So now we're on victim 4 according to the sun's front page tomorrow.
victim 4 *Accusation 4
Regardless of how you feel about how the presenter has acted from a
moral standpoint, I think it's important to keep things in perspective. How have any of these individuals been victimised by the presenter?
Accusation 1: Complaint made by a third party. Rubbished
twice by the supposed 'victim'. Nothing to see here.
Accusation 2: 'Victim' receives a furious, expletive filled message (likely threatening legal action) after 'victim' threatens to out presenter publicly as gay. Threat to out said presenter was posted publicly on the 'victim's' social media. Not the most sympathetic of cases.
Accusation 3: Celeb breaks lockdown rules - the country gasps in shock. Rivers turn to blood and birds fall stone dead from the sky. Crops fail worldwide. Ironically, probably the only illegal accusation made so far.
I'm going to deep dive into accusation 4 for the benefit of those Tattle readers who are happy to make their minds up via Sun headlines and don't make any attempt to analyse the information they are given incase it spoils their sordid narrative:
21st October 2018
Presenter sends 'heart' emoji to Teen. Speculation on the context is a little pointless, but my initial thoughts were as a response to a reel the teen posted. These are sent as messages to the user, not comments on the reel.
Teen excited to get a comment from Presenter and messages them asking how things are at the BBC
Presenter says all good thanks, and ends his message with a kiss.
WHAT A BEAST!
Presenter asks how the teen is doing, 'likes' another post/message, normal boring conversation ensues. Presenter stops responding when pressed for information on news subject.
Nothing more until November.
11th November 2018
Teen initiates conversation again, by sending presenter a picture.
Presenter 'likes' picture.
Teen remarks that it 'Must have been amazing to be part of' - likely a picture of Presenter at some awards/ceremony thing.
Presenter remarks that 'It was a great night'.
Nothing more until January 2019.
January 2019
Again, conversation initiated by teen.
Asks presenter if he should take part in his BBC School News Report
Presenter agrees that he definitely should.
Nothing more for a
year and a half.
June 2020
Teen initiates conversation - again.
Asks presenter how he's doing.
Presenter responds with three thumbs-up signs - probably not interested in an actual conversation.
Teen tries to continue conversation.
No response from Presenter.
No further communication.
“In light of what I know now, it feels as though when he realised I was not flirtatious back, he changed in the way he would reply.”
What?! You didn't reciprocate any of the 'flirting', so the presenter stopped? Oh my God. What a monster. Practically as bad as Savile.
It could easily be argued that the 'kisses' that the Presenter added to the end of two of the eleven messages he sent the teen were added by accident, almost as habit. I can guarantee there are a few posters in here that often add 'xx' automatically to the end of their messages and have likely had to edit their messages here because they've added them without realising.
I agree that the second heart emoji could be regarded as flirtatious, but again, nothing illegal here and it hardly makes the teen a 'victim'. If it had been sent by a woman of the same age as the presenter, nobody would be batting an eyelid.
The rest of the exchange between the two is nothing but innocent. There is absolutely nothing questionable from that point onwards. In fact, I would even argue that it appears that at the point that the teen mentioned that he was still in school, the presenter decided to step away from the conversation completely. The only contact from the presenter following that exchange is three thumbs up emojis a year and a half later.
Apologies for the slightly long-winded appraisal of the situation so far, but I think it's important to maintain some kind of perspective on the whole thing. There are plenty of Tattle members willing to yell 'MONSTER!" at the slightest suggestion that something might be potentially amiss, but I really don't think there is anything of real substance to any of these allegations.
Does the presenter seem to prefer younger men? Yes. A little sordid/immoral for the more prudish among us, certainly. But in no way illegal. There has been literally nothing to indicate that the presenter likes them to be underage.
Has the presenter made poor choices in pursuing his sexuality? Absolutely.
Has the presenter done anything illegal? Yes. He broke lockdown rules. Burn him.
Has the presenter victimised any of the individuals in any of the allegations made so far? Absolutely not. See above.
I'm well aware that the situation might change and some damning evidence might be released about this presenter. I'm not here as a shill or a 'flying monkey' trying to defend their honour. I'm simply taking an unbiased, rational perspective of
what we know so far, to make a judgement on the situation as it currently stands. And all I'm seeing is a lot of shit flinging and pearl clutching.
All we know for sure is that poor Huw Edwards has had his career and reputation absolutely ruined via social media gossip, in absence of any kind of criminal proceedings. And we don't even know it's him yet.
"
