This Just In!

[qigong chimp]

Huw Edwards is brother to the King of England now?

 

[monkers]

Huw Edwards is brother to the King of England now?

Next in line to the throne, Edwards the ninth.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Huw Edwards is brother to the King of England now?

Funny as cancer, as always.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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

I am the wrong person to comment on that as, with my receding hair, grooming is but a distant memory.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

It appears they did report the man’s claim that it was not true but not until the Monday and definitely not on the front page. However, the paper did think that the parents’ subsequent claim that “THE BBC LIED” merited a front page splash the following day (Tuesday). Quite an imbalance there.

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.

I believe these complaints did not appear until after Huw Edwards was identified so couldn’t have been a consideration in the paper’s reaction to the denial.

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.

His mental capacity was clear enough to be able to understand what the paper was about to publish and to send a WhatsApp message to the paper denying the story the day before it appeared. From reports I have seen, the alleged victim states he was never spoken to by S*n reporters.

 

[Pale Rider]

It appears they did report the man’s claim that it was not true but not until the Monday and definitely not on the front page. However, the paper did think that the parents’ subsequent claim that “THE BBC LIED” merited a front page splash the following day (Tuesday). Quite an imbalance there.



I believe these complaints did not appear until after Huw Edwards was identified so couldn’t have been a consideration in the paper’s reaction to the denial.



His mental capacity was clear enough to be able to understand what the paper was about to publish and to send a WhatsApp message to the paper denying the story the day before it appeared. From reports I have seen, the alleged victim states he was never spoken to by S*n reporters.

It's always going to be difficult to establish who did what in response to what and when they did it.

Publication in this regard is complicated by what can happen instantly online.

Assuming you are correct, I can't see it takes the matter any further forward - there will always be people in a big story who seek to deny it, and if the paper ran scared of every attempt many of those stories would never see the light of day.

Much faith seems to be being put in the lawyer's statement, which is odd given the general attitude to clever lawyers on here.

Perhaps people on here are only supporting this lawyer because he's saying what they want to hear - perish the thought.

As I said, the fact there's been at least seven further complaints of Edwards' behaviour does rather suggest this rebuttal might be a little lacking in the truth department, although no doubt it is a truthful reflection of what the lad says.

 

[qigong chimp]

Oh, do shut up you twatospheric arseh0le.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ter-scandal-rupert-murdoch-tory-sun-newspaper

 

[multitool]

Perhaps people on here are only supporting this lawyer because he's saying what they want to hear - perish the thought.

Given that posters here are not a hivemind (after all, you are one of them) are you sure you are in a position to comment on what people think?

I suspect support for the lawyer's words might reside in the belief that the story is not as presented by the Sun. The Sun is probably to blame for this, given its long history of publishing both outright lies and distortions.

I'm not sure why The Sun is even reporting this story, beyond its readership's love of prurient gossip. There is no public interest aspect here, the police have failed to find a criminal offence. I note your own prudish disposition with regard to sexual activity, but of course it was a private matter until The Sun decided to reveal Edwards's private life to the world.

 

[qigong chimp]

Given that posters here are not a hivemind ...

Yes, we are all individuals.

 

[Pale Rider]

Oh, do shut up you twatospheric arseh0le.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ter-scandal-rupert-murdoch-tory-sun-newspaper

Another one incapable of answering a post with nothing other than abuse.

I know you are not very bright, but you need to grasp slagging me off is about as effective as using a pea shooter against a tank.

My, that Guardian bloke is a bitter man, isn't he?

There's nothing a journalist hates more than being soundly scooped by a rival, so the other media were always going to scrabble for the moral high ground.

Camaraderie in Fleet Street has always stopped well short of practical solidarity.

Given that posters here are not a hivemind (after all, you are one of them) are you sure you are in a position to comment on what people think?

I suspect support for the lawyer's words might reside in the belief that the story is not as presented by the Sun. The Sun is probably to blame for this, given its long history of publishing both outright lies and distortions.

I'm not sure why The Sun is even reporting this story, beyond its readership's love of prurient gossip. There is no public interest aspect here, the police have failed to find a criminal offence. I note your own prudish disposition with regard to sexual activity, but of course it was a private matter until The Sun decided to reveal Edwards's private life to the world.

It is rather strange that a lawyer's word is taken as gospel on here.

Then there's the Met, absolutely hated in these parts, yet all of a sudden they've conducted a thorough and professional investigation.

One poster even quoted former Sun editor David Yelland in approving terms, but I thought all Sun editors must be the devil incarnate - Mackenzie got plenty of stick earlier in the thread.

The only possible conclusion is all these sources are only correct when it suits.

And what if Edwards had been a Tory MP?

The trampling on his grave and triumphant howls of elation would have been deafening.

As regards public interest, I happen to think there is some, but the more important point is there doesn't have to be public interest in a story.

I also think people on here may over estimate what is required.

For a story to be in the public interest, it doesn't have to undercover an assassination plot on the prime minister or expose a massive paedophile ring.

Simple wrongdoing, in high or low places, would usually be enough.

 

[C R]

Yes, we are all individuals.

No I'm not.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It's always going to be difficult to establish who did what in response to what and when they did it.

I disagree. Several outlets have produced a timeline of the events and actions of the involved parties, starting from April. I would think investigative journalism meant the paper being able to establish an accurate timeline to support its story.

Assuming you are correct, I can't see it takes the matter any further forward - there will always be people in a big story who seek to deny it,

Yes, people accused of dodgy stuff often deny it but this is the alleged victim we’re talking about here. Somehow his denial didn’t even merit the briefest end-para mention in the original story. That suggests to me that the paper wasn’t so much interested in the veracity of the claims but in peddling scandal.

and if the paper ran scared of every attempt many of those stories would never see the light of day.

Nobody has suggested that the paper should run scared, those are your words. I’m suggesting that they have a responsibility to verify or otherwise the sequence of claimed events by at least seeking comment from the alleged victim before printing.

Much faith seems to be being put in the lawyer's statement, which is odd given the general attitude to clever lawyers on here.

Perhaps people on here are only supporting this lawyer because he's saying what they want to hear - perish the thought.

As far as I’m aware, the lawyer’s statement is simply a declaration of the alleged victim’s position that the claims of the story are false. The lawyer’s credibility isn’t in question.

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘supporting the lawyer’.

As I said, the fact there's been at least seven further complaints of Edwards' behaviour does rather suggest this rebuttal might be a little lacking in the truth department, although no doubt it is a truthful reflection of what the lad says.

 

[multitool]

I know you are not very bright, but you need to grasp slagging me off is about as effective as using a pea shooter against a tank.

Oh, I don't know. "Twatospheric arşehole" sounds very effective to me.

Then there's the Met, absolutely hated in these parts, yet all of a sudden they've conducted a thorough and professional investigation.

This is one of the few occasions where I feel they might. Albeit, that they don't view paying for sex vids to be an actual crime.

One poster even quoted former Sun editor David Yelland in approving terms, but I thought all Sun editors must be the devil incarnate - Mackenzie got plenty of stick earlier in the thread.

Yelland appears to have had some sort of attack of conscience in recent years, and has a track record of speaking out. Mackenzie, by contrast, is still utterly odious.

And what if Edwards had been a Tory MP? The trampling on his grave and triumphant howls of elation would have been deafening.

Yes, you are probably right. But, of course, you'd be there defending him.

As regards public interest, I happen to think there is some, but the more important point is there doesn't have to be public interest in a story.

I also think people on here may over estimate what is required.

For a story to be in the public interest, it doesn't have to undercover an assassination plot on the prime minister or expose a massive paedophile ring.

Simple wrongdoing, in high or low places, would usually be enough.

And what wrongdoing have you discovered that the police have overlooked?

 

[BoldonLad]

Another one incapable of answering a post with nothing other than abuse.

I know you are not very bright, but you need to grasp slagging me off is about as effective as using a pea shooter against a tank.

My, that Guardian bloke is a bitter man, isn't he?

There's nothing a journalist hates more than being soundly scooped by a rival, so the other media were always going to scrabble for the moral high ground.

Camaraderie in Fleet Street has always stopped well short of practical solidarity.



It is rather strange that a lawyer's word is taken as gospel on here.

Then there's the Met, absolutely hated in these parts, yet all of a sudden they've conducted a thorough and professional investigation.

One poster even quoted former Sun editor David Yelland in approving terms, but I thought all Sun editors must be the devil incarnate - Mackenzie got plenty of stick earlier in the thread.

The only possible conclusion is all these sources are only correct when it suits.

And what if Edwards had been a Tory MP?

The trampling on his grave and triumphant howls of elation would have been deafening.

As regards public interest, I happen to think there is some, but the more important point is there doesn't have to be public interest in a story.

I also think people on here may over estimate what is required.

For a story to be in the public interest, it doesn't have to undercover an assassination plot on the prime minister or expose a massive paedophile ring.

Simple wrongdoing, in high or low places, would usually be enough.

You need to begin supporting Labour and/or Starmer on here, that will be their/his death knell, on here

 

[spen666]

.

As regards public interest, I happen to think there is some, but the more important point is there doesn't have to be public interest in a story.

I also think people on here may over estimate what is required.

For a story to be in the public interest, it doesn't have to undercover an assassination plot on the prime minister or expose a massive paedophile ring.
....

Whether something is in the Public Interest is a different test to whether something is if interest to the public