Huw Edwards

[Atheist]

What motivated people who attacked Huw Edwards and the BBC? Were they going after him, or after the BBC? No crime committed. Those who did it must have a reason. Is it an attack on our institutions or on Edwards? I think it's an attack on the BBC first, and Edwards as the means to attack the BBC.
Who benefits from all this?

[bobbinwales]

Maybe it was simply the Sun wanting a sensational story to won readers and fboost the owners ego

[Tilly2]

He may not have committed a crime but allegedly presents as pervert.
I can't see any benefit to anyone involved.

[douglas9401]

Was it really an attack though?

Just the parents of some drug addled child looking to shift the blame for their own failures.

Maybe ask The Sun directly, they seem to have gone very quiet on the subject after hitting the ground running.

[Atheist]

bobbin. I think the Sun's owner has a lot to do with it.

[Atheist]

Who benefits from attacks on the BBC?

[Toorak]

I agree atheist - trying to bring down the BBC

[Atheist]

Who benefits? Murdoch. Russia, China, USA (especially evangelists), Iran; the list goes on. Everyone who wants to discredit the 'MSM' and to boost their own propaganda.

[douglas9401]

Quite possibly. Whenever I plot to bring down a news organisation known the world over I send recruiters to the streets of Liverpool to unearth previously unknown demolition masterminds.

[royfromaus]

Who benefits? Murdoch. Russia, China, USA (especially evangelists), Iran; the list goes on. Everyone who wants to discredit the 'MSM' and to boost their own propaganda.
____________________________________

Bizarre.
Or is it just me?

[Moorea7]

News from about two hours ago if anyone interested.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/15/the-sun-huw-edwards-britain-bbc-allegations-murdoch-tabloid

[Untitled]

it was intended to damage the BBC. it has long been a thorn in the side of the murdoch empire.

[Spungle]

How do you think the parents should have reacted, Atheist? How many other people have suffered as a result of his indiscretions? The only reason they went to the papers is because the BBC did nowt.

[Untitled]

yes but it turns out that what the sainted parents alleged is probably not actually true

one wonders how much the sun paid them for their story

[Ellipsis]

> How do you think the parents should have reacted, Atheist?

[JimF]

"one wonders how much the sun paid them for their story"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview

[Ellipsis]

Sorry, too early!

They probably should have talked to their child ... for its entire life.

Of all the choices they could have done, why was talking to The Sun their best option for them and their child?

[Peter Pedant]

Just the parents of some drug crazed dope fiend child looking to shift the blame for their own failures.

sales for the sunny Sun

and Ukraine and WImbledon were a bit over heated

[ynnafymmi]

Not that i give a damn either way,but wasnt it the Beeb that went out of their way to protect Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris?The Beeb are coming all this innocent keich.and they want our money for them protecting paedophiles?Nae frae me.

[nicebloke1]

It seems to me that mental health is the number one excuse. It allows you to do, or not do just as you like.

[barry1010]

ynaff, there is no evidence at all that Huw Edwards is a paedophile. There isn't even a hint. The police can find no evidence of criminal behaviour.
The BBC, like every other huge employer in the public eye, receive complaints about its employees on a regular basis - the majority are malicious, crank or hoax.
An employer cannot know what an employee is going to do and everyone is entitled to a private life. An employer cannot delve in to the private finances to see what their employee is spending money on. In this instance the BBC contacted the family twice for more information and it wasn't forthcoming, the young person would not co-operate.
The young person involved told the Sun the day before publication that nothing untoward had happened yet the Sun decided to publish.

Calling Huw a pervert is stretching things a bit going on the information available. Does everyone believe that only the young and beautiful are paying young men and women for sexualised images and performances on platforms such as Only Fans? I bet many customers are older and even old. Nobody knows for sure whether the young person is male, female, trans or identifies as a three piece suite. There is no evidence that Huw knew the young person was a drug addict. I have given money to homeless people, am I guilty of giving them money for their drug habit?

I have seen many conspiracy theories concerning the Sun's decision to publish on that day, including a cover up or distraction from Boris Johnson's phone messages.
A lot of people haven't forgiven the Sun for their handling of the Hillsborough tragedy. I certainly don't give any credence to their clickbait headlines. When the Sun received that solicitor's letter on behalf of the younger person on Friday they should have decided not to publish.

We all like to think the mature, avuncular presenters on TV are saintly but they are mere mortals. I am not perfect, I don't expect others to be. Thankfully my errors and misjudgments are not headline news.