BBC Presenter Scandal #3

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
You know what? I’m quite happy finishing the day under the impression that Huw is not a pon.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 54
So, nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened. So, something did happen?
The key word for me is “rubbish”. Some element of the allegations is true, otherwise they would be explicitly responding that they were “untrue” or “false”.

The wording is very reminiscent of other cases where defamation is implied, where the allegations are described as “absurd” or “ludicrous”. This then gives the appearance that they are untrue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22
Also can I tell you something if you were to ask most Welsh people, Derek Brockway would trump Huw Edwards in the national hero stakes. Bet no one outside of gods country has heard of him though 😂
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 13
Which means it was absolutely nobodies business besides their own.
Quite. People might not like it, they might find it icky, but if both people involved was over 18 then *nothing* illegal has happened here and it's a disgrace it was ever blown up like this in the first place.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21
If this latest update is true (and really it’s the closest thing to factual information we’ve got to go on at the moment) I really do feel for the young man.

We don’t know the nature of his relationship with the accused but it may have felt meaningful in someway (even if just financially) and is now destroyed. Plus being potentially outed as gay/ addict/ sex worker when he may not have been ready for any of this. And all by a family member. I’d like to think the mum was doing what she thought best for her child but there’s no denying this is a complete clusterfuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 23
The key word for me is “rubbish”. Some element of the allegations is true, otherwise they would be explicitly responding that they were “untrue”.

The wording is very reminiscent of other cases where defamation is implied, where the allegations are described as “absurd” or “ludicrous”. This then gives the appearance that they are untrue.
'inverted pyramid of piffle' as someone, who is a habitual liar, once said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
A 20 year old crackheads cash cow is being turned into burgers by his mum. No wonder he's denying it!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 18
So the presenter claims it’s rubbish. But the sun states they have seen evidence and have done nothing wrong in publishing what they did, it’s now upto the bbc to decide.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8
sorry haven't caught up as it's literally impossible to, but as someone who's been SA'd has it not been considered that perhaps the young person involved just doesn't want all this to come out? like, i personally never involved the police as i didn't want to relive everything, and would probably brand my mum telling others my situation as 'rubbish' too if i didn't want it to get out

(sorry if i've got the wrong end of the stick as i've only skimmed through articles)
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21
The sun is the most deplorable paper; the mother going to them doesn’t give me “poor mother” vibes. It gives me “make a quick fortune from a paper that won’t fact check anything as long as they sell papers”
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22
If sexually explicit photos have been sent of a 17year old to someone it’s illegal, and they should be prosecuted.
All we have to support that is the questionable words of a mother who went to The Sun instead of the police.

The lack of police involvement even after they were made aware is relatively telling for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
The youngsters denial clears nothing up and just creates more questions. Why wait several days to announce it's untrue? Why not straight away? Why would your mother make it all up? Why would the Sun publish an article without evidence? Why are the police involved? Why was the presenter suspended by the BBC if there was no strong evidence? :unsure:
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 28
61 year old man and an 18 year old. Grim. Also, what about the fact he’s married?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 27
Presenter and a young person exchange messages.
Presenter pays to see their bumhole.
Young person wants more money.
Presenter gets pissed off.
Young person's mother finds out and goes ballistic.
Press find out.
Tattle goes mental.
Young person realises their meal ticket is out the window.
Young person backtracks and suddenly has money to pay for a lawyer or finds one who is willing to take the case for free (!).
Presenter's career is still screwed.
Young person gets no more money.
There is no good outcome for anyone except gossips.
Fin.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 48
So the presenter claims it’s rubbish. But the sun states they have seen evidence and have done nothing wrong in publishing what they did, it’s now upto the bbc to decide.
No, it's the young person claiming it's rubbish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.