To be shocked it’s Huw?

[Shirtella]

His wiki page says he’s a Christian and a weekly church goer. Not a great ambassador for them, ah well

Anyone on the telly who people have decided have a certain image.

The most judgemental, racist and sexually weird people I've ever met all had one thing in common - they each claimed to be Christians as some sort of superiority. (These were all separate people at different times who didn't know each other).

And they were all dickheads of the highest order.

So no, being "christian" means fuck all in my book.

I am disappointed though it's Huw though. Just shows you that an affable persona on screen doesn't translate to real life.

@pendleflyer well there's teaching for a start. Teachers have lost jobs for having 'only fans' type accounts where they're identifiable to students. It's not illegal, but still. And policing (which isn't enforced as it should be but the expectation of 'good' behaviour is there), vicar or priest, politicians (again, not enforced as it should be but historically politicians have lost jobs for sleazy, but legal, behaviour.

No, sorry. I’m not going to teach you how to use google.

It’s quite clear that you don’t believe me & that’s fine.

HE seems to be getting better treatment for Schofield because he was more
highly respected, however the stories are now emerging.

And absolutely nothing about Dan Wooten would surprise me - such a worm.

I cant think why a teacher would get sacked for OF and a newsreader wouldnt.

I think you're receiving these responses because it was inappropriate of you to say what you did originally.

👏👏👏

@MenoRageisReal The most judgemental, racist and sexually weird people I've ever met all had one thing in common - they each claimed to be Christians as some sort of superiority. (These were all separate people at different times who didn't know each other).

Then it stands to reason that they were 'imposters', if you like.
A “Christian” that believes they are morally superior are not in fact a Christian. A Christian knows he/she is an epic failure at times but whatever their circumstances they can keep going because Christian gives them the strength to go forward.

Reading the thread gives me the very strong impression that @MrsPapadopolisis either paid PR for the BBC or a twin set n pearls churchgoer who can't believe good ol Huw the "Christian" would be a scumbag

I don't work for the BBC (although my mother did) and neither do I sit in judgement on others.
True Bible-believing Christians know they are in no way superior to anyone. We do understand that “all have sinned that fall short of the glory of God”.
It is easy to cite an off-the-wall example and categorize the whole group by one member of the group. That is called prejudice.

I cant think why a teacher would get sacked for OF and a newsreader wouldnt.

Because I believe the teacher had set up an account and was getting paid for photos and the newsreader was a customer.

So you are saying that the 'young person' the sun mentions (who was addicted to crack cocaine) was a teacher. ????

I'm astounded.😮

That's a massive non sequitur! I think they're just referring back to the article you posted at 19.31 yesterday, and not saying a teacher is involved in the He case!

How does anyone know it's actually his bare arse, does he have HE tattooed on one cheek.

[brain bleach emoticon]

@daisychain01 lol at the "brain bleach emoji" 🤣

It would be a difficult angle to fake and it looks convincing to me. But in the age of deepfakes, who knows.

I think lots of people are excusing his behaviour because he seemed so nice & respectable up there reading the news.

But imagine it was a different type of famous person who had been found out? Someone off Eastenders for eg. Or a woman?

I'm sorry he's not well. But I also think he's behaved disgustingly. His poor poor family.

Same reason people were excusing Schofield as they like them have seen him on TV for years.

They don't want to admit to theirselves these are disgusting seedy older men.

*No, sorry. I’m not going to teach you how to use google.

It’s quite clear that you don’t believe me & that’s fine.*

I had doubts that anyone outside the immediate family knows where he is - and your "I’ve personally heard this from three extremely reliable sources (nature of job)" didn't ring true.

It would be very easy to back this up if you had really seen it online, so good on you for confirming that it's bullshit. You might want to get the post removed as it's libellous - it wouldn't surprise me if HE comes after the people lying about him online when he recovers.

I'm not interested in anything between consenting adults of equal status.

If someone is using their 'status' working for the BBC to harass or bully or even just to encourage certain behaviour from a much younger person who is star struck, yes I and everyone else should have an opinion.

As for being naïve, any teacher, Dr, nurse in their 60s contacting a 20 year old would raise concerns.

I'm disabled as well as an ex teacher, I was not allowed to be alone with a student in the lift, I either had to ask another member of staff or another student to use the lift, even when the student was over 18.

I'm not interested in anything between consenting adults of equal status.

Would you be interested if, for instance, a rank and file violinist in the BBC Symphony Orchestra was hooking up with young men via a dating app, or was in a relationship with someone 30 years younger? You pay their wages, after all.

I'm not interested in anyone's private business - frankly I feel I already know more than I want to.
But the key thing there is 'equal status' - any exploitation of position does bring a profession/employer into disrepute.

And some professions do have rules around personal conduct because there's a belief that non adherence compromises an employees ability to do their job effectively. So a teacher on OF, who becomes known to their students, will lose their respect and therefore ability to teach effectively. Just as a vicar couldn't effectively lead a church community if caught cheating on their wife and not adhering to the teachings of their faith.

It's not about judging a persons private life, more about those people understanding that there's a code of conduct and whole breaking it isn't illegal, it might still get you fired. If you take the job, you are agreeing to the terms.
Certain TV presenters are paid huge amounts of money - it's not unreasonable to ask that they behave appropriately.

I'm not sure a rank and file violinist is in the same position as a high profile newsreader.
And the problem isn't that the young person is younger it's how much younger they are (barely legal) and what the parents say the money was being spent on. It wouldn't be comparable to a 60 year old violinist having a consensual relationship with a 30 year old.

because some mumsnetters have a library of famous arses so that they can better police private morality on our behalf?

yes historically politicians have lost jobs for certain behaviours.
Thankfully that is now mostly historical - it was from an age of hypocrital slavering curtain twitching which some on here seem to want to take us back to - an age when the news of the world (not a million miles from the scum) trashed careers and lives with stories written by hacks who I would venture to suggest were not all lillywhite thermselves - writing for an audience who were ditto not all lillywhite.
On jobs demanding the very highest in "standards" might I suggest chiropodists? Failure to clamp down on their hidden urges could cause a mass outbreak in fetishism. I think it better for all of us if chiropodists were all trained in seminaries.

It will be interesting to see what happens if he doesn't resign - I'm not sure that there is anything yet that is sackable. Being bisexual / being unfaithful / hooking up with younger people on dating apps isn't, I don't think, and nor is buying explicit photos. There is no suggestion of grooming, coercion, problems with consent, or using his status for anything. Maybe his behaviour at work? But I read that that had already been investigated and no wrongdoing found. Aggressive messages? Maybe, but in the context of someone threatening to out him publicly, maybe not. Lockdown - maybe suspension as per Kay Burley but probably not sackable, especially since the argument of undermining public compliance is irrelevant now. And that's if all of what has been reported is true. There is one side of the story that we don't know yet. And given what the Sun has done and that he has ended up in hospital, it might be quite tricky for the BBC to get rid of him. (Unless other stuff emerges in their fact finding.)