Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

Ms T said:
It's not really about libel in this case. It's privacy laws which are the issue.
Click to expand...
They made an accusation that the silhouetted mystery man bought illegal porn, which they don't appear to have had any evidence for.
 
The claims of BBC neutrality and impartiality are easily disproved, but despite that the ideology it secretes combines certain values with its pro-establishment positioning. The Sun and Murdoch want to see the BBC disestablished because, for millions of people, it embodies integrity and fairness in news. It has a certain standing against which News Corp's output is shown to be outright partial and bent to the sectional agendas of the right, and that makes their propaganda less effective than it might be. Think of it as the BBC providing a yardstick. With its disappearance from the news gathering and reporting scene, standards would inevitably tumble, or become appendages to the politics of commercial broadcasters. This is a recipe for segmenting the audience along political lines as per the United States, making divide and conquer easier, and the development of a common ground more difficult. Only oligarchical interests and grifters are served by this scenario. Presently, the BBC is an obstacle to this happening to broadcast news because it is an institution that is valued by millions across political divides.

This is reflected in the right wing and left wing critiques of the BBC. The left often criticises its low key pro-establishment editorialising and its using right wing frames to construct its reporting because it falls short of the values its committed to. The right criticises the BBC when it does approximate impartiality and even-handedness, such as when it allows left wingers onto its politics shows or critically reports on government policy and activity. Accuracy and evidence counts more for the left simply because right wing politics is structurally dishonest. Its purpose is to present the minority interest as the universal interest, and that means lying and obfuscating as a matter of routine. Or being economical with the truth when the indiscretions of a BBC presenter are used a lever for pushing a highly sectional political and commercial agenda
 
I do wonder when it does become acceptable to actually refer to this guy by name on forums like this.

FWIW, this is definitely at the lower end of the dodgy spectrum by BBC standards anyway. It's been a slow news cycle so I guess that's why the country's been so gripped. But really, his PRs should have advised him to get ahead of the story at the beginning rather than it becoming this circus. I do feel for his wife and (grown up) kids though. As always they'll suffer just as much or even more than the actual perp.
 
vanya said:
The claims of BBC neutrality and impartiality are easily disproved, but despite that the ideology it secretes combines certain values with its pro-establishment positioning. The Sun and Murdoch want to see the BBC disestablished because, for millions of people, it embodies integrity and fairness in news. It has a certain standing against which News Corp's output is shown to be outright partial and bent to the sectional agendas of the right, and that makes their propaganda less effective than it might be. Think of it as the BBC providing a yardstick. With its disappearance from the news gathering and reporting scene, standards would inevitably tumble, or become appendages to the politics of commercial broadcasters. This is a recipe for segmenting the audience along political lines as per the United States, making divide and conquer easier, and the development of a common ground more difficult. Only oligarchical interests and grifters are served by this scenario. Presently, the BBC is an obstacle to this happening to broadcast news because it is an institution that is valued by millions across political divides.

This is reflected in the right wing and left wing critiques of the BBC. The left often criticises its low key pro-establishment editorialising and its using right wing frames to construct its reporting because it falls short of the values its committed to. The right criticises the BBC when it does approximate impartiality and even-handedness, such as when it allows left wingers onto its politics shows or critically reports on government policy and activity. Accuracy and evidence counts more for the left simply because right wing politics is structurally dishonest. Its purpose is to present the minority interest as the universal interest, and that means lying and obfuscating as a matter of routine. Or being economical with the truth when the indiscretions of a BBC presenter are used a lever for pushing a highly sectional political and commercial agenda
Click to expand...
Murdoch is the one we should all be watching. Imagine the same focus on the sex offenders in the UK parliament. No. Me neither. And that it the point. A scandal banked by Johnson’s ‘media’ protectors to be used at an opportune moment. Job done.
 
Police are now saying there is no legal case to answer, so it is back to the BBC to conduct an investigation as to whether there is anything they need to do...
 
It's all a bit boring now, but where's the logic of the fact that if this guy had actually got to have sex with this 17yo boy, thats fully legal, but getting dick pics from him could put him in jail for 14 years. And blocking the publication of his name when it's all over the internet. It's a very British fucked up-ness.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
It all has a whiff of Max Clifford who worked hand in glove with The Sun etc on these sorts of stories. And he ended up doing time for worse. They didn’t place themselves under the spotlight on that occasion
Click to expand...

Far worse, often at the behest of David Bowie.
 
Petcha said:
It's all a bit boring now, but where's the logic of the fact that if this guy had actually got to have sex with this 17yo boy, thats fully legal, but getting dick pics from him could put him in jail for 14 years. And blocking the publication of his name when it's all over the internet. It's a very British fucked up-ness.
Click to expand...
I can see a certain logic to it.
if the 16 or 17 year old has some fun that's a one off event. once it's over it's over.
but by taking pictures or video those exists forever. there's an ongoing potential for harm. if those images are passed on to others, for example. so the law is (trying) to protect the adolescent from that harm.

but I think it mostly comes to if images end up in the hand of a pedo, they don't care whether those were originally taken with consent. and the law doesn't want to muddy the waters by allowing them a defence to argue if they have been creating images themselves.
 
krtek a houby said:
S*n has blighted people's lives so much over the years. Hillsborough, underage phwoar grossness, homophobia etc

But am guessing that more than likely these days the protesters will be found outside the BBC offices, rarely the s*n?
Click to expand...

the anti-vax crowd do occasionally
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Gramsci
Gramsci
danny la rouge
5:2 Diet book author and TV presenter, Michael Mosley, missing
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
7K
Maggot
Maggot
Larry O'Hara
Bowyer Bell Secret Army BBC 27.3.24
Replies
21
Views
622
JimW
JimW
Wilf
Things you'd like to see over the next 6 weeks
Replies
24
Views
803
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
E
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
4K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Back
Top Bottom