FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > So quick to judge
So quick to judge
Jump to: Newest in thread
How did it come to this? What happened that people revel so much and contribute in the downfall and torment of others? What happened to privacy or innocent till proven guilty? The latest episode is just yet more example of an unregulated and agenda led press and everyone else being complicit in fanning the flames. Take a breath and reflect. Dont lose sight of who the owner of the sun is and their agenda toward the beeb.
Im going to tell you a shocking story. Im not going to tell you who its about. Im not going to give any evidence. But its really shocking. You should be shocked and pick up your rocks now and launch them when i tell you to. Next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ockforplay66Man
over a year ago
Southampton/isle of wight/ everywhere |
Sadly, innocent until proven guilty is now a bit of an alien concept, mainly due to both mainstream media but more so, social media. Now everyone is an expert on everything. Facts and evidence are simply words that get put in from of ideas and accusations to give them some form of legitimacy.
Quite literally, the media have pulled a pin on the grenade, thrown it in to the room and sat back to wait for the chaos. It’s destroying lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A life and a family in turmoil, possibly destroyed, while someone is battling with significant mental health issues. Yes, I hear those who say he brought it on himself, but that's easy to say when you don't live your life in the public eye and face the gutter press as judge, jury and executioner. How many of us have done things that we've regretted, maybe things that are morally questionable, have shown bad judgement, but have got away with it because we're not in the public eye?
Nicky Campbell made a good point - was it in the public interest, or was it of interest to the public?
Has the press, especially The Sun, learned anything from the Caroline Flack situation, or is it a case of any story is worthy of being published, free press blah, blah, blah, regardless of the consequences, even if it results in the death of someone. If an individual pursued and hounded someone who had mental health issues / was vulnerable, to the extent that the press do, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but we allow corporations driven by self interest to do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
"
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else? "
Majorly so.
I'm going to misquote Mike Tyson but he said something along the lines of "people are brave saying shit when they know they won't get a slap for it"
I get it all the time on here. I'd never type something that I didn't have the balls to say in person.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else?
Majorly so.
I'm going to misquote Mike Tyson but he said something along the lines of "people are brave saying shit when they know they won't get a slap for it"
I get it all the time on here. I'd never type something that I didn't have the balls to say in person.
"
Was that "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else?
Majorly so.
I'm going to misquote Mike Tyson but he said something along the lines of "people are brave saying shit when they know they won't get a slap for it"
I get it all the time on here. I'd never type something that I didn't have the balls to say in person.
Was that "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face?" "
“Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.”
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else?
Majorly so.
I'm going to misquote Mike Tyson but he said something along the lines of "people are brave saying shit when they know they won't get a slap for it"
I get it all the time on here. I'd never type something that I didn't have the balls to say in person.
"
Totally agree and I use this principle too.
Social media means that every person who has a keyboard or device can voice their opinion without consequence and often sees their own opinion as the only one, as well as having an overinflated view of their own self importance, ortheir self promotion as being the only priority. (BTW, I do accept that we are all entitled to our own opinions.)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
Do you think it has got worse in the last few years with the number of social media outlets and 128 bit thinking? People writing stuff and opinion without consequence to the author and complete ignorance of consequences to anyone else?
Majorly so.
I'm going to misquote Mike Tyson but he said something along the lines of "people are brave saying shit when they know they won't get a slap for it"
I get it all the time on here. I'd never type something that I didn't have the balls to say in person.
Was that "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face?"
“Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.”
"
Im not a fan of gratuitous violence but yes that might help remedy some of it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's vile behaviour from The Sun yet people thrive on scandal and gossip.
It's peoples lives they are damaging.
Lots of people make wrong decisions and choices in life, but to have it broadcast to the world must be horrendous, I can't even begin to imagine how I would cope with it. People don't cope, just need look at Caroline Flack.
Something needs to change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking how quickly everyone has forgotten the #bekind bandwagon.
Exactly. In particular the media companies who create the shit.. Then tell us to be kind and dont spread shit.. "
They can create shit but lots of us are responsible for shoveling it. The only sm I use is fab and Facebook. I'm not surprised but I am world weary at the hypocrisy, double standards and obvious glee at other people's misery and misfortune |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's vile behaviour from The Sun yet people thrive on scandal and gossip.
It's peoples lives they are damaging.
Lots of people make wrong decisions and choices in life, but to have it broadcast to the world must be horrendous, I can't even begin to imagine how I would cope with it. People don't cope, just need look at Caroline Flack.
Something needs to change."
It never will. As a species we delight in this sort of thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?"
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olf and RedCouple
over a year ago
Nr Cardiff or at Chams Darlaston |
We don’t know the facts, we just know what The Sun has decided to print. Never could abide that newspaper , even less so now. Haven’t forgotten their coverage of Hillsborough. And Jeremy Vine can go do one too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down. "
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think people are letting their (reasonable) hatred of The Sun distract from other things. A national broadcaster who allowed a presenter under investigation to stay on air for one. The presenter is not an innocent party either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May."
And the son said nothing untoward happened? Presumably one is lying. No crime. Personal and private matter between the two adults. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May."
And the son said nothing untoward happened? Presumably one is lying. No crime. Personal and private matter between the two adults. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Humans have always been like this. From throwing rotten veg at those in stocks, knitting at the guillotine and those that queue to get into high profile court case galleries. I'm sure there are a fair few on here that have watched h0stage decap vids as well. We are sick, spiteful creatures who like to think we have the moral high ground when it suits us.
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r TriomanMan
over a year ago
Chippenham Malmesbury area |
Many believe that the BBC knew about those found guilty under Operation Yew Tree long before they were arrested.
Releasing this information may seem cruel but the BBC heads may have felt caught between a rock and a hard place.
And, like someone has already said, no one seems to care about the victims although, I'm sure they do, I hope they do.
We, as a society haven't become totally blind to justice and compassion for all, not just the rich and famous, have we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May."
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Many believe that the BBC knew about those found guilty under Operation Yew Tree long before they were arrested.
Releasing this information may seem cruel but the BBC heads may have felt caught between a rock and a hard place.
And, like someone has already said, no one seems to care about the victims although, I'm sure they do, I hope they do.
We, as a society haven't become totally blind to justice and compassion for all, not just the rich and famous, have we?"
The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?"
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?"
An employer doing fuck all is how Saville and Co operated for so long.Company policy/standards of behaviour/codes of conduct etc are not Police matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?"
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?"
That they didn't print his name has nothing to do with Levenson which is better than before but still weak after Murdoch and the mail's owners spent millions in lobbying to weaken the proposals..
The BBC did not accuse Cliff, they reported on another famous name after the police tipped them off which the other media outlets also ran till that was shown to be false..
The issue might be more about the anonymity issue rather than the status quo whereby all media will report as did the sun on the other examples your so desperate to blame on one outlet..
Has Edwards got questions to answer yes of course, has the BBC yes of course and equally so has the sun..
For Murdoch and the Tory party BBC haters who despite no illegal behaviour thus far where happy to use the actions of a person albeit high profile whom they knew has had previous mental health problems to again attack the BBC..
And clearly it's worked to bring out the hatred in many who can't or won't apply any objective thought process ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position. "
Don't know I put his salary in tbh. I do think that a newsreader is a public figure and should inspire trust and confidence in particular. But morals matter for everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position.
Don't know I put his salary in tbh. I do think that a newsreader is a public figure and should inspire trust and confidence in particular. But morals matter for everyone. "
You mentioned he's paid £400k.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position.
Don't know I put his salary in tbh. I do think that a newsreader is a public figure and should inspire trust and confidence in particular. But morals matter for everyone. "
I dont disagree regarding morals. But theres the rub. Morals or lack of them are not illegal. There is no framework in this country to ensure everyone has, and adopts the same morals nor police and consequence people who fail in that. The fact this debate is on a swingers site might be evidence that users of this site have different morals to others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
We all judge, it isn't a new thing. The difference now is SM , it is plastered everywhere so it fuels it even more.
I just don't get inconsistancy, it depends on who / what it is as to whether it seems acceptable to some or not. The likes of on here, I have seen people judge for married people playing behind their partners back, then go on to defend a famous person who is outed for doing the same thing. That bit I don't get.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position.
Don't know I put his salary in tbh. I do think that a newsreader is a public figure and should inspire trust and confidence in particular. But morals matter for everyone.
You mentioned he's paid £400k. "
Sorry - I missed the "why". I don't know WHY I mentioned his salary. Other than jealousy.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
"
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The press is more regulated post Levenson than ever before,that's why the Sun didn't name Huw.Dont forget the BBC accused Cliff Richard and filmed the Police raid on his home,they were also quick to point the finger at other totally innocent people,Harvey Proctor Leon Brittain (but that's okay they are only Tories) innocent until proven guilty?Huw attempted to meet people young enough to be his kids,he sent abusive messages to one(BBC confirmed),met another in lockdown three(where are all the people baying for blood in self righteous outrage that were after Johnson & Co for lockdown breaches?).Seems no one has learned from Saville and his mates.People seem more concerned about the celeb than the youngsters involved,one being a crack addict.An addiction not helped by £35k.Do you pay that for pics or do you pay it to silence someone?
Speculation but yes... What was the role of the crack addict and his parents in this.?did mum really imagine it was in her crack addicted sons best interest to share his private life. The sun have so far refused to respond to perfectly reasonable and sensible questions on the matter nor have a press conference. Something they were demanding the bbc do. Dont lose sight of the fact the bbc is the enemy of rupert murdoch and he has many examples of trying to bring it down.
The mother said she went to the Sun after getting no meaningful response from the BBC who sat on this since mid May.
The mother went to the BBC after going to the Police first who said that they couldn't do anything. Why should an employer do anything if the Police can't get involved?
Because his behaviour was not in keeping with someone in the public eye? He's paid over 400,000 and reads the news. Should he not be expected to show some morals?
In my opinion personal morals shouldn't be dependent on salary or position.
Don't know I put his salary in tbh. I do think that a newsreader is a public figure and should inspire trust and confidence in particular. But morals matter for everyone.
You mentioned he's paid £400k.
Sorry - I missed the "why". I don't know WHY I mentioned his salary. Other than jealousy. "
I'd be quite happy with that salary I must admit  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. "
Because he has suffered with mental health issues, because hes now in hospital with them, because he has family, colleagues and friends who are affected,because his career has been cancelled, because his personal business has been invaded, judged and dragged through the public eye as headlines for 5 days... And he hasn't broken any laws. What gives anyone the right to throw unsubstantiated rumour about anyone, ruin their life and walk away with never a comment or apology. If you have more factual information than the person at the centre of it all, the alleged victim, the police probably best to share it with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
"
This..
They knew before they went to print that the young man had rubbished the core of their story yet still went ahead..
They omitted that the parents are estranged from him which they knew..
They slanted the language to raise anger, (funny enough they never said Sam Fox was a child when they published her topless on her 16th birthday)..
Looked at objectively there are issues for Edwards his employer of course but for them as a newspaper there are deeply concerning issues over their behaviour.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong.
Because he has suffered with mental health issues, because hes now in hospital with them, because he has family, colleagues and friends who are affected,because his career has been cancelled, because his personal business has been invaded, judged and dragged through the public eye as headlines for 5 days... And he hasn't broken any laws. What gives anyone the right to throw unsubstantiated rumour about anyone, ruin their life and walk away with never a comment or apology. If you have more factual information than the person at the centre of it all, the alleged victim, the police probably best to share it with them. "
There is a series of allegations from a number of people against him. Including three junior BBC staffers. Which is why they're still investigating at the BBC. I'm not throwing around allegations of abuse, I'm not calling him any names, I simply don't believe there's no smoke without fire. The lack of criminal charges to me, isn't sufficient to conclude that it's all good.
His mental health is irrelevant to all of that IMO. The BBC could have chosen to handle this differently - the parents reportedly went to the Sun precisely because of this and there is no evidence they were paid for their story.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. "
I get that. Firstly, we have no idea about the facts anyone. Was it 30k ? Did the person have a drug habit. Did Hew know? I could even see a case where he was being blackm@iled to some extent.
But if I took it on face value, I'd agree there is a moral aspect of paying large sums to somene with a drug habit. There is an element of taking advantage there depending on what was being asked
(I'm cynical it was 35k for nudes)
However we do know any of this to be true? the oroginal story appears to be from unreliable sources, and presented in a underhand way.
The big question to ask oneself is why am I angry at Hew and what has he done wrong. There's a risk we are angry at the dog whistles not the facts.
I'm also not sure how much any of this is the responsibility of his employer.
Is it right that someone can be reported to their employer for doing something legal even if the morals are shakey? How much should any employer have a say over how someone spends their money? Should an employer investigate an allegation of someone being a sugar daddy? Or having a pron addiction ? Again, even if we take everything on face value, why are we angry and what would expect our employers to do if those allegations were made about us?
This isn't defending hew or the BBC. It's checking in that our anger is towards those we know have deserved it based on what we actually know, not what has been whistled at, or what has been presented by unreliable sources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did. "
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Christ selling dirty pics, The Sun and The Star made paper's out of it. A certain Football chairman
didn't do to bad out of Mary Milligan. How many models ended up with cocaine habit's and remember some of those models were very young too . I think there is far more news out there that's just got hidden away . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. I get that. Firstly, we have no idea about the facts anyone. Was it 30k ? Did the person have a drug habit. Did Hew know? I could even see a case where he was being blackm@iled to some extent.
But if I took it on face value, I'd agree there is a moral aspect of paying large sums to somene with a drug habit. There is an element of taking advantage there depending on what was being asked
(I'm cynical it was 35k for nudes)
However we do know any of this to be true? the oroginal story appears to be from unreliable sources, and presented in a underhand way.
The big question to ask oneself is why am I angry at Hew and what has he done wrong. There's a risk we are angry at the dog whistles not the facts.
I'm also not sure how much any of this is the responsibility of his employer.
Is it right that someone can be reported to their employer for doing something legal even if the morals are shakey? How much should any employer have a say over how someone spends their money? Should an employer investigate an allegation of someone being a sugar daddy? Or having a pron addiction ? Again, even if we take everything on face value, why are we angry and what would expect our employers to do if those allegations were made about us?
This isn't defending hew or the BBC. It's checking in that our anger is towards those we know have deserved it based on what we actually know, not what has been whistled at, or what has been presented by unreliable sources. "
There are allegations from BBC staffers against him so it's clear they have an obligation to ensure a safe working environment for people. I'm not actually sitting here fuming at anyone. I didn't bring up being angry. I just don't feel it's right that only the Sun receive people's moral judgement. Whether the allegations are proven to be true or not - many people on these threads seem to think a 61yo paying a young man for sex content is ok. I don't. And I'm sure some people will say - well, I'm here on this site so I can't judge about morals. Probably that's a whole other thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such."
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
But how many old fellers were looking at young girls bare tits in a newspaper and wanking themselves silly . Oh yes the models got paid a couple of hundred,some went on to better things but others well . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield."
Putting out a story on the grounds that someone *might* one day break the law is something of a slippery slope to go down.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
"A life and a family in turmoil, possibly destroyed, while someone is battling with significant mental health issues. Yes, I hear those who say he brought it on himself, but that's easy to say when you don't live your life in the public eye and face the gutter press as judge, jury and executioner. How many of us have done things that we've regretted, maybe things that are morally questionable, have shown bad judgement, but have got away with it because we're not in the public eye?
Nicky Campbell made a good point - was it in the public interest, or was it of interest to the public?
Has the press, especially The Sun, learned anything from the Caroline Flack situation, or is it a case of any story is worthy of being published, free press blah, blah, blah, regardless of the consequences, even if it results in the death of someone. If an individual pursued and hounded someone who had mental health issues / was vulnerable, to the extent that the press do, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but we allow corporations driven by self interest to do it."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield."
if this was a valid position, any Tory MPs will be very nervous.
Good thing there are no current investigations that could have been reported on instead of the Edwards story ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's not just the news media. This site has its toxic contribution too.
When a member can openly say to someone in a forum post "even if you are right, the truth doesn't matter" and not one person challenges them, it shows that people are too scared to stand up for the truth for fear of being ostracised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.if this was a valid position, any Tory MPs will be very nervous.
Good thing there are no current investigations that could have been reported on instead of the Edwards story ..
"
Why is it not a valid position?
Anyone's political colour is surely irrelevant if they are committing an offence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Putting out a story on the grounds that someone *might* one day break the law is something of a slippery slope to go down.
"
I didn't say they had done it on those grounds.I asked the question what if it stopped an escalation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Putting out a story on the grounds that someone *might* one day break the law is something of a slippery slope to go down.
I didn't say they had done it on those grounds.I asked the question what if it stopped an escalation."
Dealing in hypotheticals isn’t very productive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield."
Other than paying him a high salary which enabled him to pay over the odds for some pictures, where is the BBC angle in this?
Did he use a BBC computer, on BBC premises, on BBC time? We don’t know. Like all of us here, Huw Edwards is entitled to his own private life.
Should all of us here be reported to our employers because of what we do here? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Other than paying him a high salary which enabled him to pay over the odds for some pictures, where is the BBC angle in this?
Did he use a BBC computer, on BBC premises, on BBC time? We don’t know. Like all of us here, Huw Edwards is entitled to his own private life.
Should all of us here be reported to our employers because of what we do here?"
He's under investigation by the BBC after allegations from three current/past members of staff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The sun printed the story despite the police having said nothing illegal had happened and despite the subject (eg the person receiving the money) telling the sun nothing had happened.
We have no real facts to hand other than nothing illegal happening. Despite the continued use of the world child there is absolutely no suggestion of anything happening below the age of 16. So the resulting comments on paedophilia and grooming are way off the mark.
I get why this sparks emotion. Especially from anyone close to child @buse or grooming. But let's be clear, your anger shouldn't be directed at Hew. He appears to be no worse than many fabbers and many people we know who happily wank over 20yos.
Your anger should be at the sun. They are intentionally using your experiences and your emotional distress to make a profit.
I'm angry at both and also the BBC. I don't understand why Edwards is getting understanding and sympathy. Doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. I get that. Firstly, we have no idea about the facts anyone. Was it 30k ? Did the person have a drug habit. Did Hew know? I could even see a case where he was being blackm@iled to some extent.
But if I took it on face value, I'd agree there is a moral aspect of paying large sums to somene with a drug habit. There is an element of taking advantage there depending on what was being asked
(I'm cynical it was 35k for nudes)
However we do know any of this to be true? the oroginal story appears to be from unreliable sources, and presented in a underhand way.
The big question to ask oneself is why am I angry at Hew and what has he done wrong. There's a risk we are angry at the dog whistles not the facts.
I'm also not sure how much any of this is the responsibility of his employer.
Is it right that someone can be reported to their employer for doing something legal even if the morals are shakey? How much should any employer have a say over how someone spends their money? Should an employer investigate an allegation of someone being a sugar daddy? Or having a pron addiction ? Again, even if we take everything on face value, why are we angry and what would expect our employers to do if those allegations were made about us?
This isn't defending hew or the BBC. It's checking in that our anger is towards those we know have deserved it based on what we actually know, not what has been whistled at, or what has been presented by unreliable sources. "
Hovis, you asked some very good questions in your thoughtful response. I didn't reply to all of them because I suspect I've said enough here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Other than paying him a high salary which enabled him to pay over the odds for some pictures, where is the BBC angle in this?
Did he use a BBC computer, on BBC premises, on BBC time? We don’t know. Like all of us here, Huw Edwards is entitled to his own private life.
Should all of us here be reported to our employers because of what we do here?
He's under investigation by the BBC after allegations from three current/past members of staff. "
Under under investigation is not yet proof of guilt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Other than paying him a high salary which enabled him to pay over the odds for some pictures, where is the BBC angle in this?
Did he use a BBC computer, on BBC premises, on BBC time? We don’t know. Like all of us here, Huw Edwards is entitled to his own private life.
Should all of us here be reported to our employers because of what we do here?
He's under investigation by the BBC after allegations from three current/past members of staff.
Under under investigation is not yet proof of guilt. "
I know. Thus the word "allegations". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How did it come to this? What happened that people revel so much and contribute in the downfall and torment of others? What happened to privacy or innocent till proven guilty? The latest episode is just yet more example of an unregulated and agenda led press and everyone else being complicit in fanning the flames. Take a breath and reflect. Dont lose sight of who the owner of the sun is and their agenda toward the beeb.
Im going to tell you a shocking story. Im not going to tell you who its about. Im not going to give any evidence. But its really shocking. You should be shocked and pick up your rocks now and launch them when i tell you to. Next. "
Completely agree. I hope this dents the sales figures for the rag in question. Really sad situation from start to finish, with the Sun whipping up a hate mob. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's under investigation by the BBC after allegations from three current/past members of staff. "
Which wasn’t part of the story in the sun, and also sounds like it has only come to light since. While the BBC should investigate staff complaints thoroughly, what’s their role investigating the other story? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Other than paying him a high salary which enabled him to pay over the odds for some pictures, where is the BBC angle in this?
Did he use a BBC computer, on BBC premises, on BBC time? We don’t know. Like all of us here, Huw Edwards is entitled to his own private life.
Should all of us here be reported to our employers because of what we do here?
He's under investigation by the BBC after allegations from three current/past members of staff.
Under under investigation is not yet proof of guilt. "
It seems for some folk, "under investigation" means guilty as charged. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Putting out a story on the grounds that someone *might* one day break the law is something of a slippery slope to go down.
I didn't say they had done it on those grounds.I asked the question what if it stopped an escalation.
Dealing in hypotheticals isn’t very productive."
So we should never ask how to stop something from happening?never ask how to stop another Saville?Never ask if whe had handled it this way would we get a better/quicker outcome?If you can't ask hypotheticals you'll never learn a thing and be continually surprised its happened again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Most employment contracts have the "bringing the company into disrepute" clause, which means the BBC would have to investigate alleged wrong-doings, whether in private life or at work.
Bess x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most employment contracts have the "bringing the company into disrepute" clause, which means the BBC would have to investigate alleged wrong-doings, whether in private life or at work.
Bess x"
In tier case, most of us are fucked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC didn't release his name. Nor did The Sun. His wife did.
What the sun did though was chum the waters for a feeding frenzy. A jigsaw that could be put together on social media. “Look how responsible we are by not naming the presenter.” Bullshit. It was a very underhand method by the sun to damage the BBC, who are a competitor.
The story is a personal tragedy for two families. The police dismissed the case early on as there was no evidence of criminality, so one family took it further.
The public may be interested, but it’s not in the public interest. It’s a private matter and should have remained as such.
An organisation (with a past history of it) hiding a potential sexual predator not in the public interest? Is it not possible that this story breaking has stopped his behaviour escalating to the point of criminality?same applies to Schofield.
Putting out a story on the grounds that someone *might* one day break the law is something of a slippery slope to go down.
I didn't say they had done it on those grounds.I asked the question what if it stopped an escalation.
Dealing in hypotheticals isn’t very productive.
So we should never ask how to stop something from happening?never ask how to stop another Saville?Never ask if whe had handled it this way would we get a better/quicker outcome?If you can't ask hypotheticals you'll never learn a thing and be continually surprised its happened again."
Asking how to stop something from happening again is not the same as saying ‘maybe he was going to nonce it up later in life’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
