Another from the egotist/narcissist cabal. Reread the thread and eat your words
BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.
- Thread starter Calamity1971
- Start date
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
A few people have said that the BBC said something which revealed who the presenter is, but I am not sure that is true, unless it is something I missed.
I have looked on twitter, so I know who everyone says it is, and it is certainly true that this person has not been on the BBC this week, and that they have not jumped on twitter to say it is not them. But I still didn't hear the BBC saying anything which would have revealed the name.
Probably a good move. Save you being pestered by the usual suspects faux outrage. It was funny BTW
Nope....
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yup. I literally learned the name from this thread less than an hour ago. There’s no way I’d have guessed or noticed their absence from anything as I never watch that programme or any other like it.
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
Of course there's always the possibility that "that photo" is faked... I mean we might all be squabbling over a shop job. So there's that in the mix as well. Something something simulacra something something Baudrillard. #intellectual
gosub
~#
Victoria Derbyshire made a slight slip on Newsnight a couple of nights ago
I did wonder if that was intentional. Likewise Nicky Campbell this morning. He didn't miss a beat though as he segued into his interview with the media defamation lawyer.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I know what I saw
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Write their names a million times on the chalk board then please and let that be a lesson to you.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
I suspect there isn't any more to it, but that The Rag is trying to save face by not naming the presenter in the hope that it will turn out that something illegal did happen, and they would then be vindicated.
Playing the long game.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Not really, danny, because the name's now been deleted. Fair point I could have PM'd - I just didn't think of it, but he'd already been told by OU and responded by saying "I stand by it. Twerp" so it just looked like he didn't want to take it down.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Because you knew the name that people think it is. I saw the post and still didn’t think I knew it.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
Was it with the intention of seducing a teenager?
Ranbay
The same rules apply
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
No I'm not on twitter and didn't know the name - anyone being named could cause the site problems, even worse if it wasn't the person being named everywhere else, and even even worse if it wasn't the person who actually did it (which I still don't think we know).
gosub
~#
More exasperation at yet another Beeb scandalWas it with the intention of seducing a teenager?
And the kisses?
Ranbay
The same rules apply
Haha, well, a man in his 60s who has never even met this young lad is signing off messages with kisses? So dodgy...
Bizarrely the third kid who eventually relented and let him come over to this house said all he wanted to do was to make tea. And then left. No funny business.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
I don't know whether it's fine it's just that the reach of the UK's courts does not reach beyond the UK. Twitter has no assets in the UK to be seized so paying attention to UK courts/politicians is optional as far its management are concerned.
Even if someone with enough moolah was prepared to sue Twitter in a US court to hand over posters details (and the First Amendment will get in the way), they might turn out to be in yet a third country.
You'll eat your words and you'll like it!
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Possibility of a thread with a poll there do you sign off with XXX? I don't not even on Mrs Q's Valentines card.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
I really don't know how someone can read the messages related to these latest allegations and consider them 'damning'.
Am increasingly with bimble on this. In the name of protecting young people this discourse is actually just infantilising them and denying them agency.
Lots of people asking why the Sun won't name him - I understand that it's due to recent legal rulings about privacy. But also I think the Sun is using this case to try to defeat those rulings - hyping it up to make it look ridiculous that he's not being named. Those privacy rulings are a threat to their business after all.
Am increasingly with bimble on this. In the name of protecting young people this discourse is actually just infantilising them and denying them agency.
Lots of people asking why the Sun won't name him - I understand that it's due to recent legal rulings about privacy. But also I think the Sun is using this case to try to defeat those rulings - hyping it up to make it look ridiculous that he's not being named. Those privacy rulings are a threat to their business after all.
Similar threads
