websites or abuse colleagues.

You missed out, don't work for the BBC or piss off Rupert Murdoch or his chums.

 

[icowden]

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?

Yes it's odd isn't it, that just because he wasknown to frequent the island owned by a celebrity sex trafficker and to be best mates with him, and just because there was a photo of him with his arm around a 17 year old who claims you had sex with her, and which he claimed didn't exist, and also that he was at Pizza Express in Working where all of the staff have had their memories wiped, that somehow he is completely innocent.

Thus far there have been no photographs, no substantiation of any of the storied published by the Sun. At best we have a salacious story peddled by the younger persons's parents, and which both of the people involved are saying is utter rubbish.

 

[Pale Rider]

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.

I thought you were just playing, but you really might be nasty, wretched, arrogant and ignorant.

Is that Edwards' position?

Well, he pursued that course of conduct.

He has also played the mad card and the family card in a bid to salvage his career and reputation.

About the best thing he could have done, which proves he's no mug.

However, he can only delay judgment day, not postpone it for ever.

You missed out, don't work for the BBC or piss off Rupert Murdoch or his chums.

Do you honestly think all the 'celebs in low places' stories are in The Sun because each and every one of them pissed of Murdoch?

Avoiding being on the front page of The Sun is really very easy - don't do something that will get you on the front page of The Sun.

 

[monkers]

I thought you were just playing, but you really might be nasty, wretched, arrogant and ignorant.

I'm not playing - so I must be all of those things because a two bob hack has told me so. Of course you could sue me. Go right ahead and I'll laugh my socks off.

 

[monkers]

Pale Rider said:
I thought you were just playing, but you really might be nasty, wretched, arrogant and ignorant.

He has also played the mad card and the family card in a bid to salvage his career and reputation.

Do you own a mirror?

 

[Pale Rider]

Of course you could sue me. Go right ahead and I'll laugh my socks off.

I wouldn't waste my time because you couldn't raise enough to pay a decent settlement.

Do you own a mirror?

I do, and the reflection in it is a lot more agreeable than yours.

 

[multitool]

I do, and the reflection in it is a lot more agreeable than yours.

Weird.

The last thing I'd expect of you would to be insufferably self-regarding.

 

[Pale Rider]

Weird.

The last thing I'd expect of you would to be insufferably self-regarding.

My real name is Dorian Gray.

 

[monkers]

I wouldn't waste my time because you couldn't raise enough to pay a decent settlement.

Just do it. Nothing I'd like more. I'll bet my house on a win.

 

[albion]

Would have been safer if Andrew chummed up with Boris Johnson.

Yes my lord.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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

How can I know if you mean things other than what you’ve written? You write (wrote?) stuff for a living, so you understand how words work.

You said that the moral of the story is:

if you don't want to be in The Sun, don't mess around on sordid websites

To me that’s clearly a judgement aimed at all users of such dating apps. If you’re now rowing back on that, then that is to be welcomed.

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?

He consorted with a convicted sex offender (Epstein) and a subsequently convicted sex trafficker (Maxwell), through whom he met Ms Giuffre.

The disgraced prince later paid this woman he claimed he’d never met £10million in an out of court settlement to stop the civil suit against him. Part of that settlement was also the condition that the prince could never again, as he’d previously done in interview, a) deny he had met Ms Giuffre, or b) deny he had raped her. Can you imagine ever agreeing to such a clause if you were innocent?

The unnamed man that is allegedly the subject of Huw Edwards’ attentions has, through his lawyers, notified The S*n that the story is false. But it’s juicy clickbait that sells copies, so they ran it regardless.

Police have found nothing illegal and so far the case against Huw Edwards is all innuendo from the paper based on an unsubstantiated claim by a third party; a far, far weaker case than that against the dodgy prince.

 

[Pale Rider]

To me that’s clearly a judgement aimed at all users of such dating apps.

It is what it is - I'm calling the website/app sordid.

Clearly, some users must also be so sordid, which is where Edwards comes in.

has, through his lawyers, notified The S*n that the story is false. But it’s juicy clickbait that sells copies, so they ran it regardless.

Do you really expect the press to run scared every time a ruddy lawyer for one party or other denies the story?

It's a standard tactic designed to intimidate the paper into not publishing the story.

In this case, The Sun weighed it up and decided to publish.

There's been nothing to indicate - so far - the story is not accurate.

Plenty of time for recriminations yet, but I think anyone hoping The Sun has done its bollocks on this one will be disappointed.