BBC presenter allegations.

I think there is a lot of truth in that, varian.

I also know that the difference between 'not enough evidence' and 'no crime has been committed' is huge. Let's not forget that drug addicts can make unreliable witnesses, and that they need a lot of money to fund their lifestyles. There are many 'unsaids' in all of this.

And yes, Galaxy, the wider issues surrounding this sorry case are in desperate need of investigation.

Varian, my response looks snippy, that wasn’t my intention, as Whitewave says, it’s not the first time either

Again am not falling for anything.

Foxygloves

DaisyAnneReturns

Grammaretto

I don't think we need be too sorry for him. It's a stain on his character but at 61 and with plenty of money, he can retire to the hills.

Why the hell should he have any such "stain"?

Surely the public knowledge of his sleazy, and reprehensible -granted, not illegal - but by any standards immoral behaviour constitutes a stain on his character - what character he has left.

So where have you seen these "facts" about his "immorality"? The only thing we know is that nothing illegal has happened.

We have had someone on here saying he has resigned - as a fact. It's not true.

We have had people suggest his illness is a cover-up: how can they possibly reach that conclusion.

Now you repeat things that the Sun said were facts - when their reporting was so obviously, at the very least, disingenuous.

We have people saying "he has been named". No he hasn't. He named himself via his wife.

And then there is the person who thinks she is in the majority and asks how anyone could not know who it was? One in six people knew, we were told. That means 83% didn't. Just because you are loud on these boards does not make you part of the majority.

And now we have the "he's too rich" argument. Just as we once had the "she's too beautiful" girl pointed to as a witch.

Why can you not ask yourself "do I actually know this to be true" before you go into print with what may well be libel.

Daisyanne why do you even ask!
I can think of many more people, less well known, who deserve our sympathy. Hew has a loving family who will support him.
Although he's all over the news now, he'll soon be forgotten by the media circus

There are three important by elections next week - all in Tory held seats which they are likely to loose.

The Labour Party should take Uxbridge and South Ruislip and Selby and Ainstey and the Liberal Democrats are favourites to win Somerton and Frome.

The Sun, The Times, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph do not want to focus attention on these by elections. They would rather focus your attention on some errant BBC presenter.

Ask yourself, Why????

DaisyAnneReturns

^Because none of us know quite why the mother of the first young person decided to approach The Sun, we are speculating based on what we think we probably would've done under the same circumstances^ Dickens

Most of you have been speculating all along Dickins and I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it. It really would be good if it stopped now until we a given more facts by those officially investigating this.

In fact, DaisyAnneReturns, my above comment about the young man's mother is the first and only comment I have personally made about her.

Additionally, I don't read The Sun. And haven't been tempted to do so since this story broke - any information I have about what that rag has published has been gleaned from other news outlets.

So "it would be really good" if you stopped making assumptions about me. Your underhand comment, "I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it" is deliberately provocative - and hectoring.

Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

Because none of us know quite why the mother of the first young person decided to approach The Sun, we are speculating based on what we think we probably would've done under the same circumstances Dickens

Most of you have been speculating all along Dickins and I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it. It really would be good if it stopped now until we a given more facts by those officially investigating this.

In fact, DaisyAnneReturns, my above comment about the young man's mother is the first and only comment I have personally made about her.

Additionally, I don't read The Sun. And haven't been tempted to do so since this story broke - any information I have about what that rag has published has been gleaned from other news outlets.

So "it would be really good" if you stopped making assumptions about me. Your underhand comment, "I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it" is deliberately provocative - and hectoring.

I have replied to other posts of yours that do not stand up.

All the information came from the Sun originally whether you read it or not. They did not produce one scintilla of evidence for any of it but you have not and do not question these illusory "facts".

I had hoped that now that Huw Edward's wife has had to go through the unbearable agony of naming her own husband as the "BBC presenter" at the heart of this case, that at least for the sake of her and the 5 adult children, the mass media and social media might now back off, and let whatever needs to happen next take it's course, without any continued feeding frenzy. Am I being naive? Despite the fact that the Police appear to be saying that there are no grounds for a criminal investigation, and the fact that Huw Edwards has been admitted to hospital on mental health grounds for the foreseeable future, we are still getting the "MH is no excuse" and "no smoke without fire" condemnations. Yes, he may well have been stupid to operate in a manner which has allowed his private sexual peccadillos to become public, not that we even know that for sure, but the man's life and that of his family are now in absolute tatters, from which I can see no recovery. I would imagine that the others who are allegedly involved will be be similarly traumatised, particularly when it is certain that the media will most certainly not have finished with them yet as regards the full pound of flesh. We have no control over the mass media, but can I make a heartfelt plea that in the name of basic humanity, at least we here on GN don't buy in to any continued tendency to keep following the tumbril, and to perhaps now just quietly draw a veil over it all? God only knows how the families must be suffering, and they deserve some space in which to try to start the healing process. So very, very sad for all involved.

If your family were going through this sort of thing would you be logging onto GN to see what people were saying about it? Seriously?

Doodledog

If your family were going through this sort of thing would you be logging onto GN to see what people were saying about it? Seriously?

If your husband were in hospital and your children were not living with you, or you were one of the children I’d imagine that yes, that is what you would be doing, whether it be Gransnet or any other social media site. Social media is where people get information from these days., and if you’re looking for a subject and type in some key words, Gransnet is one of the places that flags.

Doodledog

If your family were going through this sort of thing would you be logging onto GN to see what people were saying about it? Seriously?

So sadly b****y predictable.

DaisyAnneReturns

Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

Because none of us know quite why the mother of the first young person decided to approach The Sun, we are speculating based on what we think we probably would've done under the same circumstances Dickens

Most of you have been speculating all along Dickins and I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it. It really would be good if it stopped now until we a given more facts by those officially investigating this.

In fact, DaisyAnneReturns, my above comment about the young man's mother is the first and only comment I have personally made about her.

Additionally, I don't read The Sun. And haven't been tempted to do so since this story broke - any information I have about what that rag has published has been gleaned from other news outlets.

So "it would be really good" if you stopped making assumptions about me. Your underhand comment, "I have no doubt the Sun loved you for it" is deliberately provocative - and hectoring.

I have replied to other posts of yours that do not stand up.

All the information came from the Sun originally whether you read it or not. They did not produce one scintilla of evidence for any of it but you have not and do not question these illusory "facts".

All the information came from the Sun originally whether you read it or not. They did not produce one scintilla of evidence for any of it but you have not and do not question these illusory "facts".

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding posts of mine that "don't stand up" - I've only given a personal opinion in general terms about the abuse of power, but not about this particular case.

NOWHERE on this thread have I quoted ANY information from The Sun - or any other news outlet - as being FACTS - so would you please stop making these accusations?

Well said Dickens.

Doodledog

If your family were going through this sort of thing would you be logging onto GN to see what people were saying about it? Seriously?

How does that make unfounded alligations any better?

BBC employees and former employees are now saying they have received inappropriate messages from him.

Dicken's you say "I've only given a personal opinion in general terms about the abuse of power, but not about this particular case.", but look at the thread you are doing it on.

There is much to be said about this subject but posting about it where you can easily be misinterpreted helps no one in the fight against abuse of power. Whether you want them to or not people will associate your comments with the OP. Why wouldn't they. I think you are being very disingenuous.

Kate1949

BBC employees and former employees are now saying they have received inappropriate messages from him.

And where is your proof that they a) said this and b) actually received such messages?

I know this is difficult Daisy but people can post where they like as long as they dont break the rules of the forum. I know some people have difficulties with this concept.

And people can ask questions of a post

I didn't say it would - not that (unlike you) I am speculating about the unfoundedness of anything. I am responding to the sanctimonious 'for the love of God let the family have some space' nonsense.

Where, exactly, are your 'facts' coming from? Have you made up a picture of a family huddled around Gransnet to see what people on here are saying about them? I'm sure you have no evidence for that, have you?

You are accusing others of inventing a scenario, when what we have done is chat about stories as reported in the News, whether or not they may prove to be verifiable in the end. I did suggest that they may be a cover for other things, but you rubbished that as 'fantastical' and 'amusing'.

You are now inventing a scenario of your own, which doesn't even have News stories behind it - it's all in your head. You are, presumably, doing it to make yourself seem 'kind' and take the moral high ground, but it doesn't wash. You have never missed a chance to have a dig on this thread, and for what? You don't think people should have been talking about a topic which has dominated the News for days? Well, I have news for you - that's what people do on the News forum.

DaisyAnneReturns

Doodledog

If your family were going through this sort of thing would you be logging onto GN to see what people were saying about it? Seriously?

How does that make unfounded alligations any better?

My post above should have quoted this from DAR.

You do love talking of the tumbrel and the tricoteuses don’t you NanaDana?

Some of us are trying to come to terms with the reality behind the man who appeared on our screens to deliver the news each evening and commentated on important State events such as the late Queen’s death and funeral with such gravitas. He was a trusted figure. It has almost been a betrayal of trust. Had he not been outed he would be carrying on as usual. Now he has scurried off to hospital with a breakdown caused by the truth having been found out. Despicable.

I don't need to provide proof DaisyAnne. I just said 'employees are saying.' I didn't say I believed it.

Galaxy

I know this is difficult Daisy but people can post where they like as long as they dont break the rules of the forum. I know some people have difficulties with this concept.

And I may question that post. Or are you suggesting I may not?