Call me a cynic, but I doubt Jolyon Maugham, Alistair Campbell, Jon Sopel, John Simpson and Dan Walker would have rallied to the defence of Huw Edwards if he was a GB News presenter. It’s only because they regard him as one of their own that these panjandrums have urged the press to back off, with Sopel stressing there is “no illegality” and any further reporting of this story is therefore an unwarranted intrusion into “someone’s private life”.
This isn’t a considered reaction, but a tribal one. Given that the allegations originally surfaced in the Sun and the reputation of the BBC is at stake, these metropolitan liberals are prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt to Edwards. Again and again, his defenders emphasise that these are only “allegations” and the police have decided not to take any further action, overlooking the fact that numerous other public figures have been thrown under a bus in similar circumstances, e.g. Michael Fallon, who was forced to resign as Defence Secretary after far milder allegations were made against him in 2017. But, of course, it’s one rule for Conservative MPs and another for the BBC’s highest-paid broadcasters.
It probably helps that the charges against Huw Edwards involve four young men (two of whom, it is alleged, were only 17 when the presenter first made contact). If they involved young women, it’s hard to imagine so many bien pensant members of the media class leaping to his defence. They certainly wouldn’t have if he’d been accused of breaching a woke speech code, as Danny Baker was in 2019. When Archie was born to Harry and Meghan, the then BBC presenter tweeted a picture of a couple emerging from a hospital with a chimpanzee, which led to accusations of racism. He claimed it was an innocent mistake – and I believe him – but when he was summarily dismissed there was barely a squeak of protest from any of his BBC colleagues.
Incredibly, the anger you’d expect the BBC’s defenders to feel towards Edwards – after all, it is the charge that he paid a young man £35,000 in return for sexually explicit images that has brought the BBC into disrepute – has been directed at the Sun instead. How dare the tabloid print this allegation?
“A number of people have been in touch with the presenter to say they feel righteous fury over the way the Sun has covered this and it is fair to say that the presenter at the heart of this is also extremely angry over a lot of the Sun coverage and is convinced they’re trying to dig and find new dirt to harm this particular person’s reputation,” Jon Sopel said on The News Agents on LBC.
Hacked Off, the campaign group lobbying for state regulation of the press, published a piece saying the Sun had “questions to answer”, arguing it had got the balance wrong between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know.
“Shame on The Scum for its homophobic lies – and shame on all the Murdoch titles, including the Times, for poisoning our country,” tweeted Jolyon Maugham. “Solidarity with @thehuwedwards.”
“I hope the media will look at themselves in the coverage of this story,” said Alistair Campbell on Channel 4 News last night, who stressed that in light of the fact that the police had dropped its investigation it was just a story about “someone’s personal life”. (Same argument Jon Sopel made.)
But, surely, the public interest defence here is the same as it is when the New York Times exposes a MeToo scandal, as it did recently in the case of Nick Cohen, the Observer columnist (and lockdown zealot) – namely, that an abuse of power is involved. To add to the Sun’s defence, the allegation it reported was that the boy Huw Edwards had paid for sexually explicit photographs was only 17 when this first happened, which is a criminal offence. Turns out, that wasn’t true – at least, judging from the police’s decision not to pursue the matter – but those were the facts as relayed to the Sun by a member of the boy’s family (according to the Sun).
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the story would never have ended up in the taboid had the BBC done what the mother wanted when she first contacted the broadcaster back in May. She told the BBC she was making the complaint because she wanted Edwards to stop sending her son money who was using it to fund a drug habit. In response, the BBC passed on the complaint to the Corporate Investigations Team, but it didn’t even question Edwards, let alone place him under investigation, until July 7th, when the Sun got in touch asking for a comment on the story it was about to run. (This is according to a timeline of how the scandal unfolded in the Mail.). In other words, the boy’s family only contacted the Sun because the BBC’s response to their original complaint was inadequate. And, incidentally, the Sun didn’t pay anything for the story.
I suppose it’s possible that the BBC’s internal investigation into Huw Edwards, which has resumed now that the police investigation is over, will conclude that he hasn’t done anything wrong. Perhaps the four young men who’ve made allegations against Edwards will all turn out to be fantasists and his BBC colleagues who’ve accused him of sending “inappropriate and flirtatious” messages will just be over-sensitive snowflakes. Perhaps the fact that his wife, who named him yesterday and revealed he is now a patient on a psychiatric ward, did not actually deny any of the allegations was of no significance. It may all turn out to be a giant miscarriage of justice, with the Sun having triggered a witch-hunt against an entirely innocent man. But I doubt that’s how this story will end.
What’s really at stake here is the future of the BBC and its current funding model. What will it say about the judgement of the BBC’s senior executives if the presenter who announced the death of the Queen and reads the News at 10 is a wrong-un? How damaging will it be to the public’s trust in the Beeb and, by extension, its willingness to shell out £159 a year to fund it, if an independent investigation into the BBC’s handling of the original complaint – which will surely happen – concludes it left a great deal to be desired? That’s why the BBC’s defenders are circling the wagons and trying to shoot the messenger. It’s a desperate attempt to defend their beloved Auntie because they know just how damaging this is likely to be.
I can’t help feeling a bit of humility and a period of reflection might serve their cause better. But that’s not how they roll.
Stop Press: Watch me talking to Mark Dolan about this on GB News last night.
'If we're paying their salaries, I think we have a right to know.'
— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 12, 2023
Toby Young praises the ‘vital role’ the press play as the fourth estate in reporting on matters in the public interest.Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604
GB News on YouTube https://t.co/Wa58gYGZwF pic.twitter.com/2mA05Dbujk
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So Edwards is suffering from mental health problems. Colour me surprised …. didn’t see that one coming a mile off.
This has been a masterclass in what expensive lawyers and a top class PR firm can acheive.
He was bang to rights a pervert with likely criminal activities on Sunday, and by Thursday he’s now the innocent victim of a nasty right-wing smear campaign. All they need to do now is pin some blame on GB News and they will have achieved the perfect result.
Well said – and congratulations to Mr Young for this courageous and well reasoned article.
It is, of course, quite correct in every particular. The protection blankets raining down over this BBC chappie would be whisked away in a trice had the alleged victims been girls, had the alleged crimes involved “racism”, “sexism” etcetera or had anyone involved been black. Equally, there would have been no excuses or defences offered for a right wing pundit.
Justice in this country has vanished in favour of loaded, biased patronage.
But it is instructive to note and confess one’s own reactions as a sign of officialdom’s power. The moment I heard it was this particular fellow my thoroughly Tory instincts were themselves triggered in his defence – because he has a smooth, vaguely establishment voice; because he presents himself as reasonable and polite; because he’s the “Dimbleby de nos jours”. This is exactly what we have to guard against in ourselves.
It would help, I suppose, if we had not got into the “guilty until proved innocent” mindset pioneered by the left itself; if we were able to say – of anyone – OK, he’s accused; publish what is known, unless it is “sub judice” and await the verdict. The vile left has itself to blame (not that such self-righteous t*ssers ever do blame themselves) for the swarming witch hunts which have replaced that civilised way of doing things.
All kinds of weirdnesses here. The “trial by tabloid/twitter” is very evident: Edwards may be criminally guilty (Jimmy Savile), innocent (Cliff Richard) or something in between (closet gay outed and ruined). But the fact we can’t know doesn’t matter: a fractured society needs a scapegoat just now (Schofield wore off quickly), and of course the powerful in charge of the news (at least those who haven’t a personal stake) are pleased to see everyone pontificating about an individual scandal fueled by by BBCophobia rather than thinking about – let’s say, sending illegal weapons to Ukraine, the collapse of the currency, etc.
But there’s more. A friend yesterday, fairly agnostic about the case itself, was pointing out how due process had been hijacked by what he sees as irresponsible gossips on social media (which is true enough). But, he says, it would be easy for law enforcement to trace them through their social media accounts and perhaps bring charges (of some sort). And in this way, the righteous indignation of the public can be harnessed to curtail privacy and freedom of speech. “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about” – tell that to teachers sacked for tweets about gender.
Rumour-mongering is bad – but not half as bad as prosecuting everyone who passes a rumour on.
Except the Sun reports were not rumour.
I thought everything in the sun was a rumour…
“congratulations to Mr Young for this courageous and well reasoned article.”
You saved me the trouble.
This is a brave post by Toby Young given the way the “establishment” are circling their wagons to protect the nonce.
With the support of many celeb pals sneering about the prying press.
Edwards, increasingly is being presented as a victim. Everyone’s to blame but him. Soon they’ll be going full Schofield & calling him ‘brave’ when he ‘comes out’.
Even ‘Only Fan’ is getting blamed. Their policy is to only allow over 18s on their sight, thus Edwards could have reasonably expected the boy to be 18. The failure, so the argument will run, is that this is Only Fans safeguarding failure &, once again Edwards is the victim.
Clearly, Edwards got a kick from flirting with the danger of being revealed.
Well I can think of more subtle ways of coming out of the closet!
Can’t see how he’ll ever be able to hold his head high in public again, let alone go back to reading the news, even if no laws were broken. Only a matter of time before the papers approach these other young men so they can sell their stories. What a sh*tshow. The Beeb must be relieved at least Schofield wasn’t their problem.
The story does draw our attention, ytet again, to the amount of money paid to decently dressed, calm speakers who can read reports drafted by others. Who would have thought that such a fortune could be made in such a simple way.
But is it arrogance, delusion or both whereby they practice such high risk behaviour in the first place? I mean, it’s really just a matter of time before these sordid sorts of shenanigans see the light of day and then it’s game over. Plus you’re really setting yourself up as a candidate for being blackmailed going on like that. The higher the profile the more they have to lose. That’s why I have absolutely zero sympathy for any idiot who behaves in this way. It’s selfish and now your family are having to live their lives forever tainted by your shame. The guy’s toxic and needs professional help. His family should distance themselves from this car crash of a man with his entitled, self-destructive personality traits. Even an affair with another woman would be more widely acceptable and more easy to overcome than this scandal. Did the wife even know he was into, not just men, but *very young* men??
“Can’t see how he’ll ever be able to hold his head high in public again”
Mogs, he has no right to “hold his head high in public again.”
Once the dust settles down, it might be interesting to see what happens to Human Resources departments in organisations like the beeb. It could be that all such top job presenters are at certain risks, which normal people are not. If so, perhaps the ‘something must be done’ lobby will want to require psychiatric assessments for certain roles (are they sane enough for the job etc), and so on. The same pattern of thought could apply to senior politicians as well, of course.
De bank them?
But not POTUS, of course.
The other way would be for effective management and for others who see wrong doing to suggest to their mate he (maybe she) stops doing it.
As in a slam dunk Court case! ..right on cue…go for the insanity plea!
“And here is the real 10 o’clock news”
“Bong” ….minor appreciators aren’t bad people
“Bong”…..anyone who fancies children is just mentally ill, har bless
“Bong”…..this modern world is a crazy shyteshow!
“Good evening, and welcome to the ten o’clock news from the holier than thou kiddy fiddlers club”
Really good post. And what will the ‘normies’ be discussing??
Africans dying of starvation- no.
Cluster bombs being sent to Ukraine – no
Excess deaths caused by ??? – no
The main topic will be HW and what a nice man they thought he was (even though very few news watchers had met him).
I will pray that more will see through the BBC and cancel their license fees. I don’t miss watching the BBC (or their so called celebrities) at all.
The money I save from not paying the TV propaganda tax goes to freedom fighting organisations like Daily Sceptic, TCW and centre right challenger parties.
Imagine the reaction if…
I often think this about news stories. A recent one was imagine the reaction if cocaine had been found in Trump’s White House. That story went quiet, didn’t it, as did the news that classified documents were found in Biden’s garage.
As for the BBC, it’s disgusting that presenters are paid salaries high enough to be able to spend what is an annual salary for many people on this sort of thing. Don’t pay people so much if that’s how it gets spent.
I think the Secret Service are being grilled by congress today. Although the FBI made a statement on the Babylon Bee that’s worth watching.
There’s nothing wrong with paying presenters high salaries – as long as it’s not with our money, without our consent!
Well at least they might be able to nail Huw on his breach of the lockdown restrictions! There is that. lol
”Another individual claimed in The Sun yesterday the star had broken Covid lockdown laws to meet them.
Mr Edwards was alleged to have travelled to the 23-year-old’s home in February 2021 – while restrictions prevented people from meeting anyone outside their household or bubble.
The young adult said they met the presenter in November 2020 on a dating site and the TV personality had travelled across London to another county to meet them at their flat in February 2021.
Days after Britain’s third national lockdown was announced on January 15, 2021, the presenter reportedly messaged the person on WhatsApp to say: ‘I’ve been as patient as I can. I’m not used to being turned down like this.. Sorry.’
On February 18, the star allegedly travelled on public transport from Paddington to Liverpool Street and on another train out of London to meet the 23-year-old, who told The Sun: ‘He came round for an hour. I was quite shocked that he broke the rules to come and meet me because of who he is. I was just a random person online. We just chatted. He was obsessed with me making him a cup of tea.”’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12293145/The-torrent-shocking-allegations-against-Huw-Edwards.html
Toby Young. Deranged Conspiracy Theorist.
His Imagining the BBC is some sort of Cabal with an agenda to protect its members , engage in secrecy with many of its agents being controlled via a hidden code or compromise or collusion. Ludicrous.
His use of the code words ‘bien pensant’ and ‘panjandrum’, implying a darker hand.
Even, yes even, going so far as implying the BBC, the bastion of truth may be a fabricated lie, that exerts pressure outwardly on other people and organisations!
Yes, Toby Young. Is, The Waitrose David Icke.
and you are no doubt a member of the very establishments mentioned which seek to protect its members. The BBC is a sleaze ridden money pit.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irony
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm
That’s a neat trap for the one dimensional downvoters. Nice one!
QED
I’m sure all the thumbs down were for suggesting that ‘a darker hand‘ was in some way bad.
This is laugh of the day so far.
Five pounds? Five British pounds to post this classroom drivel.
C’mon ,
-100
You can do it!
THIS WAS A JOKE!
But it has a serious reason behind it.
I’m quite shocked that so few people haven’t seen the ridiculous parody that it is. ..
BBC…bastion of truth!
How I chuckled… surely I deserve Hester’s vitriol.
A member of the Nudge Unit would have been a bit smoother?
I agree completely with Toby Young in this article. My only critique of Toby is he pulled a few punches…
.
Do you believe the opposite of what I said. Good….that there really IS a directed operation beyond: ” Educate, Inform and Entertain”.
By down voting me, you are, in fact agreeing with my actual meaning, intent and viewpoint. Many thanks. I do apologise for such a trite approach.
I inverted reality, that’s what the British Brainwashing Corporation does all the time. Haven’t we learned?
Perhaps you have seen through the ridiculous leaps of logic in my original post and that’s the reason why you voted down… I thank you again .
Why then do such a thing?
Because..
My above parody is the exact statements people will make about Toby.
What he himself says about his friend James Dellingpole.
People will use such tropes against those who speak the truth against the liars.
The BBC is the establishment tool for mind control. If Toby continues on this tract of criticism , then he will be subject to such nonsense as I posted but far, far worse.
I used a few hegalian dialects in my first draft. I then threw it out and just used the nonsense always trotted out to try label people as ‘Conspiracy Theorist’s’
Who needs Goebbels or Hagelian dialects.
Yes, it is ‘classroom drivel’ …..
All that said only a joke works with an element of truth within.
Perhaps a few down voted because they agree with me, which is the exact opposite of my joke but my true intent.
Many thanks.
You got the joke.
Are there really established groups who don’t leave anything useful to chance i.e. a ‘cock up’. Is always useful. Yet, within this piece Toby is edging closer to… ‘conspiracy’, no theory but actuality.
Perhaps collusion of a combined coincidental cock up ?
I apologise most sincerely if Toby took this in any way beyond the parody it was.
But, when he writes such a piece ,’they’ will write, what I put in jest, in all seriousness.
I thank him for his excellent work on free speach, despite his lack of understanding of how to say Keighley…..
I hope he has a wonder filled time with his family on holiday.
Haylel
P.s.
“Yes, Even Yes” is a direct parody of Toby’s speach pattern.
Whoever coined the phrase ” The Waitrose David Icke,’ for James Dellingpole gets my vote for: ” Sarcasm Of The Year Award”.
By twisting it to label Toby should have revealed my true intent to all listener’s of: “The Weekly Sceptic”.
£5 well
spent…
Overton the rainbow and out
(Team Icke)
couple of points.
At no time are the young victims mentioned, the plight they must be suffering that they sold their bodies to a wealthy older man for his pleasure, I suspect they are what the BBC. Campbell etc would just regard as the disposable peasant class.
Have you noticed how sleazy and grubby its all becoming? our so called establishment and betters the BBC pushes the Trans agenda, the “men can breast feed” agenda, again no mention of the fact that a minor is once again being used as prop for the narcissistic and presumably sexual pleasure of a man. That its ok to punch a woman in the face. All praised and celebrated by the BBC, the politicians, media and lets not forget the NHS which goes along with this. We are being led by the nose, nudged if you like to accept that children are sexual beings and its ok to use them for Adult pleasure, you watch they are pushing and pushing this narrative.
People are entitled to their privacy, but those who set themselves up as our “betters”, who tell us what to do and try to control us BBC, Politicians etc cannot be suprised when their own grubby hypocrisy is exposed.
FInally, Mr Campbell, really! after the Kelly affair, another victim caused by the very same media you set on him, and now criticise.
Also Huw Edwards, doing his best to maintain the moral high ground when reporting on Andrew Tate. Does it count as hypocrisy when you’re just reading off an auto-cue??
https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1679222461735288838
And the BBC reporting of Epstein. What is the difference?
Chilli John Carne on YouTube was saying that he’d had a surge in people contacting him for advice on cancelling their TV licences.It will be interesting to see the stats for cancellations when they next come out.
You see, militant, predatory homosexual stalking is allowed by the blob.
Why? Because it ‘isn’t illegal’, confirmed by the LGBT Met Police, no doubt some LGBT judges, the LGBT Unaparty, the LGBT MSM too.
Checking out the comments allowed by the Daily Mail censors yesterday revealed a mass of ‘leave him alone’, ‘he’s done nothing illegal’, ‘his poor wife and children’ … nothing on the damage done to several young men by this wicked man.
As the establishment rallies around him, offering support and sympathy for his ‘illness’, reflect on this: BBC media editor Katie Razzall says ‘This is a man who embodied our values’ – you nailed it love. He certainly does.
Bear in mind too the full scale assault on the movie ‘Sound of Freedom’ (exposing industrial scale child trafficking) by the Hollywood machine in the USA. What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
This is the tip of the iceberg, mark my words.
“This is the tip of the iceberg”
On this I wholeheartedly agree. There is a whole bloody cesspit surrounding this which will extend in to and beyond all parts of the establishment – politicians, the church, other national media outlets, the police, and on and on.
What decency remains in this country is being maintained by the poor, ordinary, working class but the veneer is wearing damn thin.
And as for “our betters,” we should confidently re-name them ‘the rubbish at the top.’
Does anyone still watch the BBC? Seriously?
Would I Lie to You?
Oh. You said ‘seriously‘. No.
Very interesting that this story and the way it’s being presented (perp as victim) has broken at the same time as all the furore over the film Sound of Freedom going down, and the extraordinary number of legacy media hit pieces on it, like the truly repulsive Guardian piece and Rolling Stone’s doubling down. The whole thing disgusts me intensely: I already know far too many people who were sexually abused as kids and to normalise it through making it a political rather than a moral and ethical – a human – matter is beyond evil.
Critical Drinker and Midnight’s Edge both do good reviews of the film; numerous other sources cover the legacy media hit pieces.
https://www.angel.com/
Very well said.
The reason for the hit pieces on Sound of Freedom is that Disney’s Indiana Jones film tanked to an embarrassing extent, while distribution rights to Sound of Freedom were initially in the hands of Disney following the purchase of 21st Century Fox and it was buried. This is basically dirty business practice done out of spite.
This so-called child was over 16 and hence, perfectly entitled to become a cocaine-addicted rent boy and the guy from the BBC was as perfectly entitled to pay for his services. Some parenting might have helped here. But blaming someone else is obviously always much easier.
That is correct but if any indecent images were procured then the sending of such images where a child ie 17 years of age & under is involved, then that is a crime.
It’s an important piece of information to know which the vast majority of non-legal bods won’t know – I didn’t until I was informed of this by a lawyer.
A quick law check revealed that I was wrong on that one — paying someone for sexual services who’s below 18 is an offence. Just one which will be pretty much impossible to prove in practice unless some outwardly commercial activity took place. Nevertheless, I think a good deal of the blame here falls onto the parents. If this BBC guy hadn’t supplied the money, someone else would have.
Who do you think would have paid £35,000 for photos?
Someone with more money than sense.
Some other gay guy with a not-so-secret interest in sex with boys and cocaine. There are plenty of these. And plenty of male prostitutes seeking to relieve them of their money. At times, Reading is positively swarming with them although this has become a bit less of a nuisance since the Murple Purtle turned from a 7-days-a-week nightclub into a more ordinary dive bar for people who enjoy drinking their nights away.
Ever entered what was supposed to be a men’s toilet and found five twentysomething (at best) guys busily tapping away at their mobiles in this highly inspiring atmosphere? I can’t exactly recommend the experience but it’s easy enough to make.
Do you not think £35,000 is a rare amount of money for photos when, as you yourself are suggesting, there’s no shortage of prostitutes who would charge a fraction of the price?
If you feel like musing about the market value of these kind of services, you’re decidedly more interested in them than I.
Another elephant in the room… why was the BBC not addressing this properly in June? Were they afraid this story would be released in the middle of Pride Month, which was already shaping up to be a disaster for the TQIA+ movement?
I’m no fan of Edwards or of the BBC (quite the opposite) but I am uncomfortable with the idea of employers investigating private conduct that’s not related to the execution of someone’s job. I suppose he’s a public figure and perhaps it’s a bad look for them to have him on the screen with the public knowing what they now know. But what about a firm where an employee has posted “right wing” opinions (which some employers might consider “racist”) on social media, privately. It’s equally possible that some customers of such a firm who deal with this employee might see those posts and it might be a “bad look”. I don’t know the answer, interested to hear what others here feel are the right lines to be drawn.
End of the day, the face of a major news organisation that’s founder of the (fascist-sounding) Trusted News Initiative and runs a BBC Verify ‘fact checking service’, is abusing his position of power and has been procuring explicit images from someone who was 17 at the start of this (and thus a criminal offence.) This has been going on for years. It’s a good story and The Sun only couldn’t name him because of ECHR privacy laws which exist to protect elitists and don’t protect the ordinary citizen.
If the BBC want to be an arbiter of ‘truth’, they has to be whiter than white. They’ve launched their crusade and fired the first shots. Let he who is without sin cast the first rock. if their lead presenter turns out to be a nonce, then they need to pull the plug on the Trusted News Initiative and BBC Verify. They’re supposed to report the news, not be part of it.
I have not followed the case closely but I thought it was far from certain that he had committed a criminal offence.
I don’t feel that arguments that start with “if the BBC want to be an arbiter of truth..” are relevant to my point which is whether an employer should be investigating and sanctioning employees for private behaviour, and what criteria should be applied. What are the proper protections for both employee and employer?
The BBC is an unusual case. It’s funded by coercion, so it has to conform to different standards. Regardless of its denials and the technicalities involved, it’s the voice of the (deep) state. My 80-something-year-old Dad had to start paying for the TV licence again after it was free for many years… That money he was obliged to pay in order to be allowed to watch live Sky Sports has been spent to exploit a drug addict. The BBC investigating its own is questionable. What’s more questionable is our far left, LGBTQIA+ enabling police force not bothering to investigate properly. Yet again, money talks, celebrity walks.
All state bodies are funded by coercion but I don’t see why that gives them the right to investigate their employees for private conduct that is not connected to their work or to other employees.
I think the point is that Mr Edwards being a very high ranking figure in a supposedly trusted national body potentially gave him undue influence over these young people. It’s a power imbalance in the same way that teacher/student doctor/patient relationships would be a breach of professional ethics even if not actually illegal.
Possibly. Feels like a bit of a stretch to me. I just think the whole business of employers investigating and punishing private conduct is a slippery slope best avoided unless the reasons are compelling. In this case I am not sure that they are. The BBC should be shut down, but I don’t think that has anything to do with whether they should investigate Edwards.
Well here’s my take tof:
When I worked in financial services it was drummed in to us that as sales staff we were the public face of the company and as such we should at all times – working or at leisure – bear in mind that we were representatives of our company and should conduct and dress accordingly. To be honest I saw no reason not to go along with this dictum.
When I later worked in public service I received a “quiet” ticking off for flying an England flag on my car during one of the international tournaments, probably 12-15 years ago now, and that in my opinion was bang out of order. My football allegiances had F A to do with my employer. The start of Wokery?
As far as I am concerned Edwards is a seriously bad bugger and someone for whom I have not a shred of sympathy. This man was allegedly a role model for Britain and the British and he has conducted himself like a scummy, worthless tramp. The BBC is sadly the public face of Britain and notwithstanding the grotesque failures of the Saville episode it has not just refused to learn from those failures it has seemingly allowed the like to remain festering away like some raging cancer.
And since Saville we have had the shenanigans of the crisp salesman but instead of coming down hard and forcefully on that imbecilic, juvenile cue reader he has been allowed to remain on our screens and rubbing the nation’s noses in his outrageous, lazy wealth.
Edwards was a grotesquely over paid autocue reader who failed to appreciate his good fortune and his charmed life and instead of behaving himself honourably 24 / 7 / 365 thought it was permissible to indulge his sexual desires in a very public manner and Britain and its people be damned. Well it bloody well wasn’t and isn’t. He was happy to take the money and the privileges but refused to accept the restraints his sinecure demanded.
The BBC needs blowing up but of course nothing will come from this sordid episode and a repeat event will surely come bounding our way.
We can confidently assert that the BBC DOES represent today’s Britain – utterly bent, corrupted, sleazy, filthy and diseased. But what should we expect of the British Pravda?
The whole of the senior management team MUST be hauled in and given final warnings and then a root and branch trawl through the ranks. Invasive I know but standards have to be brought up to scratch for the err…National Broacaster.
Thanks, but in a way haven’t you illustrated the issue. Your employer thought flying an England flag was something they might take issue with. Now you and I can agree that it’s not, but that’s just our opinion. How would you word a law or regulation that justified the BBC investigating Edwards but did not justify your employer investigating you?
There are crucial differences tof.
Edwards was in a very public, influential and honorary position. To many people around the world he was the public face of this country. He has shown himself and the BBC to be an abject fraud. Very fitting I would say.
I however, have no airs and graces to flaunt, no influence and no audiences for my ramblings save for the few good people here on DS. I certainly do not have the wealth.
Edwards was happy to accept his elevated position with all its privileges, wealth and fripperies. I am but a poor bloody Tommy.
I have no time for the man or for the BBC. I just worry that whatever pretexts are used against him can be abused against us.
Perhaps when they sign a contract it says “as you’re a public figure, standards of conduct will be applied to you….”. But my employer could well make me sign something like that, and I’d be screwed (at least with regard to speech, hopefully not conduct though for example attending an anti-lockdown march or a march protesting against mass immigration and getting my picture taken and recognised by someone, by chance, could leave me in hot water).
I second that. Either there has been some criminal conduct here. Then, the parents need to report this to the police which is to investigate it, ie, this is no business of the BBC. Or nobdoy claims that anything criminal took place. In this case, this is a non-story about somebody else’s private life and obviously also no business of the BBC.
Completely wrong.
Edwards was a public figure and paid from the public purse therefore his grubby private life is of public interest and has a very material impact on his employment.
Edwards was/ is a BBC employee with pretty ordinary gay hobbies in his private life. He has been cleared of accusations of legal wrongdoing, hence nothing to be seen here and even what was to be seen here was a matter for the police and the CPS. You and I may think these pretty ordinary gay hobbies are seriously beyond the pale but that’s our private opinion and in no way relevant for anyone else. That’s how the matter stands.
What if his “crime” had been attending protests against mass immigration, or being a member of some organisation dedicated to opposing trans activist lunacy?
The BBC found the private views of Danny Baker unacceptable and sacked him. He didn’t do anything illegal nor did affect the execution of his job.
True but I don’t see how this is relevant to the general question of what an employer should legally or morally be allowed to do in terms of investigating and punishing private actions.
That’S A Vile thing to accuse the Beeb of doing.
Clever
It is refreshing to find somewhere that is permitting public comment. The MSM clearly don’t want anyone saying something hurty.
I note that the statement from his wife is carefully worded to make it sound more serious by referring to a hospital ward when I suspect, as mentioned on GB News last night, that he has gone to ground in The Priory, the bolthole for many a celebrity who doesn’t want to face up to the situation they have got themselves into.
“he has gone to ground in The Priory”
Exactly. Hospital my Ar#e as Jim Royle would have said.
If my wife’s reaction is anything to go by, no scandal short of video coverage of David Attenborough raping and strangling a kitten will put the slightest dent in the public’s unquestioning faith in the BBbloodyC. Sorry, it just won’t.
Suppose the person in question had been a premiership footballer. I doubt the journo-snobs would have soiled their hands.
Stopped paying my BBC licence 3 years ago and I’m £480 better off and not funding some poor lads drug addiction unlike overpaid Huwgotme Edwards
Why does GB News and the Daily Sceptic consider this of any interest when there are far more important issues? Both seem to be turning into the Sun.