Huw! Edwards!

Part of me thinks this was well coordinated by Tory supporters to keep the news and attention off the Osbourne thing. Timing was just too coincidental.

Wasn’t Johnson supposed to be handing his phone in to the covid inquiry today?

Nope, it was a fella. Possibly more than one.
Possibly a Me Too thing to follow?
Poor chap, clearly depressed, who wouldn’t be reading the news every day.
Clearly conflicted.

What’s he done?

I have absolutely no doubt that it has nothing to do with Tory politicians, how could they possibly manufacture this story? And if they were going to then surely their target would be a Labour politician, not a news reader.

I think someone trying to make some money is far more likely to be the motive behind this story.

Not manufactured the story, but known about it for ages and sat on it until a sufficiently large diversion was required. Throw it to Murdoch’s red rag o shite as an exclusive,  who naturally make hay whilst causing havoc. Meanwhile, other salacious ex Tory minister stories quietly disappear under the carpet…

I think you are overestimating anyone in Westminster to be able to manage that.

There is only one party in this whole sorry episode who deserves to be destroyed. I hope when Edwards is out of hospital he sues them for millions.

Interesting about The Sun's censorious concern over sexualised images of a 17-year-old. Samantha Fox (born 15 April 1966) first appeared topless on Page 3 in The Sun on 22 February 1983. So, she was 17 when it published her sexualised image. Paper even 'boasted' she was 16 pic.twitter.com/mcrVNrBZIQ

— Roy Greenslade (@GreensladeR) July 10, 2023

^^^^

Yes, but the Moral Majority only care about the failings of ‘others’.

The hypocrisy is capable of cutting sheet steel.

I am struck by how the Beeb really doesn’t need this as it further weakens the best (roughly) impartial news source in the UK. It doesn’t always get it right, but I see similar levels of annoyance from the left and the right against the BBC, so I am broadly happy.

But this is a gift to those, particularly in the ‘new’ Tories, who seek to undermine the BBC for their political aims.

Why do you think it was a Murdoch paper all over this? Rupert hates the Beeb and would be salivating at the idea of taking down such a prominent news presenter…

So I still don’t understand why they wouldn’t just name Huw up front, if they were sure of their facts and the Beeb’s alleged intransigence in dealing with the case? Why the reticence to “Name and shame”? Seems like an odd editorial decision to publish a ‘story’ so light on details.

The narrative is still quite confused IMO with accounts from parent/step parents, the alleged young person in the pictures, who was paid, how and specifically what for, etc, etc…

There is more to this than has made it into the public domain still I think, and the way it’s been handled by the Sun still feels a bit suspect IMO…

Part of me thinks this was well coordinated by Tory supporters to keep the news and attention off the Osbourne thing. Timing was just too coincidental.

Possiblity I suppose, there were even rumours that Mad Nad might dust off her Westminster pass to name the individual under parliamentary privileged, her or Lee Anderson…

I thought the first allegation came from parents about their daughter not a son ?

I thought it was a bloke – maybe I missheard…

Seems like an odd editorial decision to publish a ‘story’ so light on details.

Creates the impression of the Beeb covering it up?

“We can’t name him because of a Beeb Coverup / Lefty Lawyers / The Blob etc”?

Don’t know – but what I do know is that this is a massive win for the right wing and their media.

I’m surprised at the sympathy for Hugh Edwards, as a parent with a son getting large sums of money to fund a drug habit, he is over 40 years older than the teenager. Take the easy option of blaming mental health issues, I can’t imagine it’s going to be fun for Hugh’s family either living with this misdemeanor

Seems like an odd editorial decision to publish a ‘story’ so light on details.

letting folk decide their own stories/allow Chinese whispers will create much juicer stories than anything they can legally print I imagine, there’s already plenty of variety in this thread…

He’s done nothing illegal.

He’s done nothing illegal.

And yet, right now in the Home Counties, countless sour-faced gammons are saying “It’s disgusting, he was reporting on the death of our Queen whilst doing this. Dis-grace-ful!”

Etc.

Well Jeremy Vine et al will be suing a few Twitter users for calling them out.
The Sun truly is a sensationist rag owned by Davros.

but known about it for ages and sat on it until a sufficiently large diversion was required

There are specific dates when the accusers reported the allegations to the police, which was apparently a little while before they approached the BBC, so I doubt that the Sun sat on the story for ages.

What story do you think the Sun was trying to bury when it created this diversion btw?

I’m surprised at the sympathy for Hugh Edwards

It’s not sympathy, more cynicism at the motives of those who broke the story and who’s really benefitted from it. A Dead Cat to run interference for the wedding of the year isn’t the most outlandish theory TBF.

The spin on it that it’s a BBC cover up, and Lee Anderson using it as a pretext to call the Beeb “a safe haven for perverts” makes it clear that the RW meeja can rely on certain Tory MPs to pick up the baton and run with it…

On the face of it this case appears not dissimilar to Philip Schofield’s, the difference being the broadcaster involved wasn’t on the Tory shitlist…

Edit:

What story do you think the Sun was trying to bury when it created this diversion btw?

Osbourne’s wedding and the round robin email that apparently preceeded it…

Not really been following this. Are all four allegations aimed at him? If the police say no crime was committed I fail to see how it is news. It’s like the Schofield thing again.

I’m surprised at the sympathy for Hugh Edwards

There’s this concept of ‘consenting adults’, perhaps you’ve heard of it? If you’re outraged at the age difference or the gender of the supposed ‘victim’ then perhaps that’s your problem not his. Also Rupert Murdoch was married to someone 37 years younger than him. Where was the outrage about that?

If the police say no crime was committed I fail to see how it is news.

technically there has to be some public interest for them to be able to report IIRC. A crime is in the public interest. Hence the supposed non crime here, the (not) underage lad that schofield was involved with, Max Moseley’s (not) Nazi orgies. All fake crimes created in order to be able to report people doing stuff that’s none of anyone else’s business.

Osbourne’s wedding and the round robin email that apparently preceeded it…

I am not really following, I know very little if anything about Osborne’s wedding, why would the Sun/Rupert Murdoch care sufficiently about George Osborne’s wedding to release a diversionary story which they had been sitting on for ages?

Edit: Just to be clear I suspect that the most likely motive behind this story is that someone wants to make some money and someone else wants to sell newspapers. I consider some complex, and apparently fairly pointless conspiracy, somewhat unlikely.

Obviously that is just speculation on my part as almost no detail is known.

Quite why anyone would pay £35k for what you can get for free on the interballs bemuses me!

There might have been an emotional attachment, people have paid out far more when they’ve fallen for someone.

Given he’s done absolutely nothing illegal

Details are scarce so perhaps nothing illegal did happen, but it is illegal to produce, distribute and possess indecent images of someone under 18. It seems odd that with the age of consent being 16 having a full blown physical relationship would have been fine (legally)

Nobody in Westminster or the Sun could gather enough people they could trust to organise a deception or managed breaking of a story like this. It’s a fancy full idea that conspiracies often cling to. IMV

Nail on the head..

The Sun is a disgusting rag and they have to pay for what they’ve done to Huw Edwards.

They tried to destroy someone’s life with false claims of illegality involving a minor.

We know now there was no criminality, and The Sun have driven a vulnerable man into medical care.

— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) July 12, 2023

The Sun truly is a sensationist rag owned by Davros.

The Daleks own the Sun? Why didn’t this make the news?

Nobody in Westminster or the Sun could gather enough people they could trust to organise a deception or managed breaking of a story like this

and what qualifies you to make such a statement ?

I think the reason he has not been named anywhere is due to the libel case Cliff Richard brought a few years back after he was completely innocent, but accused in the press of all sorts. As a result, they are far more cautious in naming people, and quite rightly so as this case appears to once again show.

I’m surprised at the sympathy for Hugh Edwards

Why?

A man with known mental health issues, who has committed no crime, has been hounded and bullied by an absolutely disgusting pack of hypocrites into a mental breakdown.

FFS, Who wouldn’t have some sympathy for him?

Would you fancy being where he is now?

And bear in mind, the person who is the supposed ‘victim’ in all of this has publicly said that

A) it’s all bollocks

And B) the Sun knew full well it was all bollocks when they published it

I hope he takes them to the ****ing cleaners!! They’re utter scum! I don’t think they’re in a position to be lecturing anyone about moral values.

I’m intrigued about what is ‘the easy option’ about depression.

Why the reticence to “Name and shame”?

I think a few recent tragic examples have shown that nothing seems to amplify a story like a lack of information. Perhaps,most horribly with the story of Nicola Bulley’s disappearance- there was nothing manufactured about that but the total lack of information available about what could have happened somehow made the whole thing compelling and sensational. The sun story seems to have deliberately tried to harness that – be deliberately full of nothing to the point it was baffling as to why they published at all -which means people could play armchair detective and speculate it could be anything done by anyone, to anyone, with any motive- leading to these numerous social media ‘namings’ of uninvolved individuals who then had to publically declare their non-involvement which in turn made them momentarily the face and name of the story – See the confusion in this thread alone, even once the facts are out just about the basic details like the apparent victim (or apparently not a victim) being male or female.

the story was whatever you wanted it to be, you could jump to any conclusion you liked and not be wrong because whoever denied whatever you wanted them to have done……well there’s no smoke without fire is there. We live in an age where there’s no true or false anymore – there’s only ‘the sort of thing that would be true’.

The only common thread we were all allowed to agree on was that the BBC was mishandling wherever it was we were imagining was going on.

These people really baffle me, he reports on how bad the the world is , reports on how folk are struggleing to afford the basics, hes on 440k a year to sit and read and thats how he values money..

I tell ya what hows about you find a random struggling person doing there best but getting hammered day in day out from every angle, its not hard theres millions of them…

Give them 35k, no return no questions just an act of kindness from a person to a person…that will do his own well being and mental health no end of good and possibly change a human life to boot….

But oh no show me a pic of ya  cobblers….heres 35k

Good grief man , tragic, tragic

If true of course…time will tell

Details are scarce so perhaps nothing illegal did happen, but it is illegal to produce, distribute and possess indecent images of someone under 18.

The paper’s source was the mother and step-father of the young person – but a letter issued on the young person’s behalf by a lawyer described their account as “rubbish”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66180799

The police appear to feel confident that there isn’t currently any evidence that any criminal activity occurred.

So he’s committed no crime. Seems to have had his life ruined by the young person’s family and shit media.

None of this needed to have been in the public eye. None of this justified so much of the press focusing on it ahead of “proper” news.

Really angry that a private issue has been allowed to run like this. What a waste of time and lives.

Give them 35k, no return no questions just an act of kindness from a person to a person…that will do his own well being and mental health no end of good and possibly change a human life to boot….

stw is fantastic. Need some advice on a complex legal matter, there’ll be a specialist lawyer pop up on the thread. Question about armed police responses, and a retired swat team member responds

Speculation about Huw Edwards mental health, and apparently his psychiatrist is on hand to provide insight on how he should be coping with his demons..

@ehwhome

I’m not sure I believe the amounts mentioned, given how everything else has been shown to be fabrication.

Murdoch and his vile hate rags are a stain on the planet. From what I have read this is not news, in any meaningful use of the word, just tawdry clickbait put out by vermin with the aim of harming a competitor organisation while ruining someone’s life.

Fair point tpbiker, silly me thinking forums are a platform for opinion.

If true though i stand by my point, let me know if thats ok..

Do you give a similar percentage of your salary to random strugglers, no questions asked?

The only facts appear to be:
– huw edwards is the presenter referred to and has some mental health issues
– police say…nothing to see here so any messages from edwards are of no concern
– the sun is a despicable arsewipe masquerading as a ‘newspaper’

Everything else is speculation or claims which have yet to be properly verified or corroborated.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s it – other than hoping edwards sues the sun for everything his lawyers can squeeze out of them.

It’s now a BBC internal matter; leave them to it.