JonnyF

Who cares who reported it? It is the actions of Edwards that are being discussed, not The Sun newspaper (and once again referring to them as The Scum is against forum rules but well, you know...). Edwards was harrassing the young person for a date, the person refused and tried to make him stop by saying he'd expose his poor behaviour so Edwards threatened them.

Possibly followed by the "I need to protect my family" card. Oh hang on, the wife has already played that one.

How so? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html They are aware that thay are victims. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

My point is a lot more relevant i.e. the BBC covering up allegations of abuse from within the organization.

Maybe you should read the mission statement and core values of the BBC again. "We're kind" (except when someone is going to expose our deviant behaviour and then we threaten them). "We're accountable" (except when our leacherous behaviour is called out). "We respect each other" (except when abusing our power with subordinates). And yes, threatening people via SMS, messaging apps etc. is illegal. https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Sending Threatening Emails-,What's the law%3F,as well as other legislation.

The victim hasn't been named but the BBC has verified the existence of the messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

I haven't reported it. Nor will I. No point. My posts about a certain man in a shell suit who could "fix it" for children were deemed off topic so if I assume some level of consistency then yours must be as well.

If Edwards sued The Sun all the messages would be laid bare for everyone to see. Victims would get their day in court to speak out. No, Edwards will go quietly.

That's the problem with abuse of power. Victims can be intimidated into silence until others speak out. It's no laughing matter. Sending threatening digital messages is a criminal offence. https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/sending-threatening-emails#:~:text=Both criminal penalties and civil,to know amounts to harassment. Off topic again.

Predictable. The only surprise is that they didn't directly reference Caroline Flack like Schofield did. Maybe that will come during the heartfelt softball interview on BBC prime time once most of this has been swept under the carpet. All aboard the BBC gravy train. Extorting cash from the British public for decades. Toot toot... Oh what was that? Fresh allegations??? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html

Fresh allegations today from BBC colleagues. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12292635/Now-Huw-Edwards-faces-fresh-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-BBC-colleagues.html Oh and the BBC itself confirmed the existence of the threatening messages. Strange that the police are ignoring them then, giving the illegality of sending threatening digital messages. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

Highly unlikely. Suing The Sun would mean all the evidence laid bare for the public to see. No chance of that happening when they want it all swept under the carpet. No. This will all just go away so the gravy train known as The BBC can continue.

Well it can't have been much seeing as the story only broke a few days ago. Anyway, it seems Edwards has (predictably) played the mental health card so presumably that will be the end of it. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use. Time to defund the BBC. There appears to be a culture of impropriety and left wing political bias that directly opposes it's mission statement and values. https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission All just empty words unfortunately.

Bit early for that conclusion isn't it? The allegations were only made a few days ago. Surely a thorough police investigation needs to take place before deciding whether to take action or not. Or are BBC stars exempt from the law now? It wouldn't surprise me given how The Woke Met Police and The BBC are so perfectly aligned politically.

Fascinating. Yet completely unrelated to what I said.

Yes it does say it all. I have no idea what the square root of that number is. I have no idea of what drugs Biden is on. A simple point, well made. I'm getting the impression you're starting to understand it now? Or am I giving you too much credit?

I guess having a sentient (if somewhat obnoxious) human being as POTUS at the time had it's advantages.

He didn't claim there was a plan do so. Neither did I. Next strawman please. Chop chop.

You love a strawman don't you. ???? I never claimed to know. That's why I said "Lord knows...." which you now appear to accept means I don't know or claim to know. If I was claiming to know I would have said "I know he is taking x,y,z", but in fact I said (paraphrased) "Lord knows what he is taking". My position has remained consistent. As has your inability to change it and subsequently argue against it. Keep trying though, it's amusing. If a little repetitive.

Ummm, No. I was stating that EarlinCalifornia's suggestion is undemocratic. Come on, it really isn't that complicated. ????

Correct. Glad you finally got it. Better late than never.

No mind reading is required if you can read English. I was replying to the post below. ...meaning put Biden in to beat Trump and then appoint someone who can actually do the job. Undemocratic for the reasons I stated. Hope that made it easier for you to keep up.

Because it is anti Democratic to put a candidate forward that is unable or does not intend to fulfill the role of POTUS for the full term if elected.

Perhaps you missed the events of Feb 1 2020.

Satellite country??? ????