So, The Sun is retreating with its tail between its legs.

So the times has done sone good reporting, the BBC has also done sone good reporting. The times prints views I dont agree with, the BBC has had issues relating to its culture and mens behaviour in the past. So it's not as simple as BBC good the times bad.

Galaxy

So the times has done sone good reporting, the BBC has also done sone good reporting. The times prints views I dont agree with, the BBC has had issues relating to its culture and mens behaviour in the past. So it's not as simple as BBC good the times bad.

No I agree.

But as far as I am concerned it is Murdoch bad - along with the knowledge that he wants rid of the bbc - not that I think it is any of his business. He resides in the USA and supports Trump.

So it's official.. The Sun says it never accused Huw Edwards or anyone else of criminality. That makes it all OK then... never mind the bloodstains, the tears, the debris, the social media feeding frenzy, and the many lives in tatters. Lessons learnt? I doubt it...

Galaxy

So the times has done sone good reporting, the BBC has also done sone good reporting. The times prints views I dont agree with, the BBC has had issues relating to its culture and mens behaviour in the past. So it's not as simple as BBC good the times bad.

This thread is about the Sun and the way the story was broken and why though, that’s a different issue and distracts from the point.

I agree with DiamondLily. I’ve thought from the beginning that the way this story broke was very strange. As an absolute minimum newspapers should be made by law to get storylines verified by the alleged adult victim. That’s not detracting from any of the other issues surrounding the presenter’s behaviour.

The Sun is a Murdoch paper, he also owns the Times. It’s not just a coincidence.

Yes, and there appears to be a lot of ministers, along with some newspapers, trying to find any reason to "de fund" the BBC.

Some newspapers will do anything to distract from the real stories, if it's damaging to the Tories - as we saw, and still see with Johnson.

The fact that Johnson still hasn't handed over his phones etc to the enquiry has been buried under this non story.🙄

I said at the beginning that The Sun would have had their lawyers go over every single word and punctuation mark to ensure that they couldn’t be sued by any of the people who may be involved in this case.

The people who went to the newspaper have to shoulder some if not all of the responsibility for the initial mess, The Sun allegedly ignored the young man who contacted them pre-publication to tell them that his parents version was incorrect.

The Sun’s is in the publishing business to make money for its owners, principals have never mattered (my opinion)

Yes, I'm wondering at the motivation of the parents. Their son was estranged from them, so it's hard to understand the dynamics here.

If they genuinely believed their child was under age, and therefore illegal, then the police should have been the first and only place they went to.🙄

Listening to someone speaking this morning - think it was a lawyer - he said the editor of The Sun hasn’t agreed to be interviewed. Some ex editors of the paper have commented that they wouldn’t have run the story.

The Sun made much of the fact they had pictures and other evidence. The police will have seen this ‘other evidence’ and pictures and have concluded no criminal activity on the part of Huw Edwards.

I assume this ‘evidence’ was provided by the parents. If the evidence has shown no explicit pictures of a 17 yr old there needs to be some hard questions asked about why The Sun ran this story. As it is they’re backtracking. I hope this is a News of the World moment for The Sun.

I hope so too, tickingbird. I previously commented on another thread about this that if I had gone to any of my editors with this 'story', I'd have been sent packing (with a flea in my ear!) and told at the very least to find corroboration, preferably from the alleged victim.

If they genuinely believed their child was under age, and therefore illegal, then the police should have been the first and only place they went to

I hope someone sues their asses off to the point of bankruptcy.

The sun can't be sued for libel as it didn't name the person!

The Sun might also have had libel in mind when it published its splash. If it had identified the presenter then it would have been open to them to sue the paper in a libel action that could well result in hundreds of thousands in damages and costs.
and

Anonymising the piece prevents such a case because among the three things a claimant in libel must show is that they have been adequately identified by the publication.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-presenter-identity-explicit-images-b2373365.html

Does anyone know if Huw Edwards ever spoke out against either Murdock or The Sun? I remember that he had a rant about something, not too long ago. Have asked this question on another line as well, as it might explain the force with which this story was punted and pursued.

I just don’t understand why anyone buys that rag, Scouser don’t buy the S*N

Can't believe some of the messages on here.

Cagsy

I just don’t understand why anyone buys that rag, Scouser don’t buy the S*N

I said to DH at the time that I was puzzled as to why Liverpool didn’t vote for Brexit and that’s when he pointed out that people there don’t read The Sun. Murdoch wields a frightening amount of power.

I totally hope this rebounds on the Sun.

Remember its original page?

I hope that Murdoch and the others who have brought such disrepute to journalism are sued into media oblivion.

The Sun has made a statement:

"Statement in full from The Sun on Huw Edwards

Following the naming of Huw Edwards in relation to a BBC presenter facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images, here is the statement in full from The Sun newspaper:

“The allegations published by The Sun were always very serious. Further serious allegations have emerged in the past few days.

“It is right that the BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team continues to investigate these thoroughly and deals with them in the way that they think is appropriate.

“The Sun will cooperate with the BBC’s internal investigation process.

“We will provide the BBC team with a confidential and redacted dossier containing serious and wide-ranging allegations which we have received, including some from BBC personnel.

“The Sun has no plans to publish further allegations.

“We must also re-emphasise that The Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations.

“Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC.

“From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person.

“We reported that the parents had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help.

“The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon.

“It is now for the BBC to properly investigate.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-huw-edwards-wife-statement-allegations-latest-b2374409.html

Every one has to have a private life that is respected. There was no criminal activity. Aggrieved parents who knew that there was no criminal activity told the Sun a story about their son. His solicitors say there is no criminal activity. The Sun should never have taken up the parent's grievance. They made a direct attack on celebrities that thanks to social media was dreadful for all. Hopefully Huw Edwards will return to his job. The Sun is looking to gain power over people hopefully it has failed dismally.

Gillycats

Couldn’t agree more WW. This rag needs to go now.

Yes, great idea! Ban every news outlet that isn’t in total agreement with the extremists. Can’t remember ever having read the Sun apart from a few weeks many years ago when I collected tokens to visit Alton Towers. The only way we could have afforded to go.

Putin and Hitler both agreed fully with your viewpoints! That must really inspire you. So sad that the old mantra of “live and let live” seems to have been totally abandoned by certain people.

DiamondLily

The Sun has made a statement:

"Statement in full from The Sun on Huw Edwards

Following the naming of Huw Edwards in relation to a BBC presenter facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images, here is the statement in full from The Sun newspaper:

“The allegations published by The Sun were always very serious. Further serious allegations have emerged in the past few days.

“It is right that the BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team continues to investigate these thoroughly and deals with them in the way that they think is appropriate.

“The Sun will cooperate with the BBC’s internal investigation process.

“We will provide the BBC team with a confidential and redacted dossier containing serious and wide-ranging allegations which we have received, including some from BBC personnel.

“The Sun has no plans to publish further allegations.

“We must also re-emphasise that The Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations.

“Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC.

“From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person.

“We reported that the parents had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help.

“The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon.

“It is now for the BBC to properly investigate.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-huw-edwards-wife-statement-allegations-latest-b2374409.html

So they aren’t denying that they acted without the young person’s permission, or that they were asked to pull the story the night before publication because according to the young person what they had been told by his mother wasn’t true. It’s more what they haven’t said than what they have.

Well, no, and as the young person is now an adult, they should have done.

But, as I said earlier, I think a lot of this was about giving the BBC a kicking, and distracting from the speculation about the EMail saga with George Osborne's wedding.

big louis apparently the parents first port of call was South Wales Police who told them there was no case to answer. This was before the approached The Sun.

Kamiso

Gillycats

Couldn’t agree more WW. This rag needs to go now.

Yes, great idea! Ban every news outlet that isn’t in total agreement with the extremists. Can’t remember ever having read the Sun apart from a few weeks many years ago when I collected tokens to visit Alton Towers. The only way we could have afforded to go.

Putin and Hitler both agreed fully with your viewpoints! That must really inspire you. So sad that the old mantra of “live and let live” seems to have been totally abandoned by certain people.

There's a difference between wanting something 'banned' and wishing it would just die a natural death.

This whole episode has been an unnecessary and sordid titillation. It wouldn't have been 'reported' by the Sun if the allegations had been made about a solicitor, civil servant or bus driver. Murdoch is a loathsome old man, frustrated because he cannot control broadcasting in the UK. I got rid of Sky years ago, and anyone bleating on about defunding the BBC needs to be aware of who and what is waiting in the wings to take over.

Now, has anyone seen any reports in the Murdoch owned press of Johnson not handing over his 'phone? His possible contempt of court? Osborne's email and it's sordid contents?