Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Huw Edwards

184 replies

Iamacatslave · 12/07/2023 18:03

Wife of Huw Edwards names him as presenter.

OP posts:
StefanosHill · 13/07/2023 07:31

Superdupes · 13/07/2023 07:24

It's grim IMO how many women want to stand up for dirty old men who carelessly completely destroy their family - because 'mental health'.

You never hear of women with mental health problems doing these sleazy disgusting things do you - when was the last time you heard of a 60 year old women with mental health issues paying very young men or women for pictures.

I think there’s a fair few who would still be standing up for it without the mh part

Newnamenewname109870 · 13/07/2023 07:32

okiedokie1 · 13/07/2023 07:20

I'm interested in why more people are supporting HE than Philip Schofield. Both involved young men. Both involved a married man.

Because with huw there is no ‘grooming’ involved. I guess his reputation in general.

so what they’re married?

Inkanta · 13/07/2023 07:32

DARVO tactic in operation.

TreesWithLeaves · 13/07/2023 07:33

CarlaTheGnome · 13/07/2023 07:22

The same standards should apply to all. If Gary nextdoor was sexting the babysitter it would be just as despicable as this. The only difference is most people in the UK don't know who Gary is. His friends, family and colleagues would think he was a louse and rightly so, but it wouldn't be front page news. This is only front page news because Huw is a public-facing figure working for a public-serving employer. Whether a person is a king or a kebab-seller, nobody should behave like this. Sadly, we probably all know someone who does.

Show quote history

It's not about merely reading the news.

His salary is paid by the British public. It brings the whole premise of the BBC in disrepute. He's in the public eye paid with public money in a position of immense power, privilege and wealth. It has more repercussions than Gary's sleazy misdemeanours. Although Gary also should face repercussions but it's not a matter of public interest because Gary doesn't show off his face on our TV sets.

StefanosHill · 13/07/2023 07:33

MayThe4th · 13/07/2023 03:34

That guardian article makes for interesting reading.

And I stand by what I said. Far too much of a coincidence that other anonymous allegations were allegedly made to the sun after their initial allegation was shot down by the person they were claiming to be at the heart of it. A person who, according to their lawyer, is estranged from the people making the allegations.

There is absolutely 0 proof that any of this ever happened. None what so ever, and even the Sun are doing a hasty backtrack.

But it doesn’t matter whether there’s proof now, people have already branded Hugh Edwards a pervert. We don’t actually know whether that is true. It seems evidence is no longer required, all someone has to do is say “x did y” and it clearly must be true.

Jeremy Vine has publicly spoken out about being named as the individual, clearly he was robust enough to do it. Perhaps Hugh Edwards’ response to being named is to have a breakdown, because it doesn’t matter now whether it was true or. Not, it was in the Sun and on Twitter, a place where even the biggest amount of bullshit is upheld as truth, and that’s all that matters.

If it’s found to be true then fair enough, but if it isn’t it doesn’t matter, because people will always believe that it is.

And in the meantime someone is in hospital with serious mental health issues, but apparently that doesn’t matter either.

And I stand by what I said. Far too much of a coincidence that other anonymous allegations were allegedly made to the sun**

And the BBC - you’re not denying that part are you?

tigger1001 · 13/07/2023 07:53

AdamRyan · 12/07/2023 23:20

No I don't. I think the privacy laws apply very strongly to them because there is no reasonable "public interest" angle about who they are. They aren't the story either. He is.

I think that's incredibly naive. Tabloid journalists will be trying to get to the family. Mum has made it about her child. And if they can't get to huw edwards as he is in hospital, then the family will do.

The sun in particular will be facing scrutiny as the police are saying nothing illegal happened. These gutter journalists don't care about the family - just the so called story.

Privacy laws - clearly no one cared about them in the first place as so many were calling for him to be named. And the young person has had a story written about them that they are saying is untrue. The sun didn't care about that though.

mathanxiety · 13/07/2023 15:09

TreesWithLeaves · 13/07/2023 07:33

It's not about merely reading the news.

His salary is paid by the British public. It brings the whole premise of the BBC in disrepute. He's in the public eye paid with public money in a position of immense power, privilege and wealth. It has more repercussions than Gary's sleazy misdemeanours. Although Gary also should face repercussions but it's not a matter of public interest because Gary doesn't show off his face on our TV sets.

Show quote history

I'd like to add to Trees' points that the disparity in age and influence/power makes this very troubling.

There are questions to be asked -
Was this a once off?
What is his behaviour like within the organisation toward people much younger then himself, and relatively powerless?

Blossomtoes · 13/07/2023 15:21

And the young person has had a story written about them that they are saying is untrue. The sun didn't care about that though.

It went further than that. It was published despite the young person asking The Sun to back off. And of course every gutter journalist will be scouring South Wales trying to track the family down to throw the money at them they were hoping for from The Sun.

AdamRyan · 13/07/2023 15:36

tigger1001 · 13/07/2023 07:53

I think that's incredibly naive. Tabloid journalists will be trying to get to the family. Mum has made it about her child. And if they can't get to huw edwards as he is in hospital, then the family will do.

The sun in particular will be facing scrutiny as the police are saying nothing illegal happened. These gutter journalists don't care about the family - just the so called story.

Privacy laws - clearly no one cared about them in the first place as so many were calling for him to be named. And the young person has had a story written about them that they are saying is untrue. The sun didn't care about that though.

Show quote history

This is not coherent.
The press and media did not name him, his wife did. So they were resisting public pressure to protect his privacy.

They would be breaking rules to publicise the other person involved name without permission so they won't do that. They probably are offering money for the young person to tell their side of the story and if the reporting about the young persons drug addiction is true, maybe they will go for that.

But at the moment that won't happen as Huw Edwards is in hospital so there's a duty of care to him too.

Blossomtoes · 13/07/2023 15:48

The press and media did not name him, his wife did. So they were resisting public pressure to protect his privacy.

They were resisting getting sued.

AdamRyan · 13/07/2023 15:50

Well yeah, I don't think they were doing it out of altruism! For similar reasons I don't think they'll publish the other person's name as pp suggested though

Cindan · 14/07/2023 01:32

I imagine it would be difficult for the police to bring a case against anyone if the victim is not cooperating with the investigation or willing to testify against the accused.

Somanycats · 14/07/2023 01:42

Cindan · 14/07/2023 01:32

I imagine it would be difficult for the police to bring a case against anyone if the victim is not cooperating with the investigation or willing to testify against the accused.

This implies that you think the younger person is lying when he said to anyone who will listen, that nothing inappropriate took place

MrsPapadopolis · 14/07/2023 01:52

Cindan · 14/07/2023 01:32

I imagine it would be difficult for the police to bring a case against anyone if the victim is not cooperating with the investigation or willing to testify against the accused.

According to the Sun, it wasn't the 'young person' who made the actual complaint it was the parents.

The 'young person' has since contacted the BBC via a lawyer.
The legal letter said: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality.”
It also called the parents’ allegations “totally wrong” and claimed there was “no truth” in the claims.
It also called the initial story – based on interviews and sworn statements from their worried parents – “rubbish"

The police say there is 'no case to answer'.

All the rest is speculation.

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 02:04

Who is paying for the young person's very expensive lawyer and why?

Cindan · 14/07/2023 02:19

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 02:04

Who is paying for the young person's very expensive lawyer and why?

Exactly. Wake up people!

Edwards has been accused by other young people of sending threatening messages.

MrsPapadopolis · 14/07/2023 02:22

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 02:04

Who is paying for the young person's very expensive lawyer and why?

That's a rhetorical question.

It's covered by Client Confidentiality.

And where is the proof that they actually have "a very expensive lawyer"? All lawyers in London are "expensive".

Cindan · 14/07/2023 02:30

Well exactly, and this is a young person who is addicted to crack.

Huw Edwards has been financing his drug habit. How is this vulnerable young person now affording any kind of lawyer? His parents have nothing to do with it.

MrsPapadopolis · 14/07/2023 02:37

Cindan · 14/07/2023 02:30

Well exactly, and this is a young person who is addicted to crack.

Huw Edwards has been financing his drug habit. How is this vulnerable young person now affording any kind of lawyer? His parents have nothing to do with it.

I smell blackmail here.....

Blossomtoes · 14/07/2023 07:27

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 02:04

Who is paying for the young person's very expensive lawyer and why?

Big law firms are known to do work pro bono. I imagine a number of the most elite are salivating at the prospect of whipping Murdoch’s arse.

LadyEloise1 · 14/07/2023 08:17

Is the young person male or female ?

Blossomtoes · 14/07/2023 08:25

LadyEloise1 · 14/07/2023 08:17

Is the young person male or female ?

Nobody knows. Does it matter?

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 10:31

LadyEloise1 · 14/07/2023 08:17

Is the young person male or female ?

Male.

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 10:35

Pps perhaps need to look at the firm behind the letter sent. They are no ordinary firm.

MmaRra · 14/07/2023 10:45

As I understand it, it is a common crisis management strategy. For example, it was widely reported that PS provided lawyers for the young runner.