This Just In!

[glasgowcyclist]

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

It would do that; it’s a paper that thrives on salacious gossip.

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

Other than a flat denial from the supposed victim. Yeah, nothing at all.

By the way, did they publish the man’s rebuttal of the story, or even mention it?

 

[multitool]

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.

Breakfast time in the Pale Rider household...


View: https://youtu.be/PDBjsFAyiwA

 

[BoldonLad]

Pretty much yes, what he, you or I do in our private lives isn’t anyone’s business, as long as no laws are broken.

What about harm to others? Just because a person isn't doing anything illegal does not mean they aren't causing harm to others.

 

[Pale Rider]

By the way, did they publish the man’s rebuttal of the story, or even mention it?

Yes they did, in the next available edition which was the next day, given the statement was released at about 4pm.

Which in turn will hold them in good stead in the event of a proper stewards' inquiry, but as I said, it's unlikely to get that far.

By the way, I trust you grasp the statement was not made until after the story was published, meaning it could not be included in the original tale.

 

[matticus]

What about harm to others? Just because a person isn't doing anything illegal does not mean they aren't causing harm to others.

Do you really think this is all about "harm to others"? He could have killed a family with his car and not reached this level of publicity.
(Did I hear there might be a homosexual angle to this case? Surely thats not a factor? Not in 2023 ... )

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you really think this is all about "harm to others"? He could have killed a family with his car and not reached this level of publicity.
(Did I hear there might be a homosexual angle to this case? Surely thats not a factor? Not in 2023 ... )

I haven't passed any comment on the rights and wrongs of the media, specifically the Sun, or, the alleged sexuality of any of the participants, my comment was, and is, purely that just because something is not against the law does not not prevent it from being unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society. IMHO of course.

The mother of the supposed victim went to the BBC, she then, felt it necessary to go to the Sun, with her story/accusations. I have no facts as to her motivation for going to the media, and, I doubt if anyone else on here has. Her motivation may have been "honourable", it may not. But, whatever her motivation, and, the subsequent actions of the media, it would appear that the events in question happened, only the timing would appear to be in doubt, if that is the Met are being thorough. Not often the Met gets support on NACA.

 

[Deleted member 28]

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.

That's got nothing to do with anything, the point is most lefties are anti Royal so couldn't wait to condemn him whereas old Huw is a favourite so people are looking to defend him when in reality it's no different.

What if Andrew had done the same or someone else you lot don't like, Boris or Trump for example?

 

[Deleted member 28]

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:


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.




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.

Still not charged of anything.

 

[Ian H]

That's got nothing to do with anything, the point is most lefties are anti Royal so couldn't wait to condemn him whereas old Huw is a favourite so people are looking to defend him when in reality it's no different.

What if Andrew had done the same or someone else you lot don't like, Boris or Trump for example?

You need to find a better example - a right-wing figure with (apparently) impeccable morals. Are there any?

 

[Rusty Nails]

IMHO of course.

I have long suspected that the O of people who use this acronym are very rarely H.

It is interesting that the parents of the young person have negotiated an interview, for a fee, with Talktv , part of the same media family as the Sun...IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ffered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview

 

[Cirrus]

What about harm to others? Just because a person isn't doing anything illegal does not mean they aren't causing harm to others.

If his or anyone’s behaviour/activities are legal and yet are causing harm to others then it should be looked at to see if there are adequate protections, if there aren’t then perhaps the law should change.

What sanctions would you prescribe against someone who was acting totally within the law but may be causing “harm to others “ ( how do you define that) and how would they be agreed and implemented?

 

[Mr Celine]

A former editor of The Sun says it inflicted terror on Huw Edwards.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...er-sun-editor-says-paper-terrorised-bbc-star/

Meanwhile our very own Craster Chronicle's court correspondent considers nothing the Sun does is ever wrong.

 

[Pale Rider]

Meanwhile our very own Craster Chronicle's court correspondent considers nothing the Sun does is ever wrong.

Another false assertion, but don't let that stop you.

Can't you at least try to make your posts have a grain of truth in them?

 

[icowden]

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?

Of course not. They are in the Sun because they are employed by the BBC, which Murdoch wants removed. Hence we have a government which has removed the license fee and put stooges in charge of the BBC.

 

[multitool]

The notion that the Huw Edwards story is a matter of public interest, or that The Sun is either a force for good, or a moral arbiter is, of course, utter bollocks.