This Just In!

[monkers]

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.

Blimey I didn't know that. Are you sure? When did that happen?

 

[qigong chimp]

Who's Huw Edwards?
And why is he on the Civil List?

 

[BoldonLad]

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

Well, that development may make me change my opinion about them, but a 50 something pursuing a 17 year old ?

 

[BoldonLad]

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?

Did I say there should be “sanctions”?

But, that doesn’t mean I can’t personally dislike such individuals, does it?

 

[icowden]

Blimey I didn't know that. Are you sure? When did that happen?

My bad - I should have said that they *planned* to remove it.

The announcement happened last year:-
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...will have to,fee abolished completely in 2027.

The Bill was introduced in Jan 2022 but did not complete before the second session so is now void. They *did* freeze the license fee for 2 years however and I suspect that they are still being encouraged to remove it. Can't think who by...

 

[icowden]

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.

Well it will be of some relief to Huw and the young person that no-one will actually be watching it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well, that development may make me change my opinion about them, but a 50 something pursuing a 17 year old ?

I am the wrong person to comment on that as my days of pursuing 17 year olds are but a distant memory.

 

[newfhouse]

Well it will be of some relief to Huw and the young person that no-one will actually be watching it.

Viewers are probably seen as a bonus. The point of TalkTV and GBeebies is to bend the agenda for the rest of the media.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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

Thanks for that, I didn’t know one way or the other. I don’t suppose it got the same front page prominence though, or did it?

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.

That kind of suggests that they didn’t even try to get the alleged victim’s account of the events before rushing to print. Seems rather negligent to me.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Still not charged of anything.

So what?

 

[Cirrus]

Did I say there should be “sanctions”?

But, that doesn’t mean I can’t personally dislike such individuals, does it?

Of course, I dislike loads of people .

 

[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.

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?

How about the awesomely alliterative Alnwick Advertiser?

Am I getting warmer?

 

[Pale Rider]

Thanks for that, I didn’t know one way or the other. I don’t suppose it got the same front page prominence though, or did it?




That kind of suggests that they didn’t even try to get the alleged victim’s account of the events before rushing to print. Seems rather negligent to me.

I don't have all the editions to check, but at the time the story was a run of front pages, so the lawyer's rebuttal will have been part of that day's front page follow-up.

Given there were four other complaints of his online behaviour, one might think the lawyer's statement has an element of 'yeah, right' about it.

As regards the first victim, it's not clear if they spoke with him or not, but we don't know to what extent his mental capacity has been impacted by drugs.

I doubt The Sun would have gone solely on the word of the parents, so may well have documentary evidence of money changing hands, such as bank statements.

 

[BoldonLad]

I am the wrong person to comment on that as my days of pursuing 17 year olds are but a distant memory.

Pleased to hear it. Grooming is not a nice look, no matter who is doing it.

 

[Deleted member 28]

So what?

He's no more guilty than Huw then is he, legally speaking, but because you lot don't like the Royals that doesn't matter he's fair game.

I know neither of them so couldn't give a toss what happens to them but you really need to look at yourselves.