JonnyF

I dont think anyone is baying for blood. We just want to see justice done. Being a high ranking BBC comrade should not make you above the law and it does appear he has broken laws (even though the police are clearly reluctant to act). Speak for yourself buddy. I'm here for the temples and the basket weaving.

Of course, certain people are excluded from visitor logs. I'm sure it's just an unfortunate coincidence though. Move along please...

The only thing I was hoping for was that they would find the culprit. The fact that they can't, in the White House of all places is genuinely astounding. Standards continue to slip under the Biden administration. The fish rots from the head.

Do you wish to offer a third option? The way I see it there are only the 2 possibilities that I mentioned. A cover-up or a screw-up. But let us all know if you have a third Earl, I always look forward to your intelligent, articulate input.

My ex-gf is livid with the military this morning. I took the opportunity to remind her that she supported the coup in 2014 (she hates the redshirts) even though I told her at the time that it was a bad idea and it was better to let the Democratic process play out. That went down well...

What a beautiful machine. If only they could have made that wheelbase a bit longer... ????

No surprise. Everything surrounding Joe is slow. His cadence, his stumbling gait, his thought process, his re-election campaign. Trump or Biden. What a choice. Sad times for US Politics.

He does have a point on this one. If someone can just walk into the White House, leave white powder lying around and leave completely undetected despite all the CCTV, visitor logs, forensics and security it does suggest either a cover-up or a breathtaking level of incompetence. Could be either.

Almost certainly a male if they are refusing to say. The similarities to the Schofield case are actually uncanny. How long before "unwise but not illegal" is trotted out? There certainly seems to have been an element of grooming/abuse of power/threatening electronic messaging here although it looks like The Met are doing everything they can to avoid bringing charges given the shared political outlook and somewhat cozy relationship they have with The BBC. My guess as to how this ends? The mental health card will expire in about 3 weeks, followed by a heartfelt interview by a sympathetic colleague, no police charges and he disappears from The BBC probably with a huge retirement package (funded by the British public). The Gravy Train must not be stopped. The BBC have a long history of dealing with this type of behaviour from it's employees (now then now then), they'll know how to "fix it".

It's not uncommon for victims of abuse to suffer Stockholm syndrome in cases like the alleged one with Edwards. Especially young ones. I'd say it's quite likely the victim still has some feelings for Edwards if the abuse did in fact take place. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22387-stockholm-syndrome#:~:text=Stockholm syndrome is a coping,relationship abuse and sex trafficking. The family obviously don't have such issues to deal with and their position has remained the same. There is no such ambiguity on the accusations from his colleagues at the BBC. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html

Why would a simple, one sentence declaration of innocence prejudice a libel action if you are indeed innocent? I think we both know why he hasn't said he's innocent.

You know what, that's a great point. Why hasn't Edwards himself denied it? He's had a week but nothing. You'd expect at least "I deny all the allegations against me and wish to make no further comment at this stage". But no. He lets his wife do it and even she doesn't take the opportunity to let the world know he is innocent. Fascinating.

It's interesting that nowhere in his wife's statement is there a denial of the allegations. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66182922 If he were innocent, that's the first thing I'd expect. But no, very carefully worded to elicit sympathy - but absolutely no denial.

By definition it is extortion. Previously it was Pay or go to jail. Now it is Pay or we send the bailiffs round. Obtaining funds via threats. For a service many people do not even want or watch. Hard to call it anything else. I believe the public can expect better from a man paid from public money. The level of salary is not particularly relevant but the fact that the public pay it, is. It is in the public interest if someone in the publicly funded state broadcaster is accused of abuse of power by other employees in the organization. Why? They knew who it was. They suspended him. Why do they have to try to hush it up? Just made themselves look stupid again.

No. This is not about The Sun's behaviour. The Sun isn't the only source. There are many now including other ex-BBC employees. This is is about the BBC and Huw Edwards seedy behaviour. As I already stated the BBC is a publicly funded company. They have a duty to the people who they extort in order to fund it. The story is in the public interest since the public pay this guy's huge salary. If they want a private business where they can keep their sordid stories hidden from the public then they can stop taking the public's money and stand on their own 2 feet like other media companies. Until then, the public has a right to know what is happening there especially when it involves abuse of power and threatening behaviour.

There are 3 separate accusations from 3 different sources. The BBC has seen the messages, so clearly they exist. If the police have thoroughly invesigated all 3 cases and concluded there is no case to answer after only a few days then yes I suspect another coverup. These things can take months. The BBC is not just "an employer" as you well know. It is a publicly funded organization with a clear mission statement. I would point you towards the words Trust. Truthful. Respect. Accountability. That's why they need to name the accused. They have a duty to the public since they are funded by the public. It's not some private family run business answerable to nobody, although they often act like it is. This is very much in the public interest. It is news. https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission Time to defund them. The current model belongs in a previous century. "We're kind" lol.

The BBC had seen the messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766 Perhaps you oft posted visceral hatred of the tabloids is blinding your judgement.

It seems like the Police already know the result of the vote. Sad times for Thailand.

If the police have already decided not to charge him then that would be very concerning. They need to do a through investigation before reaching such a conclusion. It is not unsubstantiated. Even the BBC admit to seeing the messages. Wrong about what? Are you accusing the victims of lying? Victim blaming in sexual harrassment cases isn't really a great look. The BBC have a long history of covering for sexual abuse in their ranks, the lack of action against a certain cigar smoking, shellsuit wearing individual is testament to that. They kept that covered up until his demise. If there is a pattern emerging, there it is.

The name of the presenter for starters. Didn't end too well for them.

His wife is also ex-BBC so possibly familiar with the culture of ignoring poor behaviour and sweeping things under the carpet in the hope that this day would never arrive.

Californian Psycho babble. Popular among left wingers who profess to have more knowledge on subjects than they really do.

It does seem to be a deep rooted problem, prevalent over many decades. They just don't seem to be able to "fix it". ITV are also doing pretty well lately.

I'd say it's absolutely in the public interest when someone paid a huge salary with public money is found to be breaking the guidelines of the tax payer funded public service broadcaster that employs him (and professes to hold themselves to such lofty standards).

The BBC covering for their own. Not for the first time either (Now then Now then).