|
|
Post by lens on Jul 12, 2023 19:02:07 GMT
Huw Edwards named by his wife as presenter at centre of scandal. The 'scandal' seeming to consist of legal and consensual activity between adults as far as we know to date - certainly the police see no evidence of criminality. But Edwards now receiving health treatment for severe depression. I have a feeling Danny may be right on this one - there is a definite whiff of homophobia about this, coupled with Murdoch's endless campaign to undermine the BBC for commercial reasons. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The essence is that he paid large sums of money to someone many, many years younger to send revealing photos of themselves. Money which was apparently largely used to fuel that persons drug habit to their own detriment. Whether the person concerned is male or female is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the behaviour is acceptable or not. Even if not illegal, the person's parents are obviously distraught at the effect it has had on their son's life. It would be exactly the same if we were talking about a teenage girl. The subsequent stories seem to indicate it was not a one-off, and seem to show it had been going on for a number of years. *THE* question therefore has to be how much did people in authority at the BBC know in that period, and whether their attitude was first and foremost to cover up to avoid a scandal and hope for the best. Where have we heard that before? There is also the safeguarding issue - both for Huw Edwards himself, and for young people possibly affected by his behaviour. I have sympathy with him as regards the mental health aspect, but all the more one has to ask why help for him wasn't forthcoming much earlier? I really and genuinely hate to find myself defending the Sun, especially regarding such a matter and with the BBC. But ultimately, the Sun are the ones who brought the matter to a head and hopefully now Mr Edwards can get the help he needs. Presumably the family told them what they had originally told the BBC, and one can only wonder why they acted upon such information immediately, whilst the BBC..... didn't? Yes, maybe the Murdoch empire wish to undermine the BBC, but my God, sometimes the BBC really shoot themselves in the foot and make their job easy! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,568
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 12, 2023 19:03:04 GMT
And saying he is "suffering from severe mental health issues". Which brings another raft of questions. The allegations that brought all this to a head go back several years. And I'm prepared to believe so do the mental health issues. So how on earth was someone with such problems allowed to remain in his position, with such a stressful job, for so long!? Hard to believe nobody at work was unaware for so long? We're not just talking about a minor figure - arguably the public face of BBC News. More and more questions for the BBC to answer. Ok we dont know what happened but the least you can say presently is that nothing has been proven against him, but his career has just been trashed. Police apparently already had been invited and declined to intervene, presumably seeing no lawbreaking. If there was no lawbreaking, why was he subjected to this? If there was, why is this happening in a blaze of publicity and not a proper investigation, but on that score it seem the parents tried to get the police involved and they refused. They tried to get the BBC involved and lost patience when the BBC was unable to question them further. We dont know if anyone has been paid for these stories? (well, obviously the journalists were) His wife's statement indicated Edwards has a long-standing issue with depression but that the Sun's attack on him - which of course he was unable to respond to - had brought this to a crisis. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Jul 12, 2023 19:10:48 GMT
His wife's statement has said that when Edwards leaves hospital, he intends to answer the various allegations that have been made about his behaviour. He hasn't resigned from the BBC apparently, but is currently being treated, as an inpatient in hospital, for a mental breakdown. Mental illness is a common strategy to adopt when faced with allegations at work. Not least because, obviously, its very stressful, and mental illness is largely unproveable. Helps stall for time. It may help to account for surges in absence from work because of 'sickness', in recent years. Its very common in the education sector, I can say from personal experience. Something you often have to remember about internal investigations in general is their prime concern is the benefit of the company, not any of its staff. Thats one reason why so many such disputes end in gagging payouts never to discuss what went on. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Jul 12, 2023 19:18:42 GMT
Police say no evidence of criminal offence committed
Edwards ends up in hospital with mental health condition
And the Sun that brought teenage boobs to millions of ogling men congratulates itself on upholding morality.
I find it all a tad unpleasant.
Still it's been a useful diversion from the real news for the regime.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,568
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 12, 2023 19:23:14 GMT
The 'scandal' seeming to consist of legal and consensual activity between adults as far as we know to date - certainly the police see no evidence of criminality. But Edwards now receiving health treatment for severe depression. I have a feeling Danny may be right on this one - there is a definite whiff of homophobia about this, coupled with Murdoch's endless campaign to undermine the BBC for commercial reasons. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The essence is that he paid large sums of money to someone many, many years younger to send revealing photos of themselves. Money which was apparently largely used to fuel that persons drug habit to their own detriment. Whether the person concerned is male or female is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the behaviour is acceptable or not. Even if not illegal, the person's parents are obviously distraught at the effect it has had on their son's life. It would be exactly the same if we were talking about a teenage girl. The subsequent stories seem to indicate it was not a one-off, and seem to show it had been going on for a number of years. *THE* question therefore has to be how much did people in authority at the BBC know in that period, and whether their attitude was first and foremost to cover up to avoid a scandal and hope for the best. Where have we heard that before? There is also the safeguarding issue - both for Huw Edwards himself, and for young people possibly affected by his behaviour. I have sympathy with him as regards the mental health aspect, but all the more one has to ask why help for him wasn't forthcoming much earlier? I really and genuinely hate to find myself defending the Sun, especially regarding such a matter and with the BBC. But ultimately, the Sun are the ones who brought the matter to a head and hopefully now Mr Edwards can get the help he needs. Presumably the family told them what they had originally told the BBC, and one can only wonder why they acted upon such information immediately, whilst the BBC..... didn't? Yes, maybe the Murdoch empire wish to undermine the BBC, but my God, sometimes the BBC really shoot themselves in the foot and make their job easy! Edwards was not in a position of authority over any of the people we know about (which is the difference from the Schofield case), so no safeguarding issue arises. Are you saying that all relationships with a age gap of some level or other should now be criminalised? That a person of 50 having a relationship with a person aged 25 is automatically wrong even if they are both happy with it? Someone over 18 is an adult by law and responsible for their own actions. What their parents think of them or their behavour is a complete irrelevance. Do you want the payment for sexual services between consenting adults criminalised as well? Doing so will make the lives of sex workers infinitely more dangerous and place them in the hands of criminals, but if you want to increase the level of misery in the world then you could do that I suppose. Do you consider it is the role of an employer to enforce a moral code that you approve of on their employees, even when that employee is breaking no law? Who would define this moral code and where does it end? I would remind you that everyone is entitled to a private life. I find this term "young person" particularly pernicious. One of the more recent "allegations" involves a man of 23, repeatedly called a "young person" to make it sound suspect, as if we are talking about someone under age. A person of 23 is an adult, fully accountable for their own behaviour. It is obvious the BBC didn't act on it for the same reason that the police haven't. On what we know so far there is nothing to act on. The reasons the Sun did was to sell some newspapers and damage the BBC. What I want to know was whether they paid the parents for the story. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Jul 12, 2023 19:39:22 GMT
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The essence is that he paid large sums of money to someone many, many years younger to send revealing photos of themselves. Money which was apparently largely used to fuel that persons drug habit to their own detriment. Whether the person concerned is male or female is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the behaviour is acceptable or not. Even if not illegal, the person's parents are obviously distraught at the effect it has had on their son's life. It would be exactly the same if we were talking about a teenage girl. Um. Its a big assumption to claim that having been paid for photographs, someone then embarked upon a new lifestyle to use that money to buy drugs and ruin their health. As a general argument it really doesnt seem to hold water. Why dont Sun journalists all become drug addicts when they get paid for their services? Or MPs? Or anyone? Surely a much more likely scenario is that the person concerned was already embarking on a sea of drug fuelled hedonism, and found they could get some extra dosh by exploiting older guys with money. Or maybe neither extreme is true, it was a mutual benefit transaction, really no different to a lawyer currently being paid to work on the case. The transaction was essentially irrelvant to other events. All that has emerged so far is that some people dont like youngsters acting like adults. Remembering we have now what is historically a very high age of legal consent, so basically we seek to force children not to grow up. Although on the other hand, the age at which someone can be held responsible for criminality can be as low as 10. Rather a double standard. Anyone who cares to will find adverts for 18 year olds offering their services not only for photos, but plain sex. Although they are filtered out, such people advertise themselves on social apps. They are looking for older people with money to buy their services. There are certain laws about prostitution, but thats all basically legal, so why not? Thats before we get to the problem of 17 or younger pretending to be 18. And be sure plenty of those are doing this for what I hope we would recognise as legitimate reasons, to meet someone of a similar age, but in its wisdom the government prevents them doing so legally and plainly displaying their age to the benefit of everyone.
There is no evidence whatsoever thus far of a coverup. But I have to challenge you why making many such deals with people of legal age ought to be considered reprehensible? Help for what? Just to be clear, for possible mental illness or for his legal behaviour?
The BBC did act immediately. The ball rests with them having tried to recontact the complainants and being unable to do so. It does not seem to have been unreasonable to wait three weeks for a reply before trying again when the complaints relate to events years in the past. There might be more malign reasons behind any of this, but thus far none are evident.
No, they didnt. They appear to have assumed the complaint was serious, and set about obtaining further information. I dont know why the complainants didnt respond to email or telephone. I might be tempted to suggest the Sun had asked them not to talk to anyone else! |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 19:40:15 GMT
You miss the point entirely. That position is shared by some parties. The problem arises when they all agree on something that a big proportion of the population doesn't. Brexit was just one example. There are plenty of others. Not many people gave the EU much thought before Cameron's genius idea to hold a referendum, it was just a fact of life and as we've discussed here many times people voted the way they did for myriad often incompatible reasons not because they disagreed with some supposed cosy political consensus. What you're referencing is the worn out old trope of the supposed 'silent (always right wing of course) majority'. Currently if you add up voting intention for Labour, LD and Green we've got ourselves a bit of a clear progressive majority I'd have said. I'd be interested in your definition of 'progressive'. As far as I can see the Greens want us to go back to the Stone Age. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 12, 2023 19:41:52 GMT
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The essence is that he paid large sums of money to someone many, many years younger to send revealing photos of themselves. Money which was apparently largely used to fuel that persons drug habit to their own detriment. Whether the person concerned is male or female is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the behaviour is acceptable or not. Even if not illegal, the person's parents are obviously distraught at the effect it has had on their son's life. It would be exactly the same if we were talking about a teenage girl. The subsequent stories seem to indicate it was not a one-off, and seem to show it had been going on for a number of years. *THE* question therefore has to be how much did people in authority at the BBC know in that period, and whether their attitude was first and foremost to cover up to avoid a scandal and hope for the best. Where have we heard that before? There is also the safeguarding issue - both for Huw Edwards himself, and for young people possibly affected by his behaviour. I have sympathy with him as regards the mental health aspect, but all the more one has to ask why help for him wasn't forthcoming much earlier? I really and genuinely hate to find myself defending the Sun, especially regarding such a matter and with the BBC. But ultimately, the Sun are the ones who brought the matter to a head and hopefully now Mr Edwards can get the help he needs. Presumably the family told them what they had originally told the BBC, and one can only wonder why they acted upon such information immediately, whilst the BBC..... didn't? Yes, maybe the Murdoch empire wish to undermine the BBC, but my God, sometimes the BBC really shoot themselves in the foot and make their job easy! Are you saying that all relationships with a age gap of some level or other should now be criminalised? That a person of 50 having a relationship with a person aged 25 is automatically wrong even if they are both happy with it? Someone over 18 is an adult by law and responsible for their own actions. What their parents think of them or their behavour is a complete irrelevance. It's the nature of the relationship that is more important than the absolute age gap. A 60 year old in a stable consensual relationship with a 20 year old (regardless of sex) is one thing - paying huge sums of money (used to fund a drug habit) as "reward" for sending explicit photograps is a very different matter. And that's before even thinking about the other two individuals who have come forward. And are there others? As for the last sentence, then the law is one thing, but are you really saying that the right thing for the parents to have done - seeing their son falling deeper and deeper into his drug addiction - would have just been to say "oh well, he's over 18"!? Please! |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 19:48:55 GMT
You miss the point entirely. That position is shared by some parties. The problem arises when they all agree on something that a big proportion of the population doesn't. Brexit was just one example. There are plenty of others. Yeah, but just remember that many of this 'big proportion of the population' are now dead. They shafted the country and then popped their clogs. Very few young people support brexit. Some leavers now see sense and regret it. It is a falling percentage who think brexit was good, just done badly, but they can't offer anything constructive to fix it -- apart from blame immigrants.
Brexit is dying.
You need to face reality. Even if one of the major parties (and I include anyone with few seats but a lot of support - e.g. Greens) was to campaign energetically to rejoin the EU and won the election, that won't happen until 2029 at the earliest. Then there would be years of negotiations at the end of which we might get turned down anyway. You can carry on moaning for the rest of your life or get used to it. Or perhaps you're hoping that Starmer will do one of his famous U-turns, thus shortening the process a bit. And as I said to the other chap, the original point was that when there is a consensus among the main parties on some variation of a particular policy that a significant number of the population oppose their will be problems. Brexit was just an example. There are others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 19:59:02 GMT
It seems remarkable to me - though it is probably quite common - that the most prudish person on this site seems also to be the most prurient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 20:01:09 GMT
mercian “ I'd be interested in your definition of 'progressive'. As far as I can see the Greens want us to go back to the Stone Age.” Given their name I expect they will be okay with some grass. But otherwise you’re probably dead right - as usual - that is deffo what they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 12, 2023 20:02:44 GMT
Yeah, but just remember that many of this 'big proportion of the population' are now dead. They shafted the country and then popped their clogs. Very few young people support brexit. Some leavers now see sense and regret it. It is a falling percentage who think brexit was good, just done badly, but they can't offer anything constructive to fix it -- apart from blame immigrants.
Brexit is dying.
You need to face reality. Even if one of the major parties (and I include anyone with few seats but a lot of support - e.g. Greens) was to campaign energetically to rejoin the EU and won the election, that won't happen until 2029 at the earliest. Then there would be years of negotiations at the end of which we might get turned down anyway. You can carry on moaning for the rest of your life or get used to it. Or perhaps you're hoping that Starmer will do one of his famous U-turns, thus shortening the process a bit. And as I said to the other chap, the original point was that when their is a consensus among the main parties on some variation of a particular policy that a significant number of the population oppose their will be problems. Brexit was just an example. There are others. I agree with much of that. Doubtless there will be many on the Continent who now take the view that De Gaulle was right all along to block UK membership back in the 1960s. Unanimous agreement to our readmittance to the EU seems pretty unlikely for decades to come - though I do expect to see incremental movement to closer realignment over time. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:03:04 GMT
A modern reintroduction could include safeguards such as DNA evidence being an absolute requirement. But you're still in favour of the government murdering its own citizens on your behalf. Well not on mine. What was the point of keeping the Moors Murderers locked up for decades (as just one example)? They were never going to be released. It would have been a lot cheaper to execute them, and possibly more merciful too. Besides, I've been looking for a little part-time job in my retirement. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jul 12, 2023 20:06:59 GMT
Are you saying that all relationships with a age gap of some level or other should now be criminalised? That a person of 50 having a relationship with a person aged 25 is automatically wrong even if they are both happy with it? Someone over 18 is an adult by law and responsible for their own actions. What their parents think of them or their behavour is a complete irrelevance. It's the nature of the relationship that is more important than the absolute age gap. A 60 year old in a stable consensual relationship with a 20 year old (regardless of sex) is one thing - paying huge sums of money (used to fund a drug habit) as "reward" for sending explicit photograps is a very different matter. And that's before even thinking about the other two individuals who have come forward. And are there others? As for the last sentence, then the law is one thing, but are you really saying that the right thing for the parents to have done - seeing their son falling deeper and deeper into his drug addiction - would have just been to say "oh well, he's over 18"!? Please! I think there are better mechanisms for rebuilding toxic parent-child (or parent-grown offspring) relationships than a Ruper Murdoch "rag". Let's leave it there. The demise of the red tops is no bad thing. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Jul 12, 2023 20:08:26 GMT
It's the nature of the relationship that is more important than the absolute age gap. A 60 year old in a stable consensual relationship with a 20 year old (regardless of sex) is one thing - paying huge sums of money (used to fund a drug habit) as "reward" for sending explicit photograps is a very different matter. And that's before even thinking about the other two individuals who have come forward. And are there others? See my reply above, I dont see any difference between city traders spending their earnings on drugs and partying, or a photographic model. I mean, its kinda obvious that people are more likely to want good photos rather than bad ones, and in this context an 18 year old is likely a better model than an 80 year old. And Britain is full of teenagers of all teen-ages sending explicit pictures (usually of themselves) to others for free. Go ask a headmaster. Going to put them all in prison? Or blame the inventor of the mobile phone? Strikes me most kids do not end up as drug addicts. Most do not end up selling pictures of themselves naked. I feel that by saying that, I am being forced to blame this particular person, which I do not wish to do. In a situation where a split like this exists between parents and offspring, it seems likely the problem arose much earlier, before said offspring separated from those parents. Its very obvious they do not approve of this relationship. It seems likely they would never have approved of anything like this relationship or their offspring's choices. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:14:31 GMT
Re: the discussion on the Death Penalty if killing people is wrong, how is it made right by killing another person? Killing people is not necessarily wrong - e.g. Ukranians killing people invading their country. Murder is wrong. Judicial execution rids society of serious criminals who may well repeat the crime if ever released. In my imagination (because restoration will probably never happen) it would be reserved for most serious cases - serial or mass murderers or child-killers. DNA evidence would be mandatory for a death sentence. It wouldn't be considered for e.g. a wife who premeditates killing an abusive husband by keeping a bread knife under her pillow. Here's a report from the USA on released murderers doing it again. www.researchgate.net/publication/308750475_Released_to_Kill_Again_An_Analysis_of_Paroled_Murderers_Who_Murder_Again_While_on_Parole |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:16:26 GMT
Just to break the UKPR2 bubble and relate a tale of 'real politics'. I have had 115 messages today (since 12.15) on the Braintree Labour whatsapp group concerning the single most important political event of the day - namely the Conservative administration of Braintree DC's decision to impose charges for the kerbside collection of green garden waste. It has spawned a petition on change.org, a catchy name (Tory Bin Tax) and a somewhat tetchy row between some Labour members who take different views on the subject. Councils are broke. All of them. Increasing charges for non-statutory services is a necessity to stave off bankruptcy. Almost all councils charge for green waste - mine introduced them 6 or 7 years ago. In the unlikely event that Labour takes control of Braintree DC they certainly won't be repealing these charges. My council's solid Labour and has introduced a charge for green waste. £38/year for us. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 12, 2023 20:17:40 GMT
An interesting perspective, and a surprisingly Starmer-sympathetic one from an unexpected source. The Guardian's Economics Editor and well known Lexiteer, Larry Elliott is not normally someone one who would endorse a Blairite-esque approach to Labour politics. In fact, he has in the past been vaguely sympathetic to Corbyn's version of what Labour should be. Here's an interesting extract from an article he wrote in today's Guardian. They are his concluding two paragraphs: - "If they are smart, Starmer and Reeves will take control of the economic narrative, blaming Tory mismanagement for any tough decisions that have to be made. This approach worked a treat for David Cameron and George Osborne in 2010, when they pinned the blame for the coalition government’s austerity measures on Gordon Brown’s alleged profligacy.
The deferred-gratification approach won’t be popular with those who say a Labour government needs to think bigger, but let’s be realistic. There will be no radical economic departures from a Starmer government, and if it went into the next election proposing anything that seriously challenged the orthodoxy – Bank of England independence and tight control of the public finances, for example – Labour would probably lose. Sometimes you have to win – and govern – ugly."He does mention some caveats and reservations that he still has in the full article (link below) but it suggests to me that the soft Left within Labour, if we think Elliott represents that strand of centre left opinion, are doing maybe two things here. Firstly, where before they were hedging their bets, maybe seeing where it might all be heading before committing any sort of approval, they are now confident that Labour will win and are positioning themselves accordingly. This is the magnetism of impending power at play, I think. Everybody likes to be the one who backs the winner. Secondly, there may well be an acceptance too that, in current socio-economic and political circumstances, Starmer's cautious route to power might be the only one available to Labour. The spectacular and scenic routes up the high electoral mountain, some may say heroic ones, have precipitous sheer drops either side and exceedingly narrow pathways. Starmer is taking the safer Llanberis route up Snowden, not Crib Goch. His arch critics may even say that he's taking the train up the mountain and shedding lots of passengers at stations en route! Put another way, with a few exceptions, they're all coming on board for the last leg of the journey. No choice but to do otherwise I suppose considering Starmer's firm, some might say, authoritarian, grip on his party. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/12/economic-tories-labour-general-election-britain-keir-starmer |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:21:33 GMT
Crikey, so many good posts this morning. What's not to like??? 😉🤣 Don't worry. I'm making up for it in the evening! |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:25:13 GMT
A modern reintroduction could include safeguards such as DNA evidence being an absolute requirement. Another demonstration that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense. Identical twins have the same DNA and I believe there was a case in the USA where a man was convicted on DNA evidence of a crime that was actually committed by his twin brother. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:27:13 GMT
It reached 8bn on November 15, 2022 ( UN) There are some pretty big error bars on all population projections, and what usually gets quoted is the median. What is uncontroversial though is that in almost all developed countries the birth rate is well below replacement rate (which is about 2.1 children per woman) and by the end of this century about half of the world's population will be living in one continent - Africa. The other half will have come here in small boats 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:31:27 GMT
Crikey, so many good posts this morning. What's not to like??? 😉🤣 Well, I am rather missing the analysis of the 1931 election which didn’t go on half long enough for me.  Your posts often make me smile, but that one brought an outright chuckle. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:36:59 GMT
Just on reproduction, having children is not a problem but having more than two is. If no one had more than two children, and given some people would have one or none, the world population would fall. To achieve this needs women to have equality, education and control over their own bodies through access to contraception and abortion. The evidence is clear that where this applies women choose to have fewer children (no draconian state intervention needed). The 'new right' are of course fighting hard against all of that. That all made sense until the last sentence. Who are the 'new right'? Are they everywhere? Are you talking about the UK? Perhaps you could give a link to your conspiracy theory website. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:38:59 GMT
I agree, all politics is local is often quoted, this is very true at ward level campaigning. We found that while we were doing lots of things locally we were not telling people about them and that allowed the local Tory room to take photos of himself pointing at a few things that needed doing and complaining in Facebook posts and a couple of leaflets. The result was that on the doorstep people were saying look at him he is doing all of this and what are you (Labour) doing. This is despite the fact that he never reported the issues and left that to the Labour councillors who actually got them sorted! So since the May elections, where the Tories cut the Labour majority to 101, against national trends we have changed tack and every time we report an issue we are writing to the residents who are effected by the issue and following this up with a second letter to say what the out come has been, 90% of the time it is to report that it has been fixed. Our next ward wide leaflet will include a map with pins dropped where Labour activists have reported problems and taken action and where the Tories have claimed to report things. As it stands the score is 84 interventions by Labour and two by others, both of these were not followed up and were finally sorted after Labour reported them. Good that the local Tory has caused the council to up their game. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 12, 2023 20:48:12 GMT
Re the Huw Edwards story, we still don't know all the facts of it, but this is what we do know
When the Sun first reported the story they claimed the naked pictures were taken when the 'victim' was 17, this would have been a criminal offence
The Police today said there was no evidence of any criminal offences
So the Sun or the family either lied or were mistaken about that
We also know the 'victim's' lawyer contacted the Sun on Friday to say the story was rubbish, that no illegality or even inappropriate behaviour took place
Despite knowing that the Sun continued it's extensive coverage of it for the next 4 days without once mentioning this salient point. At the very least it is a gross failure of even basic journalistic standards to not give the rebuttal
With that in mind I would take the rest of their story with a large pinch of salt, including the drug taking. It may or may not out have happened, but due to the Sun's poor reporting in this matter and their lies at other times I certainly wouldn't trust the Sun's version unless it was independently verified
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 12, 2023 20:50:20 GMT
I agreed with most of the rest of your post but really?? You'd seriously prioritise taking refugees over the right of existing citizens to have children! I'm flabbergasted. Good luck getting that policy through democratically. Or perhaps you're anticipating a dictatorship following a revolution? I suppose we'd need loads of refugees to police the restive native population? . If the human population is to be reduced dramatically I think it would be worth making an effort to preserve its genetic and cultural diversity. I doubt it'll play out that way - the pressure on land and other resources will probably prove too great - but I would like to hope that before the situation deteriorates too much there could be some kind of international accord under which the more habitable nations agree to take a certain number of people from countries that are going to be inundated or too hot. You should bear in mind that I also think it's worth making an effort to preserve the planet's biodiversity more generally. Not just for all the practical reasons, but because I think that the myriad species and incredibly complex ecosystems that are the outcome of billions of years of evolution are fascinating and wonderful and it would be a shame if they were wiped out by our addiction to carbon. I'm a quality over quantity person on this. I'd much rather the future was one in which the human population was 4 or 5 billion and everyone had a reasonable quality of life. I'd also much rather we got to that figure by imposing restrictions on reproduction than through wars over resources, diseases, heat-related mortality or shooting people at borders. As I said in my original post, I don't have any brilliant ideas for achieving this. I suppose I'd say the very first step towards a managed reduction in population would be for it to become a topic for serious discussion, because without public discussion there is no chance of building social consent... So wouldn't it be logical to encourage reductions on reproduction in the place where it is highest - i.e. Africa, than here, where reproduction is already way below replacement rate? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,568
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 12, 2023 20:50:24 GMT
Are you saying that all relationships with a age gap of some level or other should now be criminalised? That a person of 50 having a relationship with a person aged 25 is automatically wrong even if they are both happy with it? Someone over 18 is an adult by law and responsible for their own actions. What their parents think of them or their behavour is a complete irrelevance. It's the nature of the relationship that is more important than the absolute age gap. A 60 year old in a stable consensual relationship with a 20 year old (regardless of sex) is one thing - paying huge sums of money (used to fund a drug habit) as "reward" for sending explicit photograps is a very different matter. And that's before even thinking about the other two individuals who have come forward. And are there others? As for the last sentence, then the law is one thing, but are you really saying that the right thing for the parents to have done - seeing their son falling deeper and deeper into his drug addiction - would have just been to say "oh well, he's over 18"!? Please! As to the first paragraph, what consenting adults do is their business, not mine, not yours, not the Sun's or the BBCs. No law was broken and I don't have much time for people moralising about other's legal behaviour. On the second point, yes parents might want to help an adult offspring with drug addiction - but running off to the Sun and blabbering about it in direct contradiction of their son's wishes and after they had already been told by the police that there was no case to answer seems a mighty odd way of going about that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 20:51:26 GMT
Crikey, so many good posts this morning. What's not to like??? 😉🤣 Don't worry. I'm making up for it in the evening! We really rely on you for negative balance Pete. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 20:53:28 GMT
Well, I am rather missing the analysis of the 1931 election which didn’t go on half long enough for me. Your posts often make me smile, but that one brought an outright chuckle. 👍 I’m honoured Pete. (All yours make me chuckle.  ) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 12, 2023 20:56:45 GMT
The Sun desperately trying to back pedal from what they said, unfortunately for them the truth is out there for everyone to see
|
|
)