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

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.

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.

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.

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.🙄

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, 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.🙄

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.

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.

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 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

Sorry I dont play that football team politics dragonfly.

I wish I knew what you were talking about - or maybe it’s better not to!

Sorry I dont play that football team politics dragonfly.

Although I'd like to see the Sun disappear, along with a few other papers, there is the point that the people that started this were the young man's estranged parents.

They might like to explain themselves, as it now turns out that everyone was over-age, and their child's privacy has been breached by them.

I do think that this non story was overblown by some media as a distraction from some saga that was building up around George Osbourne, his bride, the wedding and an email sent, by someone very close, to all the wedding guests, alleging certain things.

Galaxy

I am finding the times article a bit odd for reasons I cant put my finger on.

The Times, like The Sun, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch who is determined to bring the BBC down!

Their not your

Galaxy

A range of papers, The times is detailing investigations/reports to BBC newsnight

Thank you. I will try and find these or, perhaps, you could provide a link which would reference your accusations.

I am finding the times article a bit odd for reasons I cant put my finger on.

A range of papers, The times is detailing investigations/reports to BBC newsnight

Galaxy

I assume the same distaste will also be expressed for the BBC, as now BBC staff are making allegations.

Where and who please Galaxy.

With so many of the previous sources of accusations, reported on GN, having turned out to be groundless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask.

Doodledog

*Just remind me where I commented on anything about "the timing of the story was 'convenient' to the Tories", please Doodledog. I know you don't generally care but accusations require evidence not opinion.*

You're right. It was NanaDada who found that post amusing. I apologise.

You are wrong that I 'generally don't care' about the accuracy of my posts though, and there is really no need to be so utterly nasty. Is it not possible for you to discuss something without resorting to insults and unpleasantness?

I didn't say you don't care about the accuracy of your "posts".

I won't reply in your style but it would be good if you replied to what I actually said or we will both get muddled.

Just remind me where I commented on anything about "the timing of the story was 'convenient' to the Tories", please Doodledog. I know you don't generally care but accusations require evidence not opinion.

You're right. It was NanaDada who found that post amusing. I apologise.

You are wrong that I 'generally don't care' about the accuracy of my posts though, and there is really no need to be so utterly nasty. Is it not possible for you to discuss something without resorting to insults and unpleasantness?

I assume the same distaste will also be expressed for the BBC, as now BBC staff are making allegations.

Blossoming

The Sun is indeed back pedalling to cover its ass.

Unkind to donkeys
"Arse" please

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202307/medium-620488-img-0837.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202307/medium-140096-img-0838.jpeg

The Sun is indeed back pedalling to cover its ass.

When the revolution comes, The Sun and all who sail in her will be first against the wall.