I assume the BBC will continue their investigations, then unsuspend the presenter...
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
There's been no evidence at all released that supports this.
It still could be that everything is true apart from the fact it started when the young person was 17. If they started at 18, especially through a site like OF , then much as people may find it distasteful that a then 58 ish yr old straight married christian was paying to see an 18yr old perform sexual acts, it’s legal and there would be no grounds for an investigation. And probably a more more common than people would like to think
Stop moderating...you're on a gossip site - Please read our rules and why they're important
Can I just remind people that we actually still don't know that this is what has happened. People are speaking like it's been confirmed.
Makes note to comeback to these threads in a year’s time. Thread number 45 I am guessing.
It's like a 90s wrestling plot. Either Vince, MacMahon or Russo, would be proud of it.This story has never really added up has it? Each update confuses matters a little bit more
Feels like a JJ Abrams drama
On a side note, was it not reported somewhere that the BBC had received further calls/complaints about the individual?
The kid said to the S*n on Friday that the claims were untrue.
The S*n still published the story
Now the story isn't about the kid, it's about the parents
Now no one has a scooby do about anything
HE's a is fake allegedly
He's deleted his insta
Where does this leave everything? Is the "proof" the S*n saw real? Is this kid really a smack hound? Have the BBC been set up? Has the kid been paid off?
The parents are very quiet today...
The S*n still published the story
Now the story isn't about the kid, it's about the parents
Now no one has a scooby do about anything
HE's a is fake allegedly
He's deleted his insta
Where does this leave everything? Is the "proof" the S*n saw real? Is this kid really a smack hound? Have the BBC been set up? Has the kid been paid off?
The parents are very quiet today...
Jimmy savile- obnoxious, self obsessed, loved the attention, thought he was women’s gift from god- always thought he was a wrong un
scoff-self centred, attention seeker, rude, thought he was smart and took the piss out of folk, thought he was hilarious, wow is me all the time. Bad vibes from him.
HE- only ever seen a nice seriousness from him. Talking about real life issues, depression, the impact of social media ect. Never got bad vibes.
That’s my reasoning and we don’t actually have his name, evidence or the story of what’s went on.
He's still suspended pending investigation but it would be untenable for him to read the news when he is the news in this way.
It’s just all a bit icky isn’t it though. Even if it’s not true, someone’s career has been ruined.
Why what had she got to gain from doing what she did? The lad in question could well be back-peddling, perhaps because the lawyer has told him he could also be in trouble especially if he’s been blackmailing the presenter.
As far as the presenter goes it may not be that straightforward even if he did nothing illegal, it will depend on the contract he has with the BBC.
Anything to get away from ‘unprecedented’ & ‘Covid-19’
I wonder if there’s elements of truth in all sides? Such as the mother said things happened that didn’t but it’s not as ‘rubbish’ as is being reported. If there has been a pay off that wouldn’t stretch to the police deciding not to investigate.
What if there’s no young person’s lawyer that made the statement but a BBC one…!
why no live statement outside BBC HQ
why no live statement outside BBC HQ
Not sure how much I believe this latest development. It kind of has echoes of the Phil Schofield and MM saga. Phil claimed during the BBC interview that he and the young runner he groomed were still on speaking terms but we’ve heard from sources close to the runner that ITV have told blatant lies about how they handled their poor excuse of an investigation. Many believe MM is still under Phil’s spell or is being paid off. I think the same could apply here. The young man is a crack addict therefore vulnerable so everything he says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I think it’s irresponsible of news networks to report this as absolute fact like I’ve just witnessed the odious Charlene White on ITV News do.
Obviously, we don’t know the circumstances of the relationship between the boy and the mother but why out of all the people she could’ve accused of praying on her son, would she accuse Huw Edwards? Surely it would’ve been more convincing to falsely accuse someone like Schofield, who has already been in the headlines for abusing his position to get a leg over young men. I think if she was a crack addict like her son, then surely The Sun wouldn’t have even entertained her version of events. It also highly likely wouldn’t have prompted a formal investigation into the claims, if they believed she was an unreliable source. I do think there’s at least a degree of truth in her claims. Possibly, Huw/the accused has indeed been subscribed to her son’s OF account but possibly never had any personal contact with the young man,
That being said, The Sun must have been provided with sufficient evidence to run this story so they really need to call the Beeb’s bluff and publish it, otherwise their reputation is about to taken an even bigger nosedive and their personal vendetta against the BBC will look more obvious and desperate than ever.
I do wonder what’s going to happen to Huw now? If it isn’t true, will he just come back presenting as if nothing happened knowing the internet has seen his a on full display? He strikes me as someone who’d have far more self-respect and dignity than Schofield (a-flashing aside) so I’d still expect him not to be back presenting the news for a long while, until all of this blows over. That being said, it’s clear that the presenter isn’t going to be officially named as there’s currently no police investigation so if he does leave the BBC it’s going to make it so obvious isn’t it. The BBC however are answerable to the public, which links to the question of how are we supposed to take Huw him seriously as a newreader and journalist when his alleged nudes have been leaked across the internet? Surely the BBC would have to listen to the public’s concerns as opposed to brushing them under the carpet like This Morning did with Schofield.
Overall, I do think the BBC have handled this situation a whole lot better than ITV handled the sorry Schofield mess
Obviously, we don’t know the circumstances of the relationship between the boy and the mother but why out of all the people she could’ve accused of praying on her son, would she accuse Huw Edwards? Surely it would’ve been more convincing to falsely accuse someone like Schofield, who has already been in the headlines for abusing his position to get a leg over young men. I think if she was a crack addict like her son, then surely The Sun wouldn’t have even entertained her version of events. It also highly likely wouldn’t have prompted a formal investigation into the claims, if they believed she was an unreliable source. I do think there’s at least a degree of truth in her claims. Possibly, Huw/the accused has indeed been subscribed to her son’s OF account but possibly never had any personal contact with the young man,
That being said, The Sun must have been provided with sufficient evidence to run this story so they really need to call the Beeb’s bluff and publish it, otherwise their reputation is about to taken an even bigger nosedive and their personal vendetta against the BBC will look more obvious and desperate than ever.
I do wonder what’s going to happen to Huw now? If it isn’t true, will he just come back presenting as if nothing happened knowing the internet has seen his a on full display? He strikes me as someone who’d have far more self-respect and dignity than Schofield (a-flashing aside) so I’d still expect him not to be back presenting the news for a long while, until all of this blows over. That being said, it’s clear that the presenter isn’t going to be officially named as there’s currently no police investigation so if he does leave the BBC it’s going to make it so obvious isn’t it. The BBC however are answerable to the public, which links to the question of how are we supposed to take Huw him seriously as a newreader and journalist when his alleged nudes have been leaked across the internet? Surely the BBC would have to listen to the public’s concerns as opposed to brushing them under the carpet like This Morning did with Schofield.
Overall, I do think the BBC have handled this situation a whole lot better than ITV handled the sorry Schofield mess
If Huw appears on the 10pm news tonight, it will be the biggest plot twist I've seen today.
But on a serious note though - if its proven that all this is BS, I hope he's doing OK. He's had a lot of issues regarding depression in his life.
But on a serious note though - if its proven that all this is BS, I hope he's doing OK. He's had a lot of issues regarding depression in his life.
as things are moving fast apologies if someone has already answered. Once an allegation is put to a company the accused will almost always be suspended to allow for investigation, you’ve usually got to have some proof. That being said, someone I know went to their HR upset about disgusting messages, showed some of them and bam, investigation and suspension for the accused,HR didn’t even ask for response etc until after the suspension. They usually have to go with the person is telling the truth rather than believing it would be a lie at the first instance
- Status