This Just In!

[spen666]

I just find you very tedious. You seem to have taken to stalking me. But you are not so bright as you may think.

You seem to think that I have misquoted the law with regards to The Sun's position. I have not alleged criminality. But that seems to be your mistake.

I have given an opinion that by and large hacks who work for the popular press are scum working in a scummy industry. That's an opinion that is not one related to law or legal opinion. I have no need to justify it in law, or to you.

I had mentioned that there needs to be a balance of what is 'the public interest' and 'what is of interest in the public'. I hadn't expressed any kind of legal opinion. I am not a lawyer, I do not offer legal advice. On occasions I directly quote what the law says, sometimes without the guidance of a lawyer, and sometimes with it. Quite frequently my sofa has a practising barrister on it next to me, and I am helped with some legal understanding if I ask for it. And of course she is available to me by phone or messager most times.

Just a moment ago, she tells me that you and Paley are 'talking out of your arses'. She quickly sent me a useful link.

It is not the case that journalists have special dispensation under the law ...




My contact also says that no person is yet in a position to make any meaningful comment on any alleged criminal activity either by Edwards, Wooton, or The Sun, but people are free to discuss it without hindrance or let of those who claim to be lawyers on social media.

So unless you are in a position to follow up some allegation that I have made about The Sun being guilty of criminal activity, my contact says the best strategy is just to tell you 'fark off somewhere else, and when you get there fark off some more'.

I think you have made everything in that post about me up

I have not said or done any of what you seem to think I have.

I have stuck to stating the legal position.

I have avoided any moral judgement on any of the parties.


As for stalking you...give it over you are posting on a public forum that I use

 

[Pale Rider]

There are several reasons why they may have chosen not to name Edwards:

1) They aren't 100% confident of their case, and fear legal repercussions. They know proxies will name Edwards for them at no risk to them.

2) Not naming Edwards prolongs the story but also provokes interest in the story. I had several WhatsApp from groups posing the question "Who do you think it is?".

It became a national game of whodunit.

3) The Caroline Flack factor. They avoid any repercussions against them if the story results in tragedy.

All of these things will have occurred to the editor of The Sun.

All possible, although The Sun couldn't care whether Edwards is named or not.

All The Sun can do is follow the fall out, and make the best of that as they go along.

As observed already, if the BBC had flatly refused to do anything the story might have withered on its anonymous vine.

Or The Sun may have kept hammering on the door - you never know what's going to happen when a story takes on a life of its own.

Bear in mind there is no conspiracy against Edwards, Sun hacks haven't been undercover against him for years.

The first The Sun knew about it was when the parents rang the newsdesk.

First question, who is this newsreader?

Oh, it's Huw Edwards, the biggest beast in the BBC newsroom.

Might be worth doing a story, then.

 

[monkers]

All possible, although The Sun couldn't care whether Edwards is named or not.

All The Sun can do is follow the fall out, and make the best of that as they go along.

As observed already, if the BBC had flatly refused to do anything the story might have withered on its anonymous vine.

Or The Sun may have kept hammering on the door - you never know what's going to happen when a story takes on a life of its own.

Bear in mind there is no conspiracy against Edwards, Sun hacks haven't been undercover against him for years.

The first The Sun knew about it was when the parents rang the newsdesk.

First question, who is this newsreader?

Oh, it's Huw Edwards, the biggest beast in the BBC newsroom.

Might be worth doing a story, then.

Give it a rest you tedious man.

 

[icowden]

The first The Sun knew about it was when the parents rang the newsdesk.
First question, who is this newsreader?
Oh, it's Huw Edwards, the biggest beast in the BBC newsroom.
Might be worth doing a story, then.

You missed the last bit.

Have we got anything to back up the story?
Has anyone checked the bona fides or bothered to contact the alleged victim?
No?
Oh - hang on - it's about a BBC journalist. Fark it. Run the story anyway we'll worry about the facts later.

 

[Pale Rider]

Give it a rest you tedious man.

Thank you for that in depth and well reasoned response.

Moving on, a friend of mine told me about a poll in which about 54% of respondents thought Edwards should return to the telly.

She was surprised and said if her husband behaved that way he would never walk with the same gait again - northern lasses can be refreshingly direct.

The survey, which in the spirit of Brexit we could call a score draw, does indicate that, as on here, people's response depends very much on what they previously thought of the celeb involved.

There was no outpouring of public sympathy for Philip Schofield, presumably because most viewers thought he was a bit of a prat anyway.

That way of thinking is barmy to me.

You missed the last bit.

Have we got anything to back up the story?
Has anyone checked the bona fides or bothered to contact the alleged victim?
No?
Oh - hang on - it's about a BBC journalist. Fark it. Run the story anyway we'll worry about the facts later.

None of us know what inquiries The Sun made, but you can bet they will have been extensive.

Bear in mind not everything will have been published, there's a tactical element of keeping some of your powder dry.

 

[Ian H]

Oh its another old tactic = call it bluster when someone shows that your post is irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

BTW You are linking it again here - by talking about ANOTHER case of press intrusion.

Yes, the press did intrude into the privacy of Mosley.
The press did not intrude into the privacy of Edwards. The press did not name him and therefore cannot in law have intruded in his privacy

They piled-on in a way which made his naming inevitable, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[monkers]

Thank you for that in depth and well reasoned response.

Moving on, a friend of mine told me about a poll in which about 54% of respondents thought Edwards should return to the telly.

She was surprised and said if her husband behaved that way he would never walk with the same gait again - northern lasses can be refreshingly direct.

The survey, which in the spirit of Brexit we could call a score draw, does indicate that, as on here, people's response depends very much on what they previously thought of the celeb involved.

There was no outpouring of public sympathy for Philip Schofield, presumably because most viewers thought he was a bit of a prat anyway.

That way of thinking is barmy to me.



None of us know what inquiries The Sun made, but you can bet they will have been extensive.

Bear in mind not everything will have been published, there's a tactical element of keeping some of your powder dry.

TL: DR

 

[Pale Rider]

They piled-on in a way which made his naming inevitable, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

Not really.

The Sun had a couple of still anonymous follow-ups, and the rest were just following The Sun, something which they will have been reluctant to do.

The pile-on was by the insatiably curious inquiring minds on social media.

Those millions of posts confirmed the story was of huge interest to the public - apart from the intellectual giants on here who know the story is low brow rubbish.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It was a story designed to make it impossible for the subject to remain anonymous.

I might have thought otherwise had the story been “Man in sex pics probe” but it was made clear from the outset that there was a very small field to choose from: ‘top BBC presenter’, ‘a household name’, ‘known to millions’, ‘he has been taken off-air’.

And with the paper’s subsequent daily headlines pressing the story further, pressure quickly grew to the extent that wrongly named people had to make strong public denials and even threaten court action against people who were falsely accusing them.

So, yeah, they didn’t name him directly but they made it inevitable for it to become known in a fairly short time. Now it’s, “Oops, how did that happen?”

 

[Bromptonaut]

The pile-on was by the insatiably curious inquiring minds on social media.

The press know the existence of what you call "the insatiably curious inquiring minds on social media". The reality is that sooner or later, even if it takes a suicide to make the point, that's something that should feature big time in their calculations.

 

[multitool]

Those millions of posts confirmed the story was of huge interest to the public - apart from the intellectual giants on here who know the story is low brow rubbish.

Well it is low brow tawdry gossip. That there was a twitter flurry is neither here nor there, and is no metric of the extent of public interest.

You are the last person I expected to cite a twitter response as evidence of anything tbqhwy.

I'm with you on some of what you say, in particular the gaping chasm between the reaction to this story and the Schofield story.

I do think you are too quick to absolve The Sun of a number of things, and I suspect a wilful naivety on your part.

 

[Pale Rider]

And with the paper’s subsequent daily headlines pressing the story further, pressure quickly grew to the extent that wrongly named people had to make strong public denials and even threaten court action against people who were falsely accusing them.

None of the papers made any attempt to guess the identity, that was all done on social media.

Now it’s, “Oops, how did that happen?”

I've not seen any member of the press say that.

Having decided not to name Edwards, all the press can do is follow the events as they unfold.

The fact the name is all over social media first makes the newspapers look old-fashioned and behind the news.

That is harmful to them, so it's not credible to suggest they would actively promote something which undermines their reputation.

 

[multitool]

The fact the name is all over social media first makes the newspapers look old-fashioned and behind the news.

That is harmful to them, so it's not credible to suggest they would actively promote something which undermines their reputation.

It turned the story into a mystery for the nation to solve..."senior BBC figure".

If you are the print media your business model no longer revolves around printed copy. It is reliant on social media click throughs to advertising.

So to suggest that the movement of the story to social media was a bad thing for The Sun is not only nonsense, but is antithetical to the reality. You could not be more wrong.

 

[monkers]

Every man and his blind dog could see that a cover story for their actions was worked up in advance of the release. The interests were commercial. This is what happened when the unscrupulous are allowed to be in the position of putting their moral compass too close to a magnet. Although probably not criminal, I feel sure that there will be many who will think it reprehensible. Hopefully a home goal for The Scum.

 

[Ian H]

"New technology baffles pissed old hack".