Both Huw and Schofield are so obviously camp I don’t know why it came as such a shock that they weren‘t straight looking back 
Huw Edwards #14
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Huw Edwards Threads Wiki
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yes and it seems so obvious now. Schofield wasn’t too much of a surprise but Huw was, and he really shouldn’t have been. 🫣Both Huw and Schofield are so obviously camp I don’t know why it came as such a shock that they weren‘t straight looking back
To be fair to us, most people only knew Huw with his serious news face on so you can’t blame us! I bet people in his personal orbit must have wondered and/or knew for years.
Eta: although for me it was the haircut that gave it away 
Maybe the haircut was stage one of his coming out.
If all this hadn’t blown up, I wonder if he’d ever have decided to come out (presuming he’s actually gay - I guess we don’t know that for sure yet)?
If all this hadn’t blown up, I wonder if he’d ever have decided to come out (presuming he’s actually gay - I guess we don’t know that for sure yet)?
It makes you wonder because if everything that is claimed is true (the messaging, the payments, the photo, the meet-ups, etc), in what universe did he think that would remain private?
Exactly. For an obviously intelligent man, it’s nuts. It’s almost like it was self-sabotage in a way, because it was inevitable that it would be leaked one way or another. Someone suggested that it might have been arrogance but surely he’d still have had some awareness of what could happen? And showing his face and arse in the same pic and then (allegedly) sitting in his underwear on a video chat..I mean really??
Recent-ish and quite supportive thread about Huw on Reddit:
Interesting thread. After reading it and having all the “incidents” explained, one of the core arguments by one poster for the appropriateness of Huw’s treatment by the press and him potentially losing his job is “well, he cheated on his wife!”. Good lorttttt. 
Last edited:
It’s not really nuts at all. And when you actually think about it, it was perfectly logical for Huw to assume he was untouchable. Because so many men have done far worse and been untouchable. Huw had every reasonable ground to believe he’d be fine, and his private life would remain private.
It was entitlement and arrogance. Many, many white men of the establishment have been protected by the establishment. And no one really gets more classic establishment than Huw Edwards: solidly upper middle class, a degree from a Russell group Uni and a PHD… white and male. He is the generic prototype of authority in the U.K.: a slightly older, white man in a suit.
it wasn’t self sabotage, because he never thought he’d be outted or that those photos would ever be released to the public. He enjoys a lot of goodwill and favour among BBC colleagues (look at how many jumped to his defence before knowing any real details), and among the British public.
he is a powerhouse in the world of journalism. He leads the number one news slot, on the most favoured and generally well regarded news channel in the U.K. and in the world.
he thought he was untouchable. That’s the only real explanation for this behaviour. And I’m not saying that as a personal attack on Huw himself. Because patriarchy kinda conditions men to become entitled. They know that no matter what they do, because of the patriarchal world we live in, they will always enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
Huw could be the kindest, sweetest man but when you’re constantly feted and awarded by your entire industry and are at the top of your game… you must surely realise that most of these people would rather believe you than an unknown. That they will rally around you (especially if you’re able to throw them a professional bone), rather than some unknown.
it’s possibly to be pleasant and nice and intelligent but also be a little bit entitled and arrogant. Arrogance isn’t always telling yourself you’re the best in the room. Sometimes it manifests a lot more quietly.
---
probably one of the most damaging logical reasonings though?
“it can’t be true because it’s so unbelievable”
I mean, he thought it would remain private because it largely did. For years. So… in this universe it remained private.
Not sure if last week’s article from The Slum has been shared here already, but looks like the investigation will take a while longer, and:
“In a coded hint to the troubled newsreader, he confirmed that high-profile staff members have in their contract a clause about not bringing the BBC into disrepute.”
The article might also imply that the BBC are still in contact with the “complainant” (the parent(s)?) as well but the wording about that is kind of ambiguous.
“In a coded hint to the troubled newsreader, he confirmed that high-profile staff members have in their contract a clause about not bringing the BBC into disrepute.”
The article might also imply that the BBC are still in contact with the “complainant” (the parent(s)?) as well but the wording about that is kind of ambiguous.
BBC’s probe into Huw Edwards will not report back for months, admits Tim Davie
THE BBC’s probe into Huw Edwards will not report back for months, Tim Davie admitted yesterday. The under-fire Director General also revealed an internal inquiry into how the corporation handles co…
www.thesun.ie
I do think comparing Edwards with Brand is sorta unfair. There still isn’t evidence that he did anything illegal, whereas with Brand the examples just keep racking up.
The whole “bringing into disrepute” argument seems flimsy. It was the Sun who brought them into disrepute. If that story turns out to be defamatory and false, could the BBC claim Huw brought the BBC into disrepute?
If for example Huw had either a consensual relationship with another adult or he went on an app and bought legal photos, is having your privacy taken away and be made into tabloid fodder legitimate grounds for bringing your employer into disrepute?
Paging Harbottle & Lewis for advise, please.
If for example Huw had either a consensual relationship with another adult or he went on an app and bought legal photos, is having your privacy taken away and be made into tabloid fodder legitimate grounds for bringing your employer into disrepute?
Paging Harbottle & Lewis for advise, please.
If an allegation by a newspaper is proven completely false then no, I don’t think BBC would have a leg to stand on in sacking Huw.
But even if the buying of photos is legal and consensual, it’s probably subjective whether it’s morally acceptable behaviour when you are a married, highly paid tv presenter. You don’t have to do something criminal before you lose your job.
If a female bbc newsreader was found to be selling photos would that be seen as bringing the bbc reputation into disrepute? I actually don’t know but I think the reaction to women gaining financially from selling photos is usually worse than men gaining sexually from buying them. But either way it’s subjective.
However, whatever the outcome of the original sun story, it seems that other people have come forward about Huw’s behaviour towards them and I think even if the original story was false, it wouldn’t mitigate for any poor behaviours that turn out to be true.
And I know a few years have passed since lockdown and it came with much debate, but I think the bbc would have good grounds for dismissing Huw for breaking lockdown rules. That does ruin their reputation when their own newsreader can’t behave within the laws they are reporting on, no matter what anyone thinks of the law.
It has kind of interesting ramifications beyond that too, because lots of people do non-vanilla stuff, have affairs, do onlyfans, are activists or protestors or might have unconventional lifestyles. I wonder at what point can an employer really take ownership of that?
And how could you even appropriately raise it with the management?
Like ‘I like dressing up as a hamster on the weekend and livestreaming it btw, is it still okay to lead the Accounts department?’I read an interesting Reddit thread by a former sex worker who said that some of the weirdest stuff related to ‘pillars of the community’- hospital consultants, doctors…it sounded like if we start to demand perfectly conventional behaviour off-duty there might not be many left!
With you on the conduct towards colleagues and the lockdown allegations!
Opening the news app and believing you’re looking at Huw Edwards for a whole three seconds
You've been looking at that other photo too long!Opening the news app and believing you’re looking at Huw Edwards for a whole three seconds
View attachment 2503171
I think a lot of people are getting confused of what is meant by bringing a company into “disrepute”.
by reporting on a story with sources, the sun would absolutely NOT be bringing anyone into disrepute. The sun hasn’t committed any offences against the BBC or Huw by reporting an account from a family. They didn’t even name Huw in the story. The “disrepute” thing would be an agreement between an employer and their employee. The sun has no such contract with the BBC and doesn’t owe them any sort of protection or conduct. What they are obligated to do though, is report within their own guidelines and operate within the law. They didn’t name Huw, or provide details which could reasonably be assumed to be him. So they haven’t committed any offence on that basis.
as for Huw - the issue with bringing the BBC into disrepute is layered.
in the first instance, there is a code of ethics that journalists adhere and subscribe to. This isn’t a flimsy ideological thing, it’s something supported by the Council of Europe and which any respectable journalist will be aware of. In a nutshell though, the code of ethics is about impartiality and integrity. Because journalists cannot effectively report the truth if they themselves are bias and aren’t inherently honest.
Huw was for all intents and purposes living a double life… but sexuality is deeply personal. And his right to a private life is protected by law. And he has the right to live a life free from concerns of persecution and so on. So I think there’s a fair argument that Huw’s sex life didn’t impede on his integrity in this instance. This is of course assuming no illegal activity has taken place and this ignores any discomfort around the young person being vulnerable and much younger than Huw. These rights to personal life and so on, aren’t absolute though.
and… that isn’t the only thing Huw bas been accused of
to date, there have been allegations of 1. Breaking lockdown and 2. Abuses of power/inappropriateness at work.
if number 1 happened (and I believe it’s likely it did) he absolutely did not behave with integrity. What’s worst, he was actively reporting on lockdown whilst himself allegedly breaking the rules. And 2. Inappropriate behaviour in a work setting is inherently lacking in integrity.
So let’s look at it from the BBC angle.
the BBC isn’t any run of the mill employer. It’s a public institution, with a royal charter and agreement with government. It is funded by the public.
in a nutshell, this charter gives the BBC permission to operate on the basis of some rules. Among these rules is the insistence that the BBC use the “highest calibre” of journalists and that they protect the welfare of staff.
if hypothetically, Huw has shown himself to be lacking in integrity by breaking lockdown and being inappropriate to junior members of staff - is he still being a journalist of the highest calibre? And would the BBC be fulfilling their legal obligation to protect their staff if they continued to employ him?
he almost certainly has a “disrepute” clause in any employment contract, which is an open ended term. It’s not hard to google and find copies of terms of contract for employees of the BBC. But perhaps more specifically is the BBC code of conduct, which is explicit
“Trust is the foundation of the BBC”
there are multiple issues at hand here. If Huws actions contravene the rules as set out in the BBC chatter, then surely that brings the BBC into disrepute, at a minimum?
And what about the guidance and rules the BBC sets for itself and expects its employees to adhere to. If Huw has broken lockdown - then at a minimum he has gone against the guidelines set out by the BBC which he agreed to adhere to? In essence, breaking his own contract.
The guidelines also mentioning protecting the vulnerable. By procuring sex work from a young, vulnerable person - has Huw gone against those guidelines?
The BBC are in a difficult position for sure. No doubt Huw is well regarded by many seniors. No doubt his contributions are very much valued. He’s part and parcel of the bbc brand and if they drop him now, it’ll reflect as badly on them anyway.
but a lot of very uncomfortable allegations have come out against Huw, and I just don’t think anyone - employee or not - can ignore that. At face value at the moment, it really does seem like he has fallen very, very short of the standard expected of him.
the BBC have an ongoing investigation for which I hope Huw will be well enough soon to cooperate with. But I do have a sinking feeling that there haven’t been any outright denials on the lockdown breaking or inappropriate behaviour because… it’s the truth.