Who's the latest pervert at the BBC?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't believe everything I read in any newspaper but in a few words, Sluffy, are you trying to say that The Sun is trying to mislead the public and its readers in this case or that they have no right to publish the story because of an association with Rupert Murdoch or for some other reason?

What about Victoria Derbyshire? Would you suggest that she had no right to follow up the concerns that appear to have been brought to her notice? Or is it all just too sordid and should be swept under the carpet because that's what usually happens?

No, nothing like that at all.

The story started out as someone at the BBC was implied to be some sort of a child pervert - in terms of paying an eyewatering large some of money for 'naughty' pictures of the under 18 year old, and why hasdn't the BBC done something to stop it, was it not?

Obviously that disgusted all decent people and we obviously wanted that person to be held accountable and if true dealt with and punished.

The thing though was as they days passed, the story changed too.

The Sun took a step back in terms of their initial imply and started to put emphasis that the person had known the youth from the age of 17 BUT did not 'suggest' that anything happened when he was 'under age' - did it not?

So whilst most of us may well have been disgusted by the story (if true?) there wasn't anything actually illegal in it.

The 'boy' via his solicitor even told the Sun there was nothing in the story - that it was 'rubbish' and was delivered to the Sun before they first broke the story - but they went ahead anyway AND did not even state in their article that the youth in question flatly DENIED the allegations.

Do you believe that was good newspaper practice, as I don't without either checking further before going to print or at least including the denial as well as the initial allegations.

Even before the story broke, the parents had gone to the BBC - who did commence an investigation on what the parents had told them and did try to contact them both by telephone and email from the details the parents had supplied them with.

How come then the parents didn't receive these attempts to communicate with them by the BBC - AND even if there was a good reason they didn't in fact receive the communications, try again to contact the BBC themselves - they must had least have had the name and contact details of the person they had spoken to?

They then went to the South Wales police force who again investigated and found nothing criminal had happened.  Again why did the parents not chase up with them what they were doing and why nothing resulted from it - again they must have had a contact name and details of an officer.

So what exactly was the evidence the parents provided to the Sun that convinced their legal advisors that they could go to print - and if the information was different to what the parents had told the BBC and South Wales police force, then why didn't they contact them again (especially the police!)

The story the Sun seems now to be pushing is that they acted on behalf of the parents by printing their story because the BBC hadn't pulled their finger out.

But what rightly could the BBC have done. they had instigated an investigation both on the parents allegations and seemingly of in-house complaints and tried to contact the parents with the number and email address the parents had given to them?  

Whilst all the complains so far seem to be tacky and not desirable, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about them does there?

Yes Edwards should have been seen, spoken to and maybe even given a formal warning but isn't that about the level of his behaviour warrant and not a full scale national witch hunt that has just occurred?

Since the story broke a second police force, The Met, has looked into ALL the allegations and still found nothing illegal in them.

Doesn't something about all this not ring true to you irrespective of what paper (and ownership) did all this?

If Edwards DID pay £35k for dick pics, the BBC should have done something, warned him about bringing them into disrepute, moved him side ways, offered him early retirement. maybe long-term sick leave,  or a number of other things - but they can't actually sack him because legally he's done nothing wrong.

Perhaps he was being played or blackmailed, if so then the BBC could have helped him go to the police.

If the Sun was so convinced he'd done something illegal then why didn't they go to the police with what they had???

They only handed their file to the BBC some 5 DAYS after they first published the article and after Edwards had had an apparent nervous breakdown.

And on top of all this, isn't a person deemed to be innocent until proven guilty?

We might not like (well I certainly don't) how he's behaved if he has sought our dick pics and texted young boys that they are cute or whatever but it isn't a crime and I can live and let live about it, so what really has all the fuss been about?

The end result is Edwards has been destroyed his family has and is suffering and the Sun has made a lot of headlines, sold a lot of papers/clicks on their web pages and made a lot of money AND still going to make more by interviewing the parents and pay them thousands.

It's nothing about me being a lefty or a righty or whatever you think I am, it is all about something that has gone on here that somehow doesn't seem normal to me, something doesn't sit right with this story - I can't really put it into words other than to say what has just gone on has resulted in a punishment to Edwards and his family far more brutal than what he or them really deserved?

In fact his family was entirely innocent and their husband, father, son has been destroyed before their very eyes simply for nothing illegal that he had done!

Can you not see that?

I have no sympathy for Edwards. He is the author of his own misfortune. 

His family is a different matter. So is the family of the vulnerable young man allegedly paid huge amounts of money for agreeing to Edwards' demands or  expectations. That in itself may not be illegal but it would bring a senior employee of any organisation into disrepute not to mention the organisation itself.

The size of the amounts involved should have required a thorough investigation not the cursory one that appears to have taken place.

I've no sympathy for Edwards either - I have stated the a number of times previously on this thread already.

Edwards has brought the BBC into disrepute and should be appropriately punished for it.

The appropriate punishment for it is not a 5 day witch hunt in the nations press - particularly that TWO police forces confirm he hasn't actually done anything illegal!!!

At this point none of us knows the story of what did/did not happen between Edwards and the boy as it seems that before his breakdown he confided in Sopel that he hadn't done anything wrong and the 'youth' claims all his parents (mother and step-father) claims are false and simply a load of rubbish - quote, unquote!!!

TWO Police Forces HAVE looked into the matter and BOTH confirm there has been NO illegality and NO further investigation is needed!

Yes the whole matter seems decidedly odd BUT what we know about it has ALL come from the Sun newspaper site.

I'm no longer sure what the story is anymore?

Is it gay man legally gives thousands to overage young man for legally private pictures of his willy - resulting in NO LAW BEING BROKEN?

Is it vengeful parents of youth not happy with estranged son, tries to stop him seeing his rich sugar daddy, throw toys out their pram when BBC and South Wales Police find nothing in their story to take matters any further?

Is it the Sun publicly takes on the BBC to get it's house in order and the 'pervert' (who actually hasn't done anything illegal) should be hounded out of his job?

Is it son tells a pack of lies to dozy parents to cover up blackmailing stupid gay bloke for £35k to hide the fact he flashed his dick to him on Tinder?

What actually are we talking about any more - seriously - no laws have been broken, consenting adults, everything done in private - what, apart from our own prejudices, is there here to be of concern?

I'm not gay, I can't begin to imagine how one bloke could possibly fancy another or want to stick his dick up some blokes bum - but they do!

I think its creepy a 60 year old bloke sending love notes to young men over the age of consent - very creepy - but as far as I know it isn't against the law?

If Edwards wants to give £35k of his own money to his toy boy and the toy boy wants to stick it up his nose, that their business and at 18 or over isn't his mum's or step dad's no matter how well meaning or worried they are.

I've no time for Edwards but what he has done doesn't justify him being ruined and destroyed - he might be in hospital now after all the negative press and social media hatred because he tried to end his life because of it - for all we know?

The matter might have got us all interested and involved but really this was an internal affair to be dealt with by the police - for criminality - there was none - and the BBC for disrepute.

Edwards was creepy and pervy but that doesn't entitle a newspaper to hold him to account nationally for being so - because he hasn't broken any laws as he?

The punishment is grossly more than Edwards crime - and legally speaking Edwards never actually committed a crime in the first place!!!

That's my view on all this and I'm sorry if that doesn't match your own views on the matter.

Norpig wrote:https://opoyi.com/world/who-is-rod-liddle-the-sun-columnist-talking-about-huw-edwards-once-wrote-op-ed-about-fantasy-of-having-sex-with-kids/

Thanks Norpig, I was going to post some of his stuff myself, but you saved me a job.

GB News wheel him out on a regular basis, and most of the times I've seen him, he appears, how shall I put it, a little the worse for wear.

Sorry Sluffy but I'd rather be concise. 'Its all The Sun's fault' or 'move along, there's not much to see here' views don't match mine in any shape or form.

Neither do they seem to reflect the opinion of Sir Cliff Richard's lawyer, Godwin Busuttil, whose comments (as reported in the Grauniad) included 'there appeared to have been no substantive police investigation in Edwards’ case'. I must confess to being a little surprised that the Grauniad published that observation.

Too much time and too much money if you ask me and yes I am not the only one that resents having to help fund dubious off-duty activities of Auntie Beeb's glitterati.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but I'd rather be concise. 'Its all The Sun's fault' or 'move along, there's not much to see here' views don't match mine in any shape or form.

Neither do they seem to reflect the opinion of Sir Cliff Richard's lawyer, Godwin Busuttil, whose comments (as reported in the Grauniad) included 'there appeared to have been no substantive police investigation in Edwards’ case'. I must confess to being a little surprised that the Grauniad published that observation.

Too much time and too much money if you ask me and yes I am not the only one that resents having to help fund dubious off-duty activities of Auntie Beeb's glitterati.

Well I'm in the same boat as you then Bob because in my world, life isn't simply a case of being concise - is something either black (Sun's fault) or white (move along nothing to see here), it is nearly always somewhere in between and there are always good points and bad points attached to both sides of the case.

Mr Busuttil did indeed state that there appeared to have been no substantive police investigation BUT he said it in a very specific context...

With respect to privacy, the Richard case and a subsequent supreme court case involving Bloomberg established that media organisations had no right to publish the identity of someone subject to a police investigation before they have been charged with any offence. But Busuttil said there appeared to have been no substantive police investigation in Edwards’ case.

...he was talking about how Edwards would face a 'big obstacle' in suing the Sun if that was his intent - the full article here -

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/huw-edwards-the-sun-godwin-busuttil-lawyer

He was NOT being (or implying criticism) of the police merely pointing out a point of weakness in Edwards case if he intended to sue.

Busuttil also pointed out weaknesses in the Sun's defence if he did...

While the suggestion of criminal behaviour has been quashed by police, there is protection under section 4 of the Defamation Act for publications believed at the time to be in the public interest, even if they turn out to be untrue.

There are caveats and the claim that the young person in question denied the story to the tabloid prior to publication would not help the Sun’s case if true.

The article also states...

On Wednesday, just before Flind identified her husband, police said Edwards had no criminal case to answer and the Sun has since backtracked, claiming it never intended to allege criminality.

and this...

Much of the basis for the Sun’s reporting remains unknown, as does the chain of events and causation.

Now I'm no lawyer let alone a very premier one as Mr Busuttil must be but haven't I repeatedly posted on here that I've never understood what the actual 'story' the Sun had been trying to make here, that it had backtracked from its Friday 'exclusive' story and that it should have included the 'youth's' total denial PRIOR to its publication.

I therefore don't believe I've been unreasonable at all on how I've viewed what has been happening which I summed up here previously -

Sluffy wrote:It's nothing about me being a lefty or a righty or whatever you think I am, it is all about something that has gone on here that somehow doesn't seem normal to me, something doesn't sit right with this story - I can't really put it into words other than to say what has just gone on has resulted in a punishment to Edwards and his family far more brutal than what he or them really deserved?

In fact his family was entirely innocent and their husband, father, son has been destroyed before their very eyes simply for nothing illegal that he had done!

A Mirror poll suggests the public would like to see Edwards back on TV, and his chums in the media have rallied around him.
Can't help feeling that Schofield has been treated rather shabbily in comparison.

Well well. 

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-why-dan-wootton-trending-twitter-allegations-explored-presenter-takes-leave-absence

Well, well, well indeed!

For those who aren't following this -

Who is Dan Wooton?

Former Editor of the Sun and the man who broke the Edwards story.
He now has a show on GB News.

Why has he been 'pulled' from GB News.

Wooton is gay and one of his ex-partners claimed Wooton stalked him, gained all his passwords, etc.  He also claims that he once gained access to Wooton's computer and found a sex tape and a conversation that he explains like this.

At the time when Wooton was Editor of the Sun, a sex tape was made between a Sun employer and...





the article continues...

While he was able to come out of the relationship shortly after this incident, he later allegedly found that Dan Wootton’s Martin Branning alias was not only used against The Sun employee but also others, including Alex himself and a few of his acquaintances – all of which were meant to create s*x videos in exchange for cash.



OK just words on the internet - but Wooton, the man who broke the story about Edwards and a toy boy, has been stepped down by GB News because of it.

Could all be just bollocks of course.

What does Professor Tim think?

boltonbonce wrote:A Mirror poll suggests the public would like to see Edwards back on TV, and his chums in the media have rallied around him.
Can't help feeling that Schofield has been treated rather shabbily in comparison.

So Mirror readers would like to see Edwards back on TV would they? Maybe that says summat about Mirror readers (and Edwards chums).

Personally I think I have seen more than enough of him. What about you, Boncey?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
So Mirror readers would like to see Edwards back on TV would they? Maybe that says summat about Mirror readers (and Edwards chums).

Personally I think I have seen more than enough of him. What about you, Boncey?

There’s no question that Edwards is/was a first class broadcaster and it’s a terrible shame that what has happened has taken him off our screens but unlawful or not, it’s unacceptable for someone of such high standing to have got himself involved in such questionable actions and he did get himself involved, nobody else. 

Some say that it’s just a private matter and nobody else’s business but I disagree. I’m not expecting people in high places to be monks without involving themselves in normal behind the curtain actions that we all do to some extent but there are borders and for me Edwards has surpassed those by involving youngsters in his depravity. 

We don’t yet know the full facts but it seems pretty obvious that many of his actions have been highly inappropriate and involved pestering young people who wanted no part of it. These young people were afraid to bring forward complaints against such a high ranking individual but thankfully the truth is now coming out and more and more is being revealed. Even on what we know now I believe Edwards has gone beyond the limits of what’s acceptable and for Mirror readers to think that he should be allowed to return probably says more about them than anything.

Whitesince63 wrote:
There’s no question that Edwards is/was a first class broadcaster and it’s a terrible shame that what has happened has taken him off our screens but unlawful or not, it’s unacceptable for someone of such high standing to have got himself involved in such questionable actions and he did get himself involved, nobody else. 

Some say that it’s just a private matter and nobody else’s business but I disagree. I’m not expecting people in high places to be monks without involving themselves in normal behind the curtain actions that we all do to some extent but there are borders and for me Edwards has surpassed those by involving youngsters in his depravity. 

We don’t yet know the full facts but it seems pretty obvious that many of his actions have been highly inappropriate and involved pestering young people who wanted no part of it. These young people were afraid to bring forward complaints against such a high ranking individual but thankfully the truth is now coming out and more and more is being revealed. Even on what we know now I believe Edwards has gone beyond the limits of what’s acceptable and for Mirror readers to think that he should be allowed to return probably says more about them than anything.

I agree with most of your comments on this and will be interested to hear more, in due course, from the main complainants but did you never think Edwards just a little bit oleaginous, unctuous or creepy?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
I agree with most of your comments on this and will be interested to hear more, in due course, from the main complainants but did you never think Edwards just a little bit oleaginous, unctuous or creepy?

I started to worry about Edwards when he lost three stone, changed his hairstyle, and started being pictured in the gym.

boltonbonce wrote:What does Professor Tim think?

Just for completeness and because I didn't have the time yesterday, if you click on the tweet below (NOTE - on the Alex part of the text and NOT the 'original tweet) you will find a thread of about 20 other tweets from 'Alex' from which the paper above had posted copies of the two tweets above and which Professor Tim has clearly read to give his comments above.

boltonbonce wrote:
I started to worry about Edwards when he lost three stone, changed his hairstyle, and started being pictured in the gym.

I can't say I saw the gym pics, Boncey, but the new hairstyle was a dead giveaway, wasn't it?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
I can't say I saw the gym pics, Boncey, but the new hairstyle was a dead giveaway, wasn't it?

Saw a few gym pictures. He was wearing boxing gloves. Possibly to stop him going blind.

Let he who has no sins cast the first stone eh?

Whitesince63 wrote:Let he who has no sins cast the first stone eh?

I didn't achieve perfection overnight. It's been a long process.

Apparently its going to take 'weeks, a couple of months or even longer, for Auntie Beeb to look into the Huw Edwards affair. 

I can't say I'm at all surprised. Why would it take so long if there was no evidence of anything being wrong or no reasonable cause for concern?


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1792442/BBC-boss-Tim-Davie-Parliament-Huw-Edwards