Licence payers of BBC ..are presenters accountable to British Viewers?

I want to know the outcome of all aspects of this matter.
I didn’t, but since the parents have apparently gone against their offspring’s wishes and gone public (even under the shelter of anonymity which as we have seen on GN, allows all sorts of statements, accusations and threats), the public, of which I am a member, will want to know everything.
Since threats can apparently be used to remove anonymity. I don’t suppose we will have too long to wait.

Mollygo

I want to know the outcome of all aspects of this matter.
I didn’t, but since the parents have apparently gone against their offspring’s wishes and gone public (even under the shelter of anonymity which as we have seen on GN, allows all sorts of statements, accusations and threats), the public, of which I am a member, will want to know everything.
Since threats can apparently be used to remove anonymity. I don’t suppose we will have too long to wait.

Doesn’t that mean identifying the young person though Mollygo, who presumably doesn’t want to go public, and who can blame them given how the Schofield story played out and how that poor young man was hounded, quite inappropriately? I really hope that doesn’t happen again.
I find it very hard to forgive the parents, not so much for going to the Sun, although the paper should not have published without the young person’s permission - but selling their story on Talk TV is just awful.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Annie*, I don’t know who you’re talking about but it isn’t me, I have never had an eating disorder. My first husband was abusive but not unfaithful, nor has my second husband been unfaithful. I have never failed to turn up for work except when I had food. My first husband left me with debts but not due to shopping sprees.
I would appreciate a full apology, otherwise I will report you.

That should have read ‘except when I had food poisoning’.
Annie’s accusation has been deleted after I reported it but I await the apology and admission of confusing me with someone else.

Doesn’t that mean identifying the young person though Mollygo, who presumably doesn’t want to go public, and who can blame them given how the Schofield story played out and how that poor young man was hounded, quite inappropriately? I really hope that doesn’t happen again.
I find it very hard to forgive the parents, not so much for going to the Sun, although the paper should not have published without the young person’s permission - but selling their story on Talk TV is just awful.
I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but this is exactly what I was getting at when I talked about speculation on 'both sides' of this debate.

I haven't heard that the story was 'sold' - either to the Sun or Talk TV. In fact The Sun specifically said that the parents hadn't asked for money.

We don't know whether the young man in this or the PS case was paid off, or whether the son in the HE case doesn't want to be identified - again, that is speculation.

When we know so few facts, and when two very rich and famous men, and two very young and (in their own ways) vulnerable young ones are involved, I find it easier to believe that a lot is being hushed up by expensive lawyers than I am to think that everyone has just decided to lie low.

You (generic) may think differently, but there is no way of knowing (yet) so it is all speculation, and one version of events has no more credibility (and neither is it more damaging) than the other.

Casdon, yes it does mean, identifying the young person who didn’t want to go public, why didn’t the parents think of that?

I’ve read of threats about removal of anonymity even on GN. Investigative journalism, in the public interest will all be put up as reasons for removing anonymity of the family unless revealing the name is made illegal.

Which brings us back to Did anything illegal happen (apart from the alleged drug use of the young person)?

And if something illegal did happen, HE’s anonymity does not exist, but if the young person is charged with taking drugs, why would they be granted anonymity when it comes to court?

Two men ?

I can't see how he can be charged with taking drugs, unless he is caught with them in his possession, but GSM might confirm that.

May I ask, nicely, what it is that makes you believe HE (or give him the benefit of the doubt) but not the parents, Molly?

Doodledog

I can't see how he can be charged with taking drugs, unless he is caught with them in his possession, but GSM might confirm that.

May I ask, nicely, what it is that makes you believe HE (or give him the benefit of the doubt) but not the parents, Molly?

As far as I know, (and it’s all hearsay from what I’ve heard/read) HE’s actions were unacceptable. So what am I giving him the benefit of the doubt about?

Re drug taking. GOV.UK says
You can get a fine or prison sentence if you:

take drugs
carry drugs
make drugs
sell, deal or share drugs (also called ‘supplying’ them)
The penalties depend on the type of drug or substance, the amount you have, and whether you’re also dealing or producing it.

I’ve already explained that I wouldn’t know what to do if it had been my child, but knowing the intrusiveness of the media, I wouldn’t have taken my concerns to any media, especially if my child had asked me not to do so.
What am I not giving the parents the benefit of the doubt about?

Doodledog

*Doesn’t that mean identifying the young person though Mollygo, who presumably doesn’t want to go public, and who can blame them given how the Schofield story played out and how that poor young man was hounded, quite inappropriately? I really hope that doesn’t happen again.*
I find it very hard to forgive the parents, not so much for going to the Sun, although the paper should not have published without the young person’s permission - but selling their story on Talk TV is just awful.
I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but this is exactly what I was getting at when I talked about speculation on 'both sides' of this debate.

I haven't heard that the story was 'sold' - either to the Sun or Talk TV. In fact The Sun specifically said that the parents hadn't asked for money.

We don't know whether the young man in this or the PS case was paid off, or whether the son in the HE case doesn't want to be identified - again, that is speculation.

When we know so few facts, and when two very rich and famous men, and two very young and (in their own ways) vulnerable young ones are involved, I find it easier to believe that a lot is being hushed up by expensive lawyers than I am to think that everyone has just decided to lie low.

You (generic) may think differently, but there is no way of knowing (yet) so it is all speculation, and one version of events has no more credibility (and neither is it more damaging) than the other.

Talk TV are paying the parents a considerable sum for the interview. The Sun have said the parents asked for no money for their story, they haven’t saiid that they didn’t pay them for the story though.

www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview

I agree that we don’t know whether any hush money has been paid to the young person. HE hasn’t said anything to confirm or deny anything yet has he Doodledog, unless I’ve missed it?

No, AFAIK he went to hospital before saying anything.

I know no more about any of this than anyone, and I am not pretending otherwise. All I am saying is that nobody, whether they are more or less inclined to believe that there is a case to answer, has any facts, yet many people seem (unless I am reading posts the wrong way) to believe that HE is innocent and the other protagonists in this sorry tale are all out for themselves. As I said upthread, I just don't know why that should be.

Doodledog

No, AFAIK he went to hospital before saying anything.

I know no more about any of this than anyone, and I am not pretending otherwise. All I am saying is that nobody, whether they are more or less inclined to believe that there is a case to answer, has any facts, yet many people seem (unless I am reading posts the wrong way) to believe that HE is innocent and the other protagonists in this sorry tale are all out for themselves. As I said upthread, I just don't know why that should be.

If you think that’s what I think, then yes, you definitely are reading my posts the wrong way. What I’m trying to say, obviously not doing it very well, is that regardless of his guilt I don’t trust the detail of the accounts from the other people involved either until we have a full picture. As I said, I’m a cynic and I think it’s highly likely that there are lots of different agendas - some of which are mischievous.

Who are the many people who believe HE is innocent?
He may well prove to be innocent of any criminal offence -unless you know differently, but innocent of the pictures and involvement with the young person? I haven’t said that.

Well, maybe I dreamed the nasty posts over the last couple of days, saying that anyone who felt that the young man had been badly treated was perverted, with nothing better to think about because they were old, had no understanding of or sympathy with mental health issues, and worse .

I know that those things weren't said by you, Molly, or you, Casdon, so maybe I'm just conflating those comments with yours, in which case I apologise.

I'm a cynic too, and whilst I do sympathise with anyone who has embarrassing details of their private life made public, I also feel that nobody should be able to buy their way out of justice, and that both sides of a story should be heard, in the interests of fairness.

It is possible for the parents to speak anonymously (back to camera with voice changed, or through an actor) as has been done in other cases where people don't want to be identified. I don't see that as vile or dangerous - in fact I see it as giving balance. As I say, HE's wife had her statement read out, unquestioned, on every channel, so why shouldn't there be statements from others, including the colleagues? If they are proven to be liars they can be charged accordingly, but they should have a chance to come forward, IMO.

If I, as a teacher had behaved as HE did and it was discovered, I would have been out of a job. So would many other people in a variety of jobs. HE is a public employee because he is employed by the BBC which paid for by us. He has successfully brought himself and his employers into disrepute. I hope he never works for the BBC again. I don’t care how well he can read the news. Philip Scofield was sacked, so should HE be sacked.

Doodledog his wife made a statement following demands for a statement

Maddyone it’s true that a teacher would have been out of a job, and not eligible for employment where any involvement with children is involved.
As far as I know, Huw Edwards is also out of a job, and it’s highly unlikely he’ll ever be employed by any media company, because of what he’s done, even if it’s decided that nothing illegal went on.

Anniebach

*Doodledog * his wife made a statement following demands for a statement

Who demanded a statement? HE wasn't named until his wife came forward.

I'm not criticising her for doing so, though. What I am saying is that her statement has been broadcast with no questions asked, but when the parents want to have their side told they are accused of all sorts of motives.

He’s pretty much retiring age anyway, isn’t he?Just going on his pics, never seen him on tv. Who cares anyway if what he did isn’t illegal - presumably as a newsreader he wasn’t working with young children? Must be hard up for ‘news’ I suppose.

Who will the BBC find to replace Huw Edwards to cover major events ?

M0nica showed your response to my post to adult daughter & partner who said what part of my post was verging on the prurient All GNs are curious about facts/opinions thats why we comment on Gransnet Forum, this is a prurient act -are you trying to increase your/our vocabulary?

People care nanna because what he did was immoral even if not illegal. They care because he works for the BBC which is paid for by the public.
Frankly we’re hearing a lot about the grubby goings on of people who put themselves into the limelight and like to appear oh so respectable, when in truth they are involved in really grubby, horrible behaviour. And they think their status and money will protect them. Hence Kevin Spacey is in court in London right now for illegal sexual acts, Philip Scofield was unceremoniously sacked for his grubby behaviour, and now we have Huw Edwards, in the news for equally grubby behaviour.
They think their power, status, and money will protect them. I’m glad it doesn’t.

Power, status and a Labour government saved Lord Robens following the murders of 116 children in 1966

maddyone very eloquently stated 👌

Annie, I imagine that most presenters will be reluctant to take over then prestigious events that HE has been accustomed to present! My favourite newscaster is Clive Myrie, whose reports from the early days of the Ukraine war earned him an award as Network Presenter of the Year from the Royal Television Society. He has genuine gravitas but also a twinkle in his eye in lighter moments.

Bea65 I didn't say your post was prurient. I said your obsession with the subject verged on the prurient, which means something completely different