BBC Presenter and yet more allegations

[friendlycat]

It would appear that the front page of tomorrow’s The Sun has further allegations about messages with a new 17 year old. Creepy hearts etc

Scrolling through Sky news and seeing front pages of the papers. This appears bottom right on The Sun front page.

Fully agree with you @RedToothBrush I had quoted where I think a poster replied quoting you and responding to what they'd said

Yes, and in fact was still liking tweets up until yesterday and also yesterday it was claimed by Jon Sopel that he was "angry".

Yy I imagine Jon Sopel will be regretting that interview now. It painted a very different picture.

Angry at being accused or caught out?

The difference matters.

With regards to the likes of Sopal and Simpson offering support, I do wonder if that will hold if there is a host of more junior members of staff who come out saying there is a poor relationship between senior figures, management and junior staff.

That's now the direction the story is going to take (The Sun will probably be delighted by this).

Fwiw I think it's probably an area that genuinely is problematic.

Caroline Flack was said to be in good form before she committed suicide.

No one knows what people hide underneath their outer mask. The most depressed people could be fine on the outside, they don't walk around crying all the time. People who commit suicide don't have bloody neon signs above their heads telling people what they're about to do.

When I had a depressive episode I still got up, went to work, laughed occasionally.

No, I won't 'shut up'. You clearly have no idea how safeguarding works. Protecting the vulnerable happens when serious allegations are made. There is no waiting around until 'all the facts are proven' - that can take years. A 17 year old young person addicted to class 'A's, even a 19/20/21 year old addicted to class A's, is a vulnerable person. If the parents have made this all up (highly unlikely), or if you feel the fully grown up adult needs protection more than the vulnerable young people in question - maybe you should think about what kind of a world that leads to. Believe the vulnerable and those trying to protect them. The fully grown adult showing repetitive, long term, risky and abusive behaviours isn't the one that needs protection right now.

Agree too.

@Yettisrus

Yes, I know. (I've similarly appeared 'fine' while in the grip of depression).

The point is relevant to his behaviour towards vulnerable young people, his involvement with sexual imagery. In his wife's statement, she references his depression & current acute MH state, as if that's explaining the situation.

The reality is that he hasn't been having some breakdown for 3 years, characterised by atypical behaviour.

He has been functioning fine, the depression managed by exercise & no therapy, and no indication that he's a man in the grip of a MH illness that might explain his actions.

There is no sense that he hasn't done at least a certain amount of what has been alleged.

His wife's statement lacks any plausibility.

You know fuck all about this person so why are you assuming they’re vulnerable and taking drugs?

Oh no, wait…I’m ‘talking’ to someone who clearly believes what they read in The Sun.

All drug addicts are vulnerable

To a degree all young people are vulnerable but particularly drug addicted young people

Exactly

There are too many shades of grey to make hard 'factual' sweeping assumptions about people

Old people can be vulnerable. People with MH issues are vulnerable. Drug addicts can be manipulative or violent/aggressive. Young people are impressionable and naive

Also all of the opposite of the above is true, and more

I keep seeing references to the fact that he has had depression for years.......I'm no professional but I can imagine looking in the mirror each morning, knowing what you're getting up to and how it will affect your life if it ever got out might actually be the cause.

It was his father’s death.

Depression doesn't make you ignore safeguarding protocols and training. It's kind of poor to suggest it's a reasonable excuse. And I think that needs to be stressed.

Quite apart from that, if Huw has such severe problems then actually it's a fair question to ask why the BBC didn't spot this too? Do we think that such apparently high risk behaviours went completely unnoticed? Behaviour that seems to have formed a pattern. That's hard to reconcile. This was a man charged with working in a very high pressure job in a fast moving environment.

He hasn't just suddenly had a breakdown out of the blue. If that's what is being suggested as having happened.

Mental health wasn't off limits as a subject at the BBC - he'd talked about depression before and Clive Myrie (amongst others) have talked about the impact of trauma on their ability to cope in certain work situations. It wasn't regarded as taboo.

So what went wrong?

Maybe because he's not the top news presenter now and they no longer fear speaking out. That's how power abuses tend to work.

Red "He hasn't just suddenly had a breakdown out of the blue"

From a workplace perspective, I had one and I think only two people noticed. "The show must go on," some of us have that personality.

Oh yes, sorry, a 17 year old taking crack is not vulnerable at all.
You'd think I know that by now the with all the editions of the Sun I've read over the years.

Fool.

Lets just ignore it shall we.. which then gives the message that this is acceptable.. and we get more older men sleazing all over young people knowing there are no consequences or backlash.

What happens between consenting adults is none of the public's business. You may not like it but it's entirely up to the people involved. You may not like young people making money out of selling photos or people buying them, but it's none of your business. Neither is people cheating on their partners, or being gay or bisexual, and neither is someone's relationship with their employer. None of this is in the public interest, it's just salacious gossip and this thread has been full of people posting about abuse, Savile, grooming, nonces and depravity, with no evidence apart from a shitty report in a shitty paper with nothing to back it up, printed despite a denial from the alleged victim.

Quite apart from that, if Huw has such severe problems then actually it's a fair question to ask why the BBC didn't spot this too? Do we think that such apparently high risk behaviours went completely unnoticed? Behaviour that seems to have formed a pattern. That's hard to reconcile. This was a man charged with working in a very high pressure job in a fast moving environment.

Now he's been named it's worth mentioning the 2007 episode of The Thick of It that makes a joke about 'libellous Huw Edwards rumours'

A coincidence? Possibly that could happen but equally he may have been exhibiting behaviours for years that had a blind eye turned to them. It's not unheard of for satirical shows to drop in throwaway lines that only make sense years later.

Because people are scared to stand up when people in power take advantage. When stories come out and they realise that it has happened to others they come forward. Happened in many cases of abuse Saville, Roof Harris, cases where adult men were groomed and abused by football coaches and decades later the story came out about 1 victim and they started to come forward. It happens all the time.

There is no sense that he hasn't done at least a certain amount of what has been alleged.

The Sun claim they have seen bank statements that show a transfer of money. Tbh I'm inclined to believe this to be true - not of criminality but that money did change hands. The reasons for this are open to debate, but I do think the way The Sun are adamant about this it's likely to be true. They had 'something' which led the paper to make the accusation it was that serious. A bank statement is the most likely reason they took it so seriously. Whether they carried out a full journalistic investigation of good quality sits alongside this as a question.

We then have the text messages verified by the BBC. And that's the damning point at which there was clearly a problem.

Newsnight have just said they've seen messages sent to a colleague which 'do appear flirtatious' and the person who received them felt uncomfortable with them and they were inappropriate. Again difficult to just dismiss.

Beyond that in terms of the why and motivations I don't think we can say. But Huw Edwards has done things that are questionable in terms of his conduct.

How far you can use mental health problems as a justification is difficult. Again because if we say it's justifible to do certain things because of a mental health crisis that has implications. Not good implications. One that creates stigma.

Given the BBC seems to have a fairly open attitude to mental health struggles and encourages their discussion again you have to ask questions.

I feel for the BBC staff dealing with their own personal feelings and relationships whilst also doing their job to report on the story as impartially as they can.

Even if it wasn't a sneaky dig at behaviour on the show in 2007 it shows how much of a beloved public figure he was that it was then pure comedy

Actually I think it massively interests the public - we could start another thread to discuss the navigation of not falsely naming people while safeguarding their reputation

But on this one, any poster who's spoken about Savile, abuse etc has been discussing the safeguarding of potential victims in an enormous power imbalance with a public figure

He was engaging in high risk behaviours by the sound of it.

That's something that CAN and SHOULD be noticed.

let's hope this pathetic medieval witch hunt from sad folk who know next to nowt about the case and circumstances can end now.
The Sun?
Did their best to destroy Elton John until, to its cowardly bullying supine surprise, he took them on and won.
Nadine Dorries? - resigned in a hissy fit because she didn't get her gong.
Move on you sad torch bearers.
Twitch your own curtains.
Let the neighbours point at your pursed lips as they walk on by.