Huw Edwards #13

[Squittel]

Believe me they don’t exist anymore.
This thread has become more about poor Huw the older privileged powerful man because of his mental health . It’s not gone unnoticed that the majority of those that believed the parents have left this thread. I think many of us are tired of others playing victim when we dare to disagree and then they claim they’re being shot down/attacked, rather than being an adult and seeing it as a discussion, that it mostly was. Then just recently there’s the primary school bullying mentality from one in particular, who talks absolute bollox. I’ve heard more interesting noises coming out of someone’s hole . So I think the victimhood game from a few has worked, as it‘s now predominantly defending Huw. Because the 1st victim is an adult now, so nothing to see here and the parents should respect their drugged up child’s wishes and do nothing, because it’s ‘none of their business’ and as far as some are concerned the parents are liars any way. But you can bet if that addict was the child of let’s say a GP, I don’t doubt they’d have believed the mother but she’s from a more humble background.
Off to buy some more shoes I can thoroughly recommend TKMaxx atm. Maybe I‘ll come back when Huw dares to show his face now I’ve cleansed my Tattle account.
Catch up with you and the other lovely Tattles on other threads xx

I’ll be quite honest with you, I don’t really understand. You asked some specific questions and people gave you their answers. I apologise if I’ve ever been short with you but I really enjoy different opinions and I like reading your posts. Although you are of a different mindset to me I don’t want to be in an echo chamber filled only with people I agree with. That doesn’t mean I won’t debate you, that’s what a forum like this is for. You’ve even pointed out times when I have been unfair and I’ve taken back certain things because I read your posts and thought “Yeah, fair enough she’s right on that!”

I know threads like these can be challenging and it can feel very personal but I don’t think anyone wants you gone just for having a different opinion! I also think it’s unfair that you say people are defending Huw when very few posts have. If you’re taking a break from this thread because you need to then absolutely you’re doing the right thing, but if you’re doing it because you feel you’re being pushed out then please don’t - there are plenty here, me included, who like reading your opinion.

Equally to anyone else I’ve disagreed with, it’s never something personal and I think most of the time we’ve been able to resolve it and in some cases even have a bit of a laugh about it (like the poster that thought I was some man going on about men’s rights ) things get fractious at times but let’s all remember why we’re here:

 

[Tootlingalong]

Ah OK thanks for this info. That sounds pretty terrifying, a whole street of people with such severe issues

These places exist in most towns and city's. We have two streets hidden away near the train station that are predominantly bail hotels and homeless shelters for young and old, men and women. You don't go walking round that area even in daytime unless you want to be offered 'work'.
It is a sad fact that these places exist everywhere and people don't realise.
We had a situation where a local boy was attacked by a sexual abuser from one of these hostels, massive uproar when people realised but they can't shut them as there is nowhere for these people to go.

Back on thread, I'm unsure if we will ever as with PS know the extent or actual truth behind these stories. Will HE hide out until the dust settles then retire? I hope his wife and children can come through this, my heart goes out to them.

 

[Marcolf]

I just hope Edwards isn’t leading up to ‘doing a Schofield’ and trying to get sympathy by crying and saying he was gay and couldn’t come out because society and repression, if he does I will throw up.

I was a teenager in the 1980s and there were lots of public conversations in Britain about gay people and being gay, there was growing awareness, political activism, some of it triggered by the AIDS crisis and section 28, and the shift towards more understanding was gradually happening, including in working-class families.

Gay men whose families didn’t accept them at that point – and it’s by no means a given that ‘religious’ or ‘small town’ families are like that, loving families did often support their children – often sought community in a different city or job, the media, arts and music scenes were very accepting.

Like Schofield, Edwards may not have got on as well as a TV presenter i.e. would probably have had a less well-paid, less stellar role at that time, may well have experienced prejudice, couldn’t get married to a male partner, but there were no religious police to drag him off to a dungeon for simply being gay – like Schofield there was no need to, as a PP graphically put it, use up a woman’s life to maintain a charade of ‘respectability’, there were plenty of brave gay men and lesbians refusing to conform or hide.

He had a choice not to embark on and maintain this double life as he became more well-known, and even if he initially did this when immature, he could have had an adult conversation with his wife and moved out years ago, accepting the consequences of his deception. Anyone who thinks this kind of double life deception doesn’t devastate a family is deluded. Some posters have convinced themselves that these men have ‘lavender marriages’ where the wife is in on it. Sure. And the kids.

And when he did decide to ‘explore his sexuality’, it wasn't to go and meet some gay guy nearer his own age, who he might have a relationship with but to pester and attempt to both exploit and intimidate some very young men and get involved with risky pay-per-view sex with them to the point where someone's parents tried to get him to stop and his undignified bum-shot is now available to all his kids’ mates.

He was ambitious and greedy, happy to perform so many false roles, and the idea that any of the choices he made is down to being gay and repressed is just wibble. The BBC – any employer – has the right to expect its employees to not to bring the organisation into disrepute, which he has done, he hasn’t simply been having a ‘private life’. It's not worse than if these young people had been female (and yes, there would have been just as much fuss if there were multiple 20-year-old lasses he was soliciting images from or photographing his bits for to the point where people complained) but it's very clarty behaviour.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

But you can bet if that addict was the child of let’s say a GP, I don’t doubt they’d have believed the mother

That’s a good example actually - the McCann’s. Two doctors there whose young daughter went missing.
I don’t believe a single word of what they said.


Do we even know what the occupation is of the mother who went to the Sun? Or is it just an assumption? I personally have no idea what job she has and haven’t even thought about it.

 

[stardust21]

That’s a good example actually - the McCann’s. Two doctors there whose young daughter went missing.
I don’t believe a single word of what they said.


Do we even know what the occupation is of the mother who went to the Sun? Or is it just an assumption? I personally have no idea what job she has and haven’t even thought about it.

TBH my initial assumption of the mother is that they’re middle class. To me it seems you’ve got to be pretty opinionated and sure of yourself to rock up to the BBC and think they’ll sack one of their main stars just on your say so. (Keep in mind she says she was annoyed he was still on screen, and the BBC was trying to follow up the claim because they needed more information and evidence before they could take it further). I clearly know too many middle class parents who think way too much of themselves

I’m not sure it particularly matters what class they are though… Doesn’t change the fundamentals for me, which is that there is a young person at the heart of this, who we are told is a victim, and they’ve been silenced.

An adult is an adult, despite still being someone’s child. They are allowed to have autonomy over their own life story. If they go to someone and say “that’s bullshit” then to me it’s bullshit until there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Dr.CM]

P.S & H.E both think they are above it all.
HE has worked in the media for years, don’t tell me he didn’t know that he would be dragged when people found out. These people think they can buy their way out of it, they are above their stations. He does have MH issues but only because he has been caught.
I get people from Love island etc having mental health issues, they are thrown into the limelight in such a short space of time, unknowing what to expect etc
NO sympathy for either Ps or HE and they have both managed to get themselves out of the media playing the MH card

I totally agree and have been wondering, before covid lockdowns and before everyone went online and communicated by devices, were these people (by whom I mean the ilk of PS and HE, for there are many many more, this is the tip of the iceberg), were they nipping into certain places to get their sexual needs met more anonymously, were they renting rooms and calling escorts, we know PS had his own apartment where obv he was doing what he wanted

Believe me they don’t exist anymore.
This thread has become more about poor Huw the older privileged powerful man because of his mental health . It’s not gone unnoticed that the majority of those that believed the parents have left this thread. I think many of us are tired of others playing victim when we dare to disagree and then they claim they’re being shot down/attacked, rather than being an adult and seeing it as a discussion, that it mostly was. Then just recently there’s the primary school bullying mentality from one in particular, who talks absolute bollox. I’ve heard more interesting noises coming out of someone’s hole . So I think the victimhood game from a few has worked, as it‘s now predominantly defending Huw. Because the 1st victim is an adult now, so nothing to see here and the parents should respect their drugged up child’s wishes and do nothing, because it’s ‘none of their business’ and as far as some are concerned the parents are liars any way. But you can bet if that addict was the child of let’s say a GP, I don’t doubt they’d have believed the mother but she’s from a more humble background.
Off to buy some more shoes I can thoroughly recommend TKMaxx atm. Maybe I‘ll come back when Huw dares to show his face now I’ve cleansed my Tattle account.
Catch up with you and the other lovely Tattles on other threads xx

I just want to say I'm fully on board with you 100% agree with your point of view. It's a strange and dangerous world we live in when people are working so hard to defend an abuser.

What scares me in all this is that Philip Schofield just got away with the same / similar thing and it's setting a tone. Especially when currently in the background there are lobby organisations that are effectively pedalo promotors / apologists speaking as the the joy of intergenerational love and how grown men who enjoy the (sexual) company of youngsters should be treated with understanding and empathy as 'minor attracted persons' and the value those relationships can have for both parties. N_onces.

Why any average person would come on this board to defend the right of a grown powerful wealthy man in one of the most prestigious job positions in the UK to mess around sexually with young and vulnerable young men is beyond me. I think it's an English thing, in this country people seem so proud of betraying their own class, like the working classes who go out and vote Tories when the tories are only ever going to work negatively against them.

 

[InTheDollsHouse]

TBH my initial assumption of the mother is that they’re middle class. To me it seems you’ve got to be pretty opinionated and sure of yourself to rock up to the BBC and think they’ll sack one of their main stars just on your say so. (Keep in mind she says she was annoyed he was still on screen, and the BBC was trying to follow up the claim because they needed more information and evidence before they could take it further). I clearly know too many middle class parents who think way too much of themselves

I’m not sure it particularly matters what class they are though… Doesn’t change the fundamentals for me, which is that there is a young person at the heart of this, who we are told is a victim, and they’ve been silenced.

An adult is an adult, despite still being someone’s child. They are allowed to have autonomy over their own life story. If they go to someone and say “that’s bullshit” then to me it’s bullshit until there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

I think what’s being insinuated is that anyone who doesn’t believe every aspect of what the mother says (over what the 20 year old says) is only doing so because of some kind of classism or snobbery - without any knowledge of our situation or the mother’s.
I did ask the question outright yesterday but wasn’t answered so we could have a discussion.

Huw Edwards #13

I believe the mother, at the moment until I hear otherwise. If she lied about the boy being a crack addict (which I don't think she did lie), then surely with his new hot shot lawyers in tow, they would sue her for defamation

tattle.life

---

Why any average person would come on this board to defend the right of a grown powerful wealthy man in one of the most prestigious job positions in the UK to mess around sexually with young and vulnerable young men is beyond me.

Well firstly, free speech and it’s the purpose of a discussion.

But more importantly, I haven’t seen anyone defending HE for anything. Especially not for his ‘right to mess around sexually with young and vulnerable young men’.

 

[Squittel]

Well firstly, free speech and it’s the purpose of a discussion.

But more importantly, I haven’t seen anyone defending HE for anything. Especially not for his ‘right to mess around sexually with young and vulnerable young men’.

I wish someone would tag me in one of these many posts defending Huw Edwards! I feel like that’s the only viewpoint we haven’t had. Where are all the Huw Edwards super fans at?

 

[stardust21]

I think what’s being insinuated is that anyone who doesn’t believe every aspect of what the mother says (over what the 20 year old says) is only doing so because of some kind of classism or snobbery - without any knowledge of our situation or the mother’s.
I did ask the question outright yesterday but wasn’t answered so we could have a discussion.

Huw Edwards #13

I believe the mother, at the moment until I hear otherwise. If she lied about the boy being a crack addict (which I don't think she did lie), then surely with his new hot shot lawyers in tow, they would sue her for defamation

tattle.life

Ahh. To me the main reason I dont believe what the sun has reported is because 1) it’s the sun. 2) they haven’t provided any evidence. 3) the young person disputed it, twice and it’s their story!!!! 4) by far the most damning part was the underaged accusation which the police have said they’ve found no evidence of. 5) the sun use and abuse people and I think they’ve used the Mother to print a story trying to stoke “chaos” at the BBC.

I believe there are elements of it which are probably true, but considering the young person says they’re estranged, along side the fact the Sun love to manipulate things, it brings it into question.

None of which has anything to do with her class, or even her as a person. We know sweet F-all about her so it’s pretty hard to place a judgement on her. Other than thinking her decision to go to the sun was a misplaced one.

 

[LadyMuck]

Wonder if any new evidence or information will come to light at this afternoon's interview.

 

[stardust21]

I wish someone would tag me in one of these many posts defending Huw Edwards! I feel like that’s the only viewpoint we haven’t had. Where are all the Huw Edwards super fans at?

Apparently anyone who doesn’t take the Sun as gospel and would like more evidence before condemning someone is a Hue Edwards Super Fan. So you must be looking at a Super Fan right here.

 

[Squittel]

Apparently anyone who doesn’t take the Sun as gospel and would like more evidence before condemning someone is a Hue Edwards Super Fan. So you must be looking at a Super Fan right here.

 

[cee-bee]

The Police don't have any evidence so far to start an investigation. They don't have a victim alledging a crime was committed and the parents haven't so far presented evidence to the Police to support an alleged crime has been committed.

The Police can't rock up to some persons house and say "someone's Mum said you bought illegal images, what do you have to say?"

A warrant to seize devices has to be issued by a court, with sufficient evidence presented to the court that illegal activity has taken place. Again, "someone's Mum said" won't cut it.

Forensic examination of devices is costly and takes a long time. Even if Huw Edwards went to the Police and said here, search my devices and prove my innocence!, the response would be why? you're not accused of anything. The Police don't have the resources to waste to try and prove a celebs innocence, they're there to investigate crimes.

What some people seem to want to happen, is the law being misused and abused. Which might not seem significant when it's a celeb they've already decided is guilty of something but it would effect all of us.

I don't want to live in a society where heresay could lead to The Police knocking on my door, or anyone elses.

Ok you clearly have no idea how policing works.

a search warrant is NOT the only way for police to enter and search an evidence. There are many difference legislative avenues under which a search warrant can be applied - PACE is the most common, which also allows for the search of a premise following an arrest of an individual.

police needs reasonable grounds to suspect an offence/crime has taken place. This could indeed, encompass a tip off or report from an individual.

if Huw turned in his own devices, the police would be duty bound to investigate them, because an individual turning in their own bloody devices, is pretty good grounds to have reason to suspect a crime has taken place

the cost of searching devices forensically, isn’t something that factors into police investigation in the way you suggest. Can you imagine how poor the quality of policing would be if it were? Sorry, we can’t investigate a P*** ring because it’s too spenny to search everything. Sorry we can’t take this trial to court, it’s too expensive to pay the barristers. It’s just not a concept in policing in the way you are suggesting.

doing a preliminary search of devices is also a possibility. Where you do a sample selection using key words for example.

hearsay, in a legal sense, is second hand information from a source that can’t be substantiated. If the parents claim they have witnessed Huw themselves, seen evidence themselves then that would not be hearsay.

you don’t understand policing, which is fine. But you’re spewing a lot of ignorance with a lot of conviction, which isn’t really fine

 

[stardust21]

View attachment 2316110

Who wouldn’t fan girl a man that expressive?

 

[Jusa]

Wonder if any new evidence or information will come to light at this afternoon's interview.

The first 30 minutes from 2pm-2.30pm is private, we can only access it from 2.30 pm, I believe. I bet HE will be discussed in the first bit

 

[ladyskate]

I just hope Edwards isn’t leading up to ‘doing a Schofield’ and trying to get sympathy by crying and saying he was gay and couldn’t come out because society and repression, if he does I will throw up.

I was a teenager in the 1980s and there were lots of public conversations in Britain about gay people and being gay, there was growing awareness, political activism, some of it triggered by the AIDS crisis and section 28, and the shift towards more understanding was gradually happening, including in working-class families.

Gay men whose families didn’t accept them at that point – and it’s by no means a given that ‘religious’ or ‘small town’ families are like that, loving families did often support their children – often sought community in a different city or job, the media, arts and music scenes were very accepting.

Like Schofield, Edwards may not have got on as well as a TV presenter i.e. would probably have had a less well-paid, less stellar role at that time, may well have experienced prejudice, couldn’t get married to a male partner, but there were no religious police to drag him off to a dungeon for simply being gay – like Schofield there was no need to, as a PP graphically put it, use up a woman’s life to maintain a charade of ‘respectability’, there were plenty of brave gay men and lesbians refusing to conform or hide.

He had a choice not to embark on and maintain this double life as he became more well-known, and even if he initially did this when immature, he could have had an adult conversation with his wife and moved out years ago, accepting the consequences of his deception. Anyone who thinks this kind of double life deception doesn’t devastate a family is deluded. Some posters have convinced themselves that these men have ‘lavender marriages’ where the wife is in on it. Sure. And the kids.

And when he did decide to ‘explore his sexuality’, it wasn't to go and meet some gay guy nearer his own age, who he might have a relationship with but to pester and attempt to both exploit and intimidate some very young men and get involved with risky pay-per-view sex with them to the point where someone's parents tried to get him to stop and his undignified bum-shot is now available to all his kids’ mates.

He was ambitious and greedy, happy to perform so many false roles, and the idea that any of the choices he made is down to being gay and repressed is just wibble. The BBC – any employer – has the right to expect its employees to not to bring the organisation into disrepute, which he has done, he hasn’t simply been having a ‘private life’. It's not worse than if these young people had been female (and yes, there would have been just as much fuss if there were multiple 20-year-old lasses he was soliciting images from or photographing his bits for to the point where people complained) but it's very clarty behaviour.

Well thought out post. No confirmation that the alleged initial 'victim' or any others are male though. The initial online reports by The Sun said the parents were worried about their daughter. This was then deleted and replaced with non-gender specific pronouns.

The media since are being careful not to gender for some reason. Some seem to have 'slipped' and said he, indicating male but no idea if that's just an assumption based on the SM speculation or true knowledge.

We just don't know at this stage so any theorising about HE being a closeted gay man and what that may or may not mean using armchair psychology and social theory may be a waste of time.

 

[BubbleDuck]

Ok you clearly have no idea how policing works.

a search warrant is NOT the only way for police to enter and search an evidence. There are many difference legislative avenues under which a search warrant can be applied - PACE is the most common, which also allows for the search of a premise following an arrest of an individual.

police needs reasonable grounds to suspect an offence/crime has taken place. This could indeed, encompass a tip off or report from an individual.

if Huw turned in his own devices, the police would be duty bound to investigate them, because an individual turning in their own bloody devices, is pretty good grounds to have reason to suspect a crime has taken place

the cost of searching devices forensically, isn’t something that factors into police investigation in the way you suggest. Can you imagine how poor the quality of policing would be if it were? Sorry, we can’t investigate a P*** ring because it’s too spenny to search everything. Sorry we can’t take this trial to court, it’s too expensive to pay the barristers. It’s just not a concept in policing in the way you are suggesting.

doing a preliminary search of devices is also a possibility. Where you do a sample selection using key words for example.

hearsay, in a legal sense, is second hand information from a source that can’t be substantiated. If the parents claim they have witnessed Huw themselves, seen evidence themselves then that would not be hearsay.

you don’t understand policing, which is fine. But you’re spewing a lot of ignorance with a lot of conviction, which isn’t really fine

Have both police forces released details of their investigations which proves they didn’t consider any of the evidence or account given by the parents ? Because so far the main reason given on here for the police investigations not being good enough is that no one’s homes have been searched, despite an apparent allegation by the parents that their child was being paid to make illegal images of a minor in return for drug money . I know the police generally aren’t to be trusted but if there was a witness who said they’d seen a screenshot of a partially clothed man , had a copy of their childs bank statement to show that man had sent their child money and had proof the child was 17 when it started , i cant see 2 police forces dismissing it straight away , especially the second time when it was in the news . Is it not possible that the reason HE didn’t have his devices seized , home searched and be questioned himself , is because the mum only had /had seen proof her adult son was receiving money from an older man in exchange for selling him legal pornography . Which although might be distasteful/immoral/wrong depending on an individuals view point but isn’t illegal

 

[Squittel]

Ok you clearly have no idea how policing works.

a search warrant is NOT the only way for police to enter and search an evidence. There are many difference legislative avenues under which a search warrant can be applied - PACE is the most common, which also allows for the search of a premise following an arrest of an individual.

police needs reasonable grounds to suspect an offence/crime has taken place. This could indeed, encompass a tip off or report from an individual.

if Huw turned in his own devices, the police would be duty bound to investigate them, because an individual turning in their own bloody devices, is pretty good grounds to have reason to suspect a crime has taken place

the cost of searching devices forensically, isn’t something that factors into police investigation in the way you suggest. Can you imagine how poor the quality of policing would be if it were? Sorry, we can’t investigate a P*** ring because it’s too spenny to search everything. Sorry we can’t take this trial to court, it’s too expensive to pay the barristers. It’s just not a concept in policing in the way you are suggesting.

doing a preliminary search of devices is also a possibility. Where you do a sample selection using key words for example.

hearsay, in a legal sense, is second hand information from a source that can’t be substantiated. If the parents claim they have witnessed Huw themselves, seen evidence themselves then that would not be hearsay.

you don’t understand policing, which is fine. But you’re spewing a lot of ignorance with a lot of conviction, which isn’t really fine

Some of what you’re saying here simply isn’t true, or is true but you’re applying it in the wrong places.

If the police spoke to the victim and the victim said yes, they have been sexually abused by the person and gave an account of it and then said “My parents can testify as witnesses” then yes, the parents depiction of events would be evidence that stands up in court.

However the key thing you’re missing is that according to the victim, there is no crime. Therefore the police did their investigation, and spoke to victim, victim said “no crime”, therefore no investigation is necessary beyond that. The victim always gets precedence. The only reason for the police to continue the investigation would be if a) there was reasonable evidence of coercive control or b) as an invention to prevent physical harm. Both of these things would have to be backed up by court order though.

You are correct that if an arrest is made at home, then the police can immediately search the property, but they still have to justify it in court or else it’s an illegal search.

Edit: if the victim was under 16 then the law differs. I can go into more detail if anyone wants but as the victim is an adult (17 when the pictures were allegedly exchanged) it’s not hugely relevant to this.

 

[ladyskate]

TBH my initial assumption of the mother is that they’re middle class. To me it seems you’ve got to be pretty opinionated and sure of yourself to rock up to the BBC and think they’ll sack one of their main stars just on your say so. (Keep in mind she says she was annoyed he was still on screen, and the BBC was trying to follow up the claim because they needed more information and evidence before they could take it further). I clearly know too many middle class parents who think way too much of themselves

I’m not sure it particularly matters what class they are though… Doesn’t change the fundamentals for me, which is that there is a young person at the heart of this, who we are told is a victim, and they’ve been silenced.

An adult is an adult, despite still being someone’s child. They are allowed to have autonomy over their own life story. If they go to someone and say “that’s bullshit” then to me it’s bullshit until there is hard evidence to prove otherwise.

The Suns article when they were trying to claim they were trying to 'save lives' gave many of The Suns coded references to working class at best.

'Smart terraced home', 'proud down to earth people' 'they fussed over me and offered me a coca-cola' 'hard-working Step'Dad' 'the couple are avid Sun readers' = not middle class in any way.

What The Sun reported in that article was the Step-Dad "charging into BBC headquarters demanding 'it ends today'. And that's The Suns reporting who are on the side of the parents.

I don't think that indicates people who are middle-class and confident in themselves, it reads more like someone making a scene and possibly being judged at first sight as being deranged and ushered out by security.

Expecting HE to 'be taken off TV' based on charging into BBC HQ and reporting something doesn't sound like middle-class arrogance, it sounds like people who don't understand that employers have legal employment processes to go through if an allegation is made.

100% agree with you about the alleged young person involved though. They've explicitly said they are estranged from their parents and don't support their story. That should be respected.

 

[L3moning]

Reasonable Suspicion can be stretched quite a long way, but if alleged victim says that someone did nothing illegal then I think that would be pushing it a bit.