Sick of social media kangaroo court

[Minerva38]

Not here to discuss specifics of BBC presenters case or get on my high horse about the morality of it. Bottom line is no crime is deemed to have been committed and so far allegations have come vía the gutter rag that is The Sun and endless speculation on social media.

Before the police had even looked into things, the Sun and social media were already rife with speculation and it seems this is now the modern Court where we judge and condemn anyone famous who might have had something happen in their private lives. It's a sick feeding frenzy and everyone has to have an opinion.

Now the family are forced to identify the man and news and social channels are feasting on this endlessly.

Caroline Flacks death clearly hasn't taught us anything and I won't be surprised if this or other cases go that way too.

So? some creepy and predatory actions aren't illegal. They are still creepy and predatory.

and now he's in hospital and his wife had to make a statement on his behalf. Pathetic.

This with bells on

Scandal sells and it has ever been thus. It's naive to think that is ever going to change.

Why’s it up to you or anyone else other than his employers, any people who were directly affected by what happened, the police if any offence was committed and his family to police his (or anyone else’s behaviour)?

People are ‘invoking’ Caroline Flack because the way she was vilified led to her death, then afterwards the same people who got swept up in the feeding frenzy got swept up in the #BeKind.

This

Not that much, judging by the mob mentality of a lot of people in social media.

The very worrying thing is it could happen to absolutely anybody, normal everyday people. Only takes a few people to start sharing false information around the Internet and then people jump in and start sharing themselves. Details get embellished and changed as it's shared along. Then some poor completely innocent person is being hunted and harassed.

She was one, yes, but they only stopped doing it in 2015 when the law changed.

Not so sure Huw was deceiving his family since it was his wife who published his name. As for the rest of it, who knows? He wouldn't be high on my list of someone with any status. Well known for sure, but status? I wouldn't have thought.

What about the young people he has threatened. It may not be ilegal to pay 17 years olds for explicit photos or threatening innocent young people in OLD he has pestered and threatened using his public status.

I hope he improves in hospital, but also that is not allowed to continue working at such level if he uses his influence to terrorise young people.

Not necessarily for the better unfortunately.

She wouldn’t be the first or last woman to stand by her man, both Melania and Hillary did and a multitude of other betrayed women.

No crime was committd. That says it all. Leave the man alone.

Terrorise young people? Oh dear how naive.

They were on Grindr - yeah? A hook up for sex site. I'm sure that Grindr would on accept over 18's.
The young man was a drug addict.
Huw was stupid for revealing his true identity - I suspect if he done so, he wouldn't have left himself open to blackmail.

As unsavoury as it is - straight men like to see naked young women. Gay men like to see naked young men. I'm sure husband doesn't though of course!

Young men are on there to make money, rent boys by a different name. Same OF is prostitution by a different name.

The only reason I can see that he's done wrong is use licences payers money.

There has been NO crime committed. I'm sure the police have a more detailed view of texts sent. Of he's losing his rag, he's going to be outed, he stressed and breaking down.

No crime. Awful for his family. If the person person wasn't trying to feed an addiction he'd be quids in. Did Huw know he was an addict? You don't know.

So all there is going on here is the morality police who might want to wonder is there husband's are off having a cheeky wank to and 18 year old on you porn whilst you're morally frothing 🤣

This is such a good point, well made!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/met-police-say-no-criminal-30453505

Me too.

But also for the reason she was going to court as evidence she'd committed a crime.

This is totally different.

I think we need to hold people to account for their actions - there's just better ways of doing it.

Very true, although I suspect significantly greater sums of money involved for the two you mention. It seems that people (of both sexes) can put on a very brave face for the right amount of money.

I actually find the whole thing astounding. What he did, why he did it (not that I know, just the whole why question when there would have been many less risky paths. Same as Hugh Grant and his 'event'), why the Sun published an allegation from the parents (more money involved there I expect), and then the whole media frenzy both before and after it turns out to be essentially a newsreader.

I confess I think it's a damning indictment of society that there is so much investment of time in someone who is on the telly (says he reading and commenting on a thread about it). While there is a certain morality question, it appears that nothing illegal happened. It would be a far better discussion as to whether the law should be changed if the electorate (us) believe it should be illegal to do what he did.

@QueefQueen80s

Life is grim.

The pursuit of a scurrilous scoop knows no bounds to many media people.

It’s called a private life because it’s supposed to be private.

Aye yer right, until some sleazy 61 year old public figure pays your teenage child for sexual pictures 😉

Most would hope their children were not having to feed an addiction to hard drugs aged 17 with nude photos.

Such is life.

Where does the blame game end?

The 17 year old tried to say what had said was a load of rubbish. Would it have been okay for him in her eyes to take money from a 19 year old? 18?

Who knows. We surely won't and hopefully never experience similar.