Huw Edwards, sexual deviant or mentally ill?

[ALBIONSAINT]

I have my doubts that it’s the latter. The narrative that is being fed is that he is now the victim, it’s all rather pathetic.

[stlucifer]

I don't read the sun, or any of these rags but, do we know what he's purported to have done?

Apparently the police don't think he's done anything illegal.

[faraway saint]

6 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

I have my doubts that it’s the latter. The narrative that is being fed is that he is now the victim, it’s all rather pathetic.

I have my doubts that, like the recent Schofield case, if the member of the public was female this would have had the coverage that it's getting.

I don't go with the mentally ill line, although these days that is the "get out of jail free" card played, unfortunately, by many in all walks of life.  

However "strange" the reported communication has been it seems it's not illegal and, again like Schofield's case, at best misjudged as working for the BBC (and ITV) does carry the weight of public scrutiny. 

There will be thousands of members of the public who are up to much worse. 

[antrin]

Huw Edwards has been known for a long time to suffer hugely with depression.  
 

so the retreat into a facility appears to be a completely reasonable response to being “outed” by that shitrag tabloid for something (or nothing!) that the alleged “victim” has publicly stated never happened.

His career is probably now ended on the basis that feckless “parents” and an unscrupulous publisher made up vague unspecified lies about him.

 

[WeeBud]

6 minutes ago, antrin said:

Huw Edwards has been known for a long time to suffer hugely with depression.  
 

so the retreat into a facility appears to be a completely reasonable response to being “outed” by that shitrag tabloid for something (or nothing!) that the alleged “victim” has publicly stated never happened.

His career is probably now ended on the basis that feckless “parents” and an unscrupulous publisher made up vague unspecified lies about him.

 

I absolutely agree with the bits in bold.....both sides of the argument going on here are pure conjecture and should there be no court case the details will never be fully known unless all involved say their piece

[stlucifer]

3 hours ago, WeeBud said:

I absolutely agree with the bits in bold.....both sides of the argument going on here are pure conjecture and should there be no court case the details will never be fully known unless all involved say their piece

Not sure that would clear it up.

They're unlikely to change their stance so the story will still be he said, he said, they said, they printed sh!t. So there. (Had to use the other version of the word).

[HSS]

[WeeBud]

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Not sure that would clear it up.

They're unlikely to change their stance so the story will still be he said, he said, they said, they printed sh!t. So there. (Had to use the other version of the word).

I can see that, that's why it's probably best not to speculate.

[exiledfan]

My issue on all of this is more deep rooted and that journalism feels to have lost all credibility.

This has taken up more air time than a cost of living crisis and turmoil in the government (coincidence from a Tory supporting media group, you decide)

Surely a story should not be published without evidence and the fact that the alleged victim didn't want to speak shuts it down?

Would love to see Dan Wootons WhatsApp and search history.

None of us can say we have lead the life of an angel and don't have any skeletons on our cupboard.

[antrin]

2 hours ago, exiledfan said:

My issue on all of this is more deep rooted and that journalism feels to have lost all credibility.

This has taken up more air time than a cost of living crisis and turmoil in the government (coincidence from a Tory supporting media group, you decide)

Surely a story should not be published without evidence and the fact that the alleged victim didn't want to speak shuts it down?

Would love to see Dan Wootons WhatsApp and search history.

None of us can say we have lead the life of an angel and don't have any skeletons on our cupboard.

Well, Murdoch’s Sun has distracted all attention from the big story of The Buffoon not handing over his phone containing all the relevant WhatsApp messages from during the Pandemic.

exPM actually breaking the law as opposed to a tv guy not breaking the law…?

very convenient.

 

[StanleySaint]

Clearly he has more money than sense! I'm sure he's regretting his overbearing pomposity (amongst other things) now.

[portmahomack saint]

17 hours ago, stlucifer said:

I don't read the sun, or any of these rags but, do we know what he's purported to have done?

Apparently the police don't think he's done anything illegal.

Aye and it only took them a couple of hours to come to that conclusion unlike some investigations we could mention 

Wonder if they put up a tent in the front garden   

 

[portmahomack saint]

20 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

I have my doubts that it’s the latter. The narrative that is being fed is that he is now the victim, it’s all rather pathetic.

If he paid 35K for nude pics the answer is he's both 

[ALBIONSAINT]

11 hours ago, antrin said:

Huw Edwards has been known for a long time to suffer hugely with depression.  
 

so the retreat into a facility appears to be a completely reasonable response to being “outed” by that shitrag tabloid for something (or nothing!) that the alleged “victim” has publicly stated never happened.

His career is probably now ended on the basis that feckless “parents” and an unscrupulous publisher made up vague unspecified lies about him.

 

Does suffering from depression give you a proclivity towards unorthodox sexual behaviours? 
IF these allegations are true, and I emphasis IF and they have been deemed by the police not to meet the threshold of illegality, it is still a morally wrong act. This is a man in his 60s he uses large amounts of money to entice what sounds like a vulnerable 17 year old lads to perform sex acts for his own gratification. I believe that people can do what ever they like sex wise behind closed doors so long as everyone is consenting and no one is getting hurt. However I don’t believe that a 17 year old is able to fully understand and consent in this circumstance. It might be legal to have sex with a 17 year old but is it morally justifiable if your in a position of power and are in your 50s or 60s? 

If the allegations from the Sun were baseless then why not claim defamation? The newspaper industry has some recent poor outcomes in the high court over just this type of story. If it was me and I knew they were baseless lies I would be coming out all guns blazing with my lawyer. I wouldn’t be asking my wife to tell the press I was mentally ill. It has all the hallmarks of a PR advisor all over it. 
 

 

[faraway saint]

11 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Does suffering from depression give you a proclivity towards unorthodox sexual behaviours? 
IF these allegations are true, and I emphasis IF and they have been deemed by the police not to meet the threshold of illegality, it is still a morally wrong act. This is a man in his 60s he uses large amounts of money to entice what sounds like a vulnerable 17 year old lads to perform sex acts for his own gratification. I believe that people can do what ever they like sex wise behind closed doors so long as everyone is consenting and no one is getting hurt. However I don’t believe that a 17 year old is able to fully understand and consent in this circumstance. It might be legal to have sex with a 17 year old but is it morally justifiable if your in a position of power and are in your 50s or 60s? 

If the allegations from the Sun were baseless then why not claim defamation? The newspaper industry has some recent poor outcomes in the high court over just this type of story. If it was me and I knew they were baseless lies I would be coming out all guns blazing with my lawyer. I wouldn’t be asking my wife to tell the press I was mentally ill. It has all the hallmarks of a PR advisor all over it. 
 

 

Hasn't, and I haven't looked into this as I really get pissed off at the seemingly freedom for the media to taint anyone "famous" with no regard for them or their families, the supposed victim say the claims were "rubbish"? 

[beyond our ken]

It all reminds me of a story one of my college lecturers told

He was working at James Watt college when Peter McDougall came in to speak to some of the students

at a reception, and after a few drinks, one of the lecturers asked if there was any Juicy Goss from his time at the BBC.  He told the story of a doumentary made in the early-mid 70s about rent boys in London and there was a pre-edit screening for  high heid yins and others.  in the documentary, the narrator asked a young Scots guy about  the big dangers of such a life, the reply was that many of the more establishment type figures would get into a sort of self-hating rage and get violent with the boys after sex and you could never tell when or if it would happen.  "who would you say were the worst types for this kind of behaviour?"  asked the interviewer/narrator.  He probably expected to hear of a type or a typical group, such as politicians, military men, clergy, etc.  The reply was the name of a well known BBC commentator and presenter, who had a midweek sports show carrying his surname which was similar to a well-known brand of mustard.  The bigwigs got to their feet and locked the doors, stopped the reel and ordered everyone in the room to forget what they had heard on pain of sacking and legal action.  The reel or tape was ripped out of the machine and physically destroyed there and then.

Within months, mustard guy had disappeared from the screens and was reported to be launching a global tv sports empire that never got going, the show returned as Sportsnight and the roving reporter was promoted to anchor man, shortly after this his name was added to the show's title.  Mustard guy had a short-lived comeback in the early 80s.

Now McDougall was a rogue and possibly still is, but the lecturer was adamant this was all true and the story as told to him seemed very genuine

[antrin]

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Does suffering from depression give you a proclivity towards unorthodox sexual behaviours? 
No one but you has suggested that it might.  Does it?  Do you know?

IF these allegations are true, and I emphasis IF

From all that is now in the public domain it appears they are untrue.  Have you not been following the gossip?

 

and they have been deemed by the police not to meet the threshold of illegality, it is still a morally wrong act.

What right do you have to decide that your interpretation of morality should supersede that decided by society?

 

This is a man in his 60s he uses large amounts of money to entice what sounds like a vulnerable 17 year old lads to perform sex acts for his own gratification.

It appears that the young person concerned was at least 18.  Have you not been following the gossip?

I believe that people can do what ever they like sex wise behind closed doors so long as everyone is consenting and no one is getting hurt. However I don’t believe that a 17 year old is able to fully understand and consent in this circumstance. It might be legal to have sex with a 17 year old but is it morally justifiable if you’re in a position of power and are in your 50s or 60s? 

This is just regurgitating the baseless claims of the Shite tabloid.

If the allegations from the Sun were baseless then why not claim defamation?
That may yet happen.  If you are suffering depression, then calling in a lawyer may not be foremost in your mind.

 

The newspaper industry has some recent poor outcomes in the high court over just this type of story. If it was me and I knew they were baseless lies I would be coming out all guns blazing with my lawyer. I wouldn’t be asking my wife to tell the press I was mentally ill. It has all the hallmarks of a PR advisor all over it. 

Sigh…
 

 

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

12 minutes ago, antrin said:

 

No I don’t follow “the gossip “ 

I am pretty sure you the symptoms of depression (DSM5 ICD10) don’t include sexual unorthodox sexual behaviour.

“What right do I have to decide that your interpretation of morality should supersede society’s “ well I know that legally I could have sexual intercourse with my 16 yr old niece and it would not break the law of society but it would be morally repugnant.

can I ask you a question? If the story had been run by the Gaurdian rather than the Sun would you still hold the same views on it? 

[Slarti]

Does suffering from depression give you a proclivity towards unorthodox sexual behaviours? 
IF these allegations are true, and I emphasis IF and they have been deemed by the police not to meet the threshold of illegality, it is still a morally wrong act. This is a man in his 60s he uses large amounts of money to entice what sounds like a vulnerable 17 year old lads to perform sex acts for his own gratification. I believe that people can do what ever they like sex wise behind closed doors so long as everyone is consenting and no one is getting hurt. However I don’t believe that a 17 year old is able to fully understand and consent in this circumstance. It might be legal to have sex with a 17 year old but is it morally justifiable if your in a position of power and are in your 50s or 60s? 
If the allegations from the Sun were baseless then why not claim defamation? The newspaper industry has some recent poor outcomes in the high court over just this type of story. If it was me and I knew they were baseless lies I would be coming out all guns blazing with my lawyer. I wouldn’t be asking my wife to tell the press I was mentally ill. It has all the hallmarks of a PR advisor all over it. 
 
 

Morality is totally subjective so the most that you can say is that, in your opinion, it is morally wrong.

[antrin]

22 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

 

can I ask you a question? If the story had been run by the Gaurdian rather than the Sun would you still hold the same views on it? 

The Guardian is a newspaper. I would place more credit on the veracity of the claims.  As it is, The Guardian has been publishing the little bits of truth and reality as it leaked out.  One fact is that no law was broken.  This is not newsworthy.

The rag that printed the slurs, lies and innuendo (that you repeat and so obviously relish!) is famed for making things up.  It is owned by the American - Murdoch. He has probably made the rag print the hysterical shite to distract idiots from the fact that  The Buffoon has broken the law.

A law-ignoring,  morally bankrupt, corrupt ex-Prime Minister is surely more newsworthy?

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

36 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

Morality is totally subjective so the most that you can say is that, in your opinion, it is morally wrong.

 

Is it subjective? The majority of society know it’s wrong to steal. Society has over the millennia developed shared concepts of morality, usually enshrined in religious beliefs around morality that are for the benefit of all (Ten Commandments etc) 

[antrin]

“Is it subjective?”

 

The majority of society know that it may be wrong to steal.  The majority certainly don’t want to be caught out for stealing.

The recent £36 billion grifted via NHS contracts to friends, lovers and benefactors of the Tory party certainly didn’t give them any second thoughts about stealing.

The Yankee pole dancer given lucrative contracts by The Buffoon when he was London Mayor.

Morality and the law has not yet caught up with them.  
 

UK’s newspaper owners seem to not be obsessed by the grifting/stealing that has gone on. Could they not be sharing your/society’s morality?  Would they make up untruths for profit?

But… as they are, in the main, not resident and not tax-paying in this country from which they extract so much of its wealth maybe they’re subject to different “benefits for all”?  Different moralities…?

• Rupert Murdoch (owner of News International)
• Richard Desmond (who was the owner of the Express)
• Viscount Rothermere (owner of of the Mail)...
• and the two Barclay Brothers (owners of the Telegraph)

(that was the 2018 ownership of the media - maybe morality has changed since then?)

Edited July 14, 2023 by antrin

[Slarti]

Is it subjective? The majority of society know it’s wrong to steal. Society has over the millennia developed shared concepts of morality, usually enshrined in religious beliefs around morality that are for the benefit of all (Ten Commandments etc) 

The fact that you say "most" shows that you already know it's subjective.

Morals rooted in religion are the morals of that religion's deity/deities and are therefore the subjective morals of that/they deity/deities. If a deity is subject to objective morals then they are not omnipotent. How many Christians (seeing as you mention the Ten Commandments) would agree with that?

And talking about the Ten Commandments, why claim them as moral truths when the first 4 are all just about God's vanity and neediness?

[antrin]

I’ve just been reading today’s Guardian.   It seems I share its morality…  

 

 

[stlucifer]

15 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

Aye and it only took them a couple of hours to come to that conclusion unlike some investigations we could mention 

Wonder if they put up a tent in the front garden   

 

I know. But in this instance they only wanted Boris' criminal refusal to be hidden. The UK establishment were terrified of him