Who even buys The Sun in 2023?

[Brrrrrrrrrrrr]

In light of the current situation and given The Suns track record of generally being a terrible newspaper with diabolical unscrupulous form to manipulate stories, I am curious to know who actually buys it and reads it?

It’s a genuine question because what is bothering me is the disturbing thought that there are people who read The Sun and actually believe what it publishes or even thinks it’s ok to publish it in the first place. Anyone who buys it is essentially saying they are ok with the methodology and lengths The Suns journalists go to in order to get a front page story and I’m wondering what it is they get from absorbing that kind of bad energy every day?

That the Nation and the press were so distracted by this story whilst other far more newsworthy issues were being ignored or lightly reported on is in itself mind boggling and frightening, they literally created a storm out of very little and scores of people were drawn in like it was a cliff hanger from Line of Duty.

Surely it’s time all the major retailers reconsidered selling it, what good does it actually bring to society? I agree there’s the freedom of speech aspect and this is my opinion but the tactics they employ to manipulate and cause divide amongst people are truly despicable and outdated, is it just ok and accepted to be this low?

Absolutely right.

You don't understand. 'Bringing the profession into disrepute' goes way beyond misconduct in the workplace. It applies in and out of the workplace. The way you conduct yourself in social media. Your public profile.

Professions like the law are incredibly tightly regulated and have bodies (Bar Standards, SRA) which can and do haul their staff over the coals - in some cases strike them off - for conduct likely to bring their profession into disrepute. I've seen this happen to a barrister for their persistent harassment of colleagues.

Inappropriate relationships in the medical profession would likely manifest in a similar result. It is not restricted to what they do and don't do under the jurisdiction of being 'in the office'.

Abuse of power to bully or exploit others, if this is exposed and turns out to be the case, would absolutely fall under the banner of bringing the profession into disrepute.

And yes, I do think it realistic to expect men to curb their more voracious sexual instincts when standing in a public role. Schofield and now Edwards have both fallen on their swords for the same reason, and rightly so. Powerful men exploiting their establishment media connections need to be aware they can no longer hide behind that establishment as a 'respectable' smoke screen for thoroughly reprehensible behaviour.

#TimesUp.

'Bringing the profession into disrepute' goes way beyond misconduct in the workplace. It applies in and out of the workplace. The way you conduct yourself in social media. Your public profile.

This is true. We expect doctors and lawyers and teachers - professions we place a huge amount of trust - life or death things - health, law and order, etc, to uphold certain standards or else the whole profession is brought into disrepute. To be honest, I think Philip Scofield’s behaviour is much less damaging to his profession than it is to his own reputation/brand and the impact on his wife and the young individual. People found him personable and entertaining, he wasn’t really particularly trusted with much of any importance, was he? The fact that his Peter Pan, cheeky chappy, everyman persona has been sullied, is the real clincher, I think people won’t have the stomach to watch him any more. Maybe they will. Time will tell.

With Hew Edwards, I suppose he will look a bit of a tit if he tries to grill someone for their misconduct from now on, there is an issue for journalism if you start to picture newsreaders hanging out with politicians in strip joints or something. I don’t think this conduct quite meets that bar yet. However, if people can’t stomach him as a presenter any more, then that’s the test at the end of the day.

Translation - I cannot answer this without reneging on the absurd and dogmatic position I have taken up. So I’ll run away.

It’s nothing to do with his work apparently
in clown world anyway 🤡

I can believe I spelled Huw as Hew. I think my brain won’t let me spell Hugh as though it sounds like ‘hore’.

I truly, genuinely don’t understand their position.

Has HE been found guilty of misconduct with his colleagues now?

Are we not allowed to be told or discuss anything until after court cases or disciplinary measures have completed their findings?

I am asking because I am not overly invested in it, so I only know about teenagers unrelated to work, I didn’t know he was allegedly doing things at work too.

Well that’s how it normally goes because our justice system is based on innocent until proved guilty. It’s why reporting restrictions are put in place In criminal cases so the outcome of a trial isn’t influenced by public opinion. If you were under investigation at work would you want all your colleagues, friends, family and neighbours to be party to all the details and gossiping about them?

You’re talking absolute rubbish.
You are genuinely trying to tell me that we don’t get to read about investigations as they develop?
Christ, this is a new low even for your consistent stream of disingenuous guff.

Ah, I see. Sorry.
Yes, it seems he was sending inappropriate messages to a number of staff who were lower down in the food chain.
But a perfectly nice chap, seemingly, to everyone on his level and above.

Just typical predatory behaviour.

So you’re telling me that if someone was under investigation where you work all your colleagues would be informed about progress as it developed?

The BBC is different from a private company, since we all pay for the wages of Edwards etc, they cannot expect the same level of privacy that those in the private sector would get.

I don’t work in a high profile setting. I don’t work with anyone who is famous. I don’t work with anyone who is of public interest or who would sell papers.

Of course they can. What an absolutely ridiculous argument. Everyone has the right to confidentiality in their employment, no matter how their employer is funded.

Nice attempt at evasion. How about if it was published in the staff newsletter or on the intranet? I’m sure your colleagues would love to satisfy their prurient curiosity.

Do you feel the same about The Guardian writing stories about Tory MP’s having affairs?

The thing is, if journalists didn’t routinely breech the policies and processes of the bodies they investigate, there wouldn’t be much in the way of news.

Or about the Guardian writing stories about Tory MP’s “allegedly” preying on younger and more vulnerable staff members by sending them inappropriate text messages?
Would you say it was wrong for them to print it because it’s a private work matter?

Ffs *breach

For example @Blossomtoes
should this article not have been published:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/25/tory-mp-rob-roberts-faces-commons-suspension-for-sexual-harassment-breach

No, but there are complaints from colleagues

That’s not the point at issue. The point is we were being subjected to a lot of pious eyewash about HEs outstanding work record. Leaving aside the fact that there is room for differences of opinion of his merits as a presenter (give me Clive any day of the week) while there are complaints from junior colleagues outstanding these lofty judgement seem at best premature.