BBC Scandal - Huw Edwards formally suspended over payment of explicit images of teenager Read OP*

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849341#Comment_120849341

Sure. The poster (yourself?) suggested it in the first place.

I'd say there's no reason to think the depression caused the behaviour. I'd see no reason to conflate the 2 and the poster is the only one I've seen attempt to conflate them as part of the narrative that depression is being used to deflect from the affair.

I don't suppose depression has anything to do with it. Why conflate the 2?

francois

Seems like GBeebies Dan Wooton is also in a bit of doodah, it's always projection with these types.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849382#Comment_120849382

Look I know the first instinct if someone is your friend, is to try and defend them in some way, especially if, given the information you have at that time, you feel they’re not the sort of person that the stories might suggest, even if there’s no criminally per se.

And I also wasn’t getting at the poster I quoted- it’s more that in general, styles of reporting for many stories, go unchecked until it’s someone who’s close to those very same media people- it’s only then that we get this “how could you do that to him” sort of reaction.

This is a much wider bigger question on just how should media outlets report on such stories- The Sun issued this story but I’ve no doubt if they refused to, then some other Rag would have nabbed it.

It’s not just about how fair or unfair it is to Hew Edwards- it’s about establishing proper standards of reporting for all people in such circumstances.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849065#Comment_120849065

Nothing I have said whatsoever indicates that I wait to be spoon-fed outrage or that I don't use critical thinking so maybe YOU don't behave like a Sun reader and don't be a dick. 😉

What unavailable info did I use, dude?

Murdoch Ltd are scum - goes without saying. However I disagree with people leaving out *the facts* (as you acknowledge yourself, they're important) and acting like Huw did nothing wrong and this is entirely him just being victimised. He behaved terribly and it's possible to think BOTH that, and that the Sun are evil.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849469#Comment_120849469

for the record I didn’t nor never suggested any connection between having depression and committing criminal acts or that it motivated sexual behaviour in some way- just so we’re clear about that.

It’s not not quite people are claiming he has depression and that is what caused his behaviour.

It’s the insistence coming from some of his friends in the media, to leave him alone because he has depression.

He may well be ill, but also there are a number of non criminal allegations facing him when he gets better. Yes some people are kicking a man when he’s down, but we see this all the time with non- famous people anyway, but I don’t see those same media people giving a fig when it happens to people they don’t know.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849469#Comment_120849469

If your partner found out you were in any kind of relationship with someone on a dating site, how would they regard it? An affair? An infidelity? Nobody has said they had sex (not even sure anyone said they ever met in person). It's an affair nonetheless.

What would you prefer to call it? It's an unimportant point so I'll call it whatever you prefer.

The substantive point, as I see it, is a man with a wife and family, is outed as gay because he was caught in some kind of relationship with another man. Rhe police have decided there's noting illegal so what else is there to the story?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849482#Comment_120849482

Can’t really hold public figures and private individuals to the same standards though in terms of ethical standards in journalism and reporting on these cases. I get what you’re saying though, but it’s predicated on the idea that journalists have standards in the first place.

One of the most well-known faces in journalism, Piers Morgan, is still kicking about when he should have been hounded out of the business for his part in the Daily Mirror phone hacking scandals a few years back.

The Sun will have gained more from this story than it’ll cost them in any sort of liability, they’ll have taken a calculated risk and like Edwards will behave all indignant and ‘angry’ when they’re pulled up on it.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849524#Comment_120849524

So journalists should kick him when he's down or they shouldn't kick him when he's down?

What non-criminal allegations are facing him? Even if he bought sexual pictures from a consenting adult in the eyes of the law (which hasn't been substantiated) then what exactly is the problem?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849488#Comment_120849488

Given what we know, what did Huw do wrong?

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849530#Comment_120849530

Fair enough on the terminology point- I wasn’t being pedantic I just was more confirming what your understanding was of the situation. But it remains that other allegations from other people are also there that are not indicating a consensual relationship of some sort but unwanted more sexual harassment

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849551#Comment_120849551

On a cynical level - he got found out.

Or to put it another way, he carried on in such a way that other parties \ people in the know went to the media and his employers about it.

He outed himself. How did he possibly think someone with his profile would not be 'outed', carrying out in such an indiscreet and reckless manner with strangers? Someone of whom were taking money?

That's before we get to the specifics of some of the encounters - accusations of threatening messages, breach of lockdown rules, money changing hands.

And then the complaints from internal BBC staff about inappropriate personal messages.

His conduct has reached a threshold where it came to public attention.

Other than all that, what did he do wrong you mean?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849567#Comment_120849567

Things seems to be consensual in the 'transactional' sense for some parties. I doubt any of the other parties would call it an 'affair', especially the one who felt harassed because they wouldn't meet.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849591#Comment_120849591

Ok. So the worst thing he did wrong was get found out. Well, I disagree he outed himself but if that's your opinion, that's fine. He was asking for it, essentially.

Allegations are fine. No real need to respond to an allegation. If the people making the allegations can substantiate them with evidence, then he'll need to answer questions. Do we know if there is evidence to substantiate the allegations?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849678#Comment_120849678

Well I think it's a bit rich to cry foul about being 'outed' when you carry on in such an indiscreet manner. I think it is possible he may subconsciously have wanted stuff to come out. Some explanation is needed for his indiscreet and reckless conduct.

It wasn't the case that The Sun were hacking his phone, emails or stalking him to get this information.

I'm not aware of any obligation that other parties must be gagged if they want to speak of such things.

If people don't like how you are conducting yourself, then they are free to say that.

We will have to see what the BBC investigation turns up wrt specific evdience. My own view is that while the conduct hasn't met the bounds of illegal conduct, when multiple different parties both at work and elsewhere start flagging things - that it points to a pattern of not respecting boundaries, of inappropriate behaviour. And you can't carry on like that and then demand people don't talk about it. You can't have it both ways.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849931#Comment_120849931

OK. You assert he might have wanted to be caught and outed. I can't really comment on that because I can't pretend to know what he was thinking. Who does he owe an explanation to? Me and you, or his wife? I'd argue is wife has questions and he should answer them. But I fail to see how we need to be involved. Do you think we need to be involved?

I asked if we know whether there is evidence to substantiate the other allegations against him. Is there such evidence at the moment?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849958#Comment_120849958

Take a step back though - Why do we 'need' to be involved? Why are you involving yourself? You're under no obligation read about the scandal or post here :)

Professionally he owes an explanation to the BBC. And it is the BBC who then perhaps 'owe' an explanation given the profile and role of the person involved - why taken off air, why valid to put him back on air should it come to that. Did they investigate the allegations properly.

Personally, he owes an explanation to his wife, assuming he doesn't have an understanding already.

And given the public nature of his job, if he wants to resume it in any sort of similar job, some explanation \ story will be needed for the UK public.

The level of evidence is unclear - do they still have the messages or are they describing the content verbally from memory. There appears to be a paper trail of money transfers for the original case. Uncertain about trusting anything if The Sun was the original source. I think we will have to wait for the BBC investigation.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849958#Comment_120849958

As a public figure he does owe an explanation to the public for his behaviour. Transparency, accountability and all that sort of thing. It’s not really whether anyone needs to be involved, it’s that public figures are held to a higher standard than private citizens.

It kinda reminds me of the CFO of RTE when he was asked about his salary, and he thought he didn’t have to answer the question. The head of him when he realised he did - rabbit in the headlights 😂

I don’t expect evidence will be made public until the BBC has completed their inquiries-

Meanwhile the BBC reported on Wednesday that Edwards also faced claims about inappropriate behaviour towards some junior staff members. 

Two current BBC workers and one former member of staff said they had been sent messages that made them feel uncomfortable.

An employee at the corporation told BBC News they received "suggestive" messages from Edwards. BBC News has seen the messages, which refer to the staff member's appearance and were sent this year.

One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66186092.amp

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850016#Comment_120850016

So from a PR point of view, the owe the public an explanation? That's fair enough but I don't consider he owes me an explanation of anything as long as its about some kind of relationship between consenting adults. If he owes his wife answers then it's absolutely nothing to do with you and I.

If there are further substantiated allegations against him, then he owes the police answers. But I really fail to see how he owes you and I anything so far.

What answers or explanations or anything else do you think he owes you and I based on the original story about buying sexy photos?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850019#Comment_120850019

Maybe public figures need to be holed to a higher standard than you and I. But what exactly should he say about the situation? Should he be dragged in front of the crowd like a trollope in the stocks, as Malcolm Tucker would say? Should he cry, or brashly defend his innocence? Or humbly say he's really, really sorry to you. This is your gig so what do you want him to do for you?

Yeah those are the allegations. I accept there are allegations. I asked if there is evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850041#Comment_120850041

The police don’t come into play unless there’s a criminal element to those allegations. Currently there are no “criminal” allegations that we know of. There are “allegations” of inappropriate behaviour (sexually suggestive texts or uninvited sexual attention I think is the essence if these) by a range of people. We don’t have the detail behind these and BBC are currently investigating - if found to be true, it could lead to serious repercussions up to and including dismissal. Or they may find they are without foundation or proven false- who knows. But either way, we’re now in the realm of a very public figure in a trusted public position as news reader- so there is a public interest to this story naturally enough.

But for the record, I’m not in favour of any of this being made public until at the very least the appropriate authorities- either the HR department or the police, had a chance to conduct their own enquiries.

However we are where we are now, so naturally enough people are expressing their views.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849613#Comment_120849613

Yes there are multiple allegations that need proper investigation and due process - while none appear to indicate illegal behaviour, some are certainly indicating unwanted behaviour or attention which could merit a serious company sanction

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850090#Comment_120850090

Sure I couldn’t give a tupenny… y’know, whatever he does. I was only responding to your inquiry as to who he owes explanation to, and why he owes an explanation, not least because his considerable salary comes from the collection of license fees, but also because he is a public figure.

Yes, there is evidence to substantiate the allegations, I cited it above, and here it is again -

BBC News has seen the messages, which refer to the staff member's appearance and were sent this year.

kirk.

This whole episode is distasteful and nasty

A man disgraced and hospitalized

'Victims' enticed with money

Oscar_Madison

Oh dear - this won’t end well for anyone - regardless what the parents say happened, the young person at the center of this particular story has issued a statement denying anything ilegal took place - unless or until that position changes, that’s the end of the matter from a criminal perspective in the absence of independent evidence - I’m not sure the parents should be taking this course of action- let’s see what they say I guess.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12298367/Parents-youngster-centre-Huw-Edwards-scandal-TalkTV-documentary-series.html

nacho libre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120849470#Comment_120849470

I did not know anything about his background prior to this thread. Then i recalled him interviewing Eamon Holmes over the Schofield situation. Holmes must have been aware about his past when he did the interview with him.

Snake Plisken

The pervert got found out and pulled the mental health card which is a disgrace to those who really do suffer from.mental health issues and all the libs in the media give him a pass. He deserves no sympathy good riddance to him along with Scofield

My post about Huw and his mental health was me giving a possible explanation for why he behaved recklessly. Knowing that he has a history of psychological troubles it is natural to look to that in order to make sense of his behaviour.

If I didn't know he had such a history I would still be wondering about his state of mind during this given what he had to lose. Equally though he may have been completely unbothered by it all and had such arrogance and ego that he felt he would be untouchable.

My instinct though is that wasn't at all the case.

As for Joe public. If I read the same about him or her then I would still have the same view. I'm 41 and married, if I was single and preferred men in their twenties then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I wasn't single and preferred men in their twenties that's fine too.

Add another ten years on to my age and it's still fine. Yes there can be issues around imbalance of power when it comes to the work place but outside of that so what. So much pearl clutching about the poor 20 yr old with the Only Fans account and dastardly 60 something Huw.

The flirty texts are strange .People who are just there doing a job and aren't on a platform that allows for receiving such texts, it's not great. I wonder how they came about, if they were very out of the blue or if there was a rapport.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850507#Comment_120850507

We won’t know any detail at the very least until the conclusion of the BBC investigation- even then, if a negative outcome for Hew in any way, we may not get much detail other than any disciplinary decision. He will likely have some right to privacy as to what information is released ie- the explanation of a disciplinary penalty may be in general terms such as “broke a number of our key code of conduct policies”

In the meantime, it’s all just supposition and opinion based on peoples own perception of the story so far

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120850041#Comment_120850041

I don't quite understand the premise of your question. Is any explanation ever 'owed' for conduct that is legal to the 'public'? Under what circumstances? Your question as phrased doesn't make sense to me. I'm not even in the UK, under what circumstances could I be 'owed' answers???

He owes the explanation to his 'reputation'. Or rather if he wants to defend or maintain his 'good name'. And his profile and salary etc were reflective of that reputation \ good name. That's kinda PR as you alluded to above but runs deeper than that I think.

If this hadn't come out via The Sun, but from an internal BBC investigation and they found breaches of conduct and he was suspended or fired - should the BBC be detailing why??? Is that in the 'public interest' ?

Or, to flip it around. Hypothetical situation. Had the original party who appears to have sold the photos gone themselves to The Sun. Dropped the whole angle of u18 and just headlined "I SOLD SEXY PHOTOS ONLINE TO BBC STAR HUW EDWARDS" ... could The Sun have run with it? Is it an invasion of privacy if one party spills the beans? Does there need to be a 'public interest' angle? Is this in the 'public interest'?

Or same questions about the visit breaching lockdown rules.

Or same questions about the young man who chatted online, but was reluctant to meet up and felt that Edwards was being heavy handed. Is it in the 'public interest' for someone to publicise, I think this person is a creep? If they post it on Twitter and it is retweeted by huge numbers of the public?

I don't know.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120851081#Comment_120851081

Its back to the public wants what the public gets - papers don’t sell on their own- I see another thread created in AH just now about an infamous UK journalist (although not at all as well known as Hew) going through something similar- given his history of self righteousness and down right arrogance in terms of his articles and reporting style, there will be very few who will defend him and most will take delight in his downfall regardless of the truth.