Mental Health

[Mike Hunt]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

This weirdo has received more sexual harrassment allegations while working at the BBC than any other person in television – period! Known for getting his cock out in public view on numerous occasions... from someone who has spent much of his career presenting BBC flagship kid's TV show 'Live & Kicking', as well as popular all-ages, pre-watershed family shows 'Strictly Come Dancing' and 'Holby City'. You couldn't make it up.

Can you think of any other human being, whether in the public eye and funded by the pubic or not, who'd keep their job after exposing themself at work on so many occasions? Would someone with a 'normal' office job be returing to their desk the following day after conversing with colleagues with their knob hanging out?

Un-fucking-believable. Only at the BBC. He must have something on someone, other than his penis resting on a shoulder.

Jimmy Savile.

[Mrs Roops]

20 hours ago, Wolfie said:

I notice the BBC has carefully been 'losing' this week's Huw Edwards revelations by not publishing anything further about its ongoing "investigation" into him, while allowing what has been published to gently fall away in its news listings. In addition to its recent (and somewhat timely) Dele Alli 'mental illness' narrative, I see today there's another story about the 'mental struggles' of boxer Josh Kelly on the Beeb's website... well, this comes as a surprise!

To me, this past week's spluttering commentary about the BBC 'star' and his alleged sexual misconduct has revealed just how deep the hypocrisy of our woke elite runs; the same people who would happily point the finger of racism or homophobia at you for an off-colour joke think it's outrageous that The Sun has reported the incredibly serious allegations levelled at Edwards. The same people who obsess over the most minor wrongdoings seem to think claims about a rich and powerful man using his taxpayer-funded salary to buy sex pics from a teenage crack addict should not be in the 'public interest'. (This goes back to what @Snowy & myself were saying the other day, @Mrs Roops.)

All because they – and I refer directly to the BBC and its broadsheet cousin The Guardian – wish to use Edwards as another stick with which to beat the tabloid press. Do they realise how ridiculous they sound, and that most people can see through them? Perhaps they simply don't care.

How about another BBC 'mental health' sympathy stance on former star radio presenter Tim Westwood, who just days ago was interviewed by police for a third time for alleged sexual misconduct while employed at White City studios?

The BBC is so full of its own shit that it actually defies belief, and I have little doubt Huw Edwards would still be getting paid £440,000 for reading autocues in his underpants had the The Sun not had the balls to go for the jugular. Clearly, right-wing tabloids still have an important role to play in our woke society. 

There is a difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. That said, I don't know why you've name-dropped me as my comments thus far on the recent press furore have concentrated on protecting The Corner from receiving letters from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne. Hold on a minute as I change hats...

--o0o--

Your post is at best misplaced and reeks of the bar room. Firstly, the Sun, whose Sunday edition, formerly known as the News of The World before the title was quickly dropped for outrageous and criminal behaviour, is no stranger to bashing its' competitors, sometimes for the most spurious and hypocritical of reasons. 

You've made the point that Edwards' salary is taxpayer-funded. My reaction to that is so what? Are we now given to understand that every taxpayer-funded employee (17% of the UK workforce) should now be subject to scrutiny by the morality police? What Edwards or any other public employee chooses to spend their salary on (criminality not withstanding) is none of our business. 

I think the whole Edwards/BBC charade of investigation by social media, pearl-clutchers and hysterical press are asking the wrong questions. Why did the young man's family first approach Edwards' employer and then the Sun newspaper? Surely, if criminality was involved the first port of call would be the police? I would also be asking if the Sun opened it's chequebook to secure the story.

You've mentioned Tim Westwood and the "BBC mental health stance"; granted I spent only a couple of seconds looking for this "stance" and came up with nothing. The only reference to mental health I could find was an Independent enquiry commissioned by the BBC offering mental health support to witnesses who were affected by reliving their encounter with Westwood.

Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.

[Mrs Roops]

41 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

Jimmy Savile.

The Savile case does have a dimension that falls into the scope "of public interest" as a number of his victims were procured on BBC premises. The BBC knew or at least were aware of his behaviour and owed a duty of care to the young people who featured in televised shows involving him.

[Penny Farthing]

24 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

There is a difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. That said, I don't know why you've name-dropped me as my comments thus far on the recent press furore have concentrated on protecting The Corner from receiving letters from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne. Hold on a minute as I change hats...

--o0o--

Your post is at best misplaced and reeks of the bar room. Firstly, the Sun, whose Sunday edition, formerly known as the News of The World before the title was quickly dropped for outrageous and criminal behaviour, is no stranger to bashing its' competitors, sometimes for the most spurious and hypocritical of reasons. 

You've made the point that Edwards' salary is taxpayer-funded. My reaction to that is so what? Are we now given to understand that every taxpayer-funded employee (17% of the UK workforce) should now be subject to scrutiny by the morality police? What Edwards or any other public employee chooses to spend their salary on (criminality not withstanding) is none of our business. 

I think the whole Edwards/BBC charade of investigation by social media, pearl-clutchers and hysterical press are asking the wrong questions. Why did the young man's family first approach Edwards' employer and then the Sun newspaper? Surely, if criminality was involved the first port of call would be the police? I would also be asking if the Sun opened it's chequebook to secure the story.

You've mentioned Tim Westwood and the "BBC mental health stance"; granted I spent only a couple of seconds looking for this "stance" and came up with nothing. The only reference to mental health I could find was an Independent enquiry commissioned by the BBC offering mental health support to witnesses who were affected by reliving their encounter with Westwood.

Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.

Up until around 20 years ago THE SUN was posting sexualised pictures of girls of 16 and sometimes younger indeed the when Murdoch took the paper over he built up its huge readership by posting such pictures on page three and the Daily Mirror (former owners of The Scum) soon copied him. Pictures of16 year old girls were frequesnt amougst those of 18 and 19 year olds  and neither paper seemed afraid to also post similar pictures of semi-attired 15 and sometimes 14 year old girls at the slightest excuse. On social media I am seeing dirty old men of 75+ ranting about Huw Edwards behaviour and then on following posts reposting Page 3 images from 50 years olf of what would now would be classed as undergage girls. Yes Huw Edwards behaviour was wrong but it does not match what the likes of Savile and some of the others were up to.

[The Beast]

23 minutes ago, Penny Farthing said:

Up until around 20 years ago THE SUN was posting sexualised pictures of girls of 16 and sometimes younger indeed the when Murdoch took the paper over he built up its huge readership by posting such pictures on page three and the Daily Mirror (former owners of The Scum) soon copied him. Pictures of16 year old girls were frequesnt amougst those of 18 and 19 year olds  and neither paper seemed afraid to also post similar pictures of semi-attired 15 and sometimes 14 year old girls at the slightest excuse. On social media I am seeing dirty old men of 75+ ranting about Huw Edwards behaviour and then on following posts reposting Page 3 images from 50 years olf of what would now would be classed as undergage girls. Yes Huw Edwards behaviour was wrong but it does not match what the likes of Savile and some of the others were up to.

He wasn't raping people in hospital beds as per Savile, but his actions were still predatory. The mindset is not dissimilar.

The page 3 topless pictures are false equivalence. Had another shitty rag made the Edwards allegations it wouldn't be of consequence. It's just the usual see through libtard deflection tactic.

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, Mrs Roops said:

There is a difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. That said, I don't know why you've name-dropped me as my comments thus far on the recent press furore have concentrated on protecting The Corner from receiving letters from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne. Hold on a minute as I change hats...

--o0o--

Your post is at best misplaced and reeks of the bar room. Firstly, the Sun, whose Sunday edition, formerly known as the News of The World before the title was quickly dropped for outrageous and criminal behaviour, is no stranger to bashing its' competitors, sometimes for the most spurious and hypocritical of reasons. 

You've made the point that Edwards' salary is taxpayer-funded. My reaction to that is so what? Are we now given to understand that every taxpayer-funded employee (17% of the UK workforce) should now be subject to scrutiny by the morality police? What Edwards or any other public employee chooses to spend their salary on (criminality not withstanding) is none of our business. 

I think the whole Edwards/BBC charade of investigation by social media, pearl-clutchers and hysterical press are asking the wrong questions. Why did the young man's family first approach Edwards' employer and then the Sun newspaper? Surely, if criminality was involved the first port of call would be the police? I would also be asking if the Sun opened it's chequebook to secure the story.

You've mentioned Tim Westwood and the "BBC mental health stance"; granted I spent only a couple of seconds looking for this "stance" and came up with nothing. The only reference to mental health I could find was an Independent enquiry commissioned by the BBC offering mental health support to witnesses who were affected by reliving their encounter with Westwood.

Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.

As long as mugs believe the man on the telly, this is very much in the public interest.

[Penny Farthing]

24 minutes ago, The Beast said:

He wasn't raping people in hospital beds as per Savile, but his actions were still predatory. The mindset is not dissimilar.

The page 3 topless pictures are false equivalence. Had another shitty rag made the Edwards allegations it wouldn't be of consequence. It's just the usual see through libtard deflection tactic.

Was it on the level of this charmer .. a former Mayor Exmouth? Not sure about the use of the word Libtard .. my thoughts are in the case of Mr Humpreys and other similar cases are that rather than tormenting them with long prison sentences I would give them a nice terminal dose of Morphine. This is actually only one of a few similar cases with council members in the county of Devon. It does appear that certain sections of public life allow these people to flourish in plain sight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58286528

Former Exmouth mayor who sexually abused two boys jailed for 21 years

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

There is a difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. That said, I don't know why you've name-dropped me as my comments thus far on the recent press furore have concentrated on protecting The Corner from receiving letters from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne. Hold on a minute as I change hats...

--o0o--

Your post is at best misplaced and reeks of the bar room. Firstly, the Sun, whose Sunday edition, formerly known as the News of The World before the title was quickly dropped for outrageous and criminal behaviour, is no stranger to bashing its' competitors, sometimes for the most spurious and hypocritical of reasons. 

You've made the point that Edwards' salary is taxpayer-funded. My reaction to that is so what? Are we now given to understand that every taxpayer-funded employee (17% of the UK workforce) should now be subject to scrutiny by the morality police? What Edwards or any other public employee chooses to spend their salary on (criminality not withstanding) is none of our business. 

I think the whole Edwards/BBC charade of investigation by social media, pearl-clutchers and hysterical press are asking the wrong questions. Why did the young man's family first approach Edwards' employer and then the Sun newspaper? Surely, if criminality was involved the first port of call would be the police? I would also be asking if the Sun opened it's chequebook to secure the story.

You've mentioned Tim Westwood and the "BBC mental health stance"; granted I spent only a couple of seconds looking for this "stance" and came up with nothing. The only reference to mental health I could find was an Independent enquiry commissioned by the BBC offering mental health support to witnesses who were affected by reliving their encounter with Westwood.

Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.

Why do you continue to defend the BBC? They're ripping people off while abusing their power, mostly through manipulation of news rather than being impartial. While I wholeheartedly understand the defamatory aspect, and I genuinely express my gratitude to you for keeping this unique site's survival in mind, you'll be hardly surprised when I say I don't agree. And I name-dropped you for obvious reasons... so get off your high horse, especially as you responded directly to my previous comment! Let me keep this really simple (as to why this fiasco ought to be in the public eye, and the end of the BBC's modus operandi as we know it).

--o0o--

Edwards' behaviour is a clear abuse of power. If a teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker et al. was to engage in such behaviour they would quite rightly be struck off. Agreed?

As a mother (perhaps your kids are older than teens now), you must have experienced their vulnerability at most stages of their lives, so what a shame both you – and the BBC & Guardian lefties – haven't expressed much thought about the effect Edwards' actions have had on these teens and their families... you have offered sympathy only for the Edwards family. Come on! The fact The Sun had its cheque book out is irrelevant. Facts are facts, and facts about a trusted public sector worker buying sex pics from a teenager should be brought to the attention of the public, especially as the enforcement of the licence fee pays Edwards' hugely inflated half a million quid wages. You reap what you sow, Huw.

I utterly resent having to pay a TV Licence to watch not just the BBC but other channels on the back of this ongoing legal extortion. All the money you pay is lining the pockets of the BBC elite, Huw Edwards included. People are sick of it. It's time the BBC was decompartmentalised and made into a subscription-only service, as with other leading channels such as Sky. Would it survive? Who cares! People buy because they want the service; the BBC knows damn well it'd be the end of it (as we know it) if such a private route was taken, thanks to the likes of Linekar, Vine and Edwards et al. So why do you continue to support them? Times have changed.

And, again, the £440,000 this makeup-clad (and probably spunk-clad) tosser is paid to read the news is absolutely obscene! On the back of your comment, let me ask you a question: when Schofield had a relationship with a youngster, and tried to conceal it, which caused him an acrimonious public outing, he cried "mental health" and no one cared. So how and why is Huw and the BBC any different? Are you showing him more support than you otherwise might because he's Welsh?

[camberwell gypsy]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Why do you continue to defend the BBC? They're ripping people off while abusing their power, mostly through manipulation of news rather than being impartial. While I wholeheartedly understand the defamatory aspect, and I genuinely express my gratitude to you for keeping this unique site's survival in mind, you'll be hardly surprised when I say I don't agree. And I name-dropped you for obvious reasons... so get off your high horse, especially as you responded directly to my previous comment! Let me keep this really simple (as to why this fiasco ought to be in the public eye, and the end of the BBC's modus operandi as we know it).

--o0o--

Edwards' behaviour is a clear abuse of power. If a teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker et al. was to engage in such behaviour they would quite rightly be struck off. Agreed?

As a mother (perhaps your kids are older than teens now), you must have experienced their vulnerability at most stages of their lives, so what a shame both you – and the BBC & Guardian lefties – haven't expressed much thought about the effect Edwards' actions have had on these teens and their families... you have offered sympathy only for the Edwards family. Come on! The fact The Sun had its cheque book out is irrelevant. Facts are facts, and facts about a trusted public sector worker buying sex pics from a teenager should be brought to the attention of the public, especially as the enforcement of the licence fee pays Edwards' hugely inflated half a million quid wages. You reap what you sow, Huw.

I utterly resent having to pay a TV Licence to watch not just the BBC but other channels on the back of this ongoing legal extortion. All the money you pay is lining the pockets of the BBC elite, Huw Edwards included. People are sick of it. It's time the BBC was decompartmentalised and made into a subscription-only service, as with other leading channels such as Sky. Would it survive? Who cares! People buy because they want the service; the BBC knows damn well it'd be the end of it (as we know it) if such a private route was taken, thanks to the likes of Linekar, Vine and Edwards et al. So why do you continue to support them? Times have changed.

And, again, the £440,000 this makeup-clad (and probably spunk-clad) tosser is paid to read the news is absolutely obscene! On the back of your comment, let me ask you a question: when Schofield had a relationship with a youngster, and tried to conceal it, which caused him an acrimonious public outing, he cried "mental health" and no one cared. So how and why is Huw and the BBC any different? Are you showing him more support than you otherwise might because he's Welsh?

Excellent Wolfie. If I could give you 5 likes I would. What pisses me off most about the British Broadcasting Commies is the fact they have a statue of a naked child on the front of broadcasting house, sculptured by a cunt who sexually assaulted his daughters and fucked the family dog. But hey! He was an artist and what he did privately should have no bearing on his work. Despite the fact the statue is of a naked child. 

Fuck the BBC. 

[Cuntybaws]

4 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

they have a statue of a naked child on the front of broadcasting house

That would have been removed years ago if it had been an old white philanthropist with tenuous links to the cotton trade.

[Mike Hunt]

3 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

Excellent Wolfie. If I could give you 5 likes I would. What pisses me off most about the British Broadcasting Commies is the fact they have a statue of a naked child on the front of broadcasting house, sculptured by a cunt who sexually assaulted his daughters and fucked the family dog. But hey! He was an artist and what he did privately should have no bearing on his work. Despite the fact the statue is of a naked child. 

Fuck the BBC. 

While of course they eagerly reported those woke wankers hauling the Colston statue into the dock.  Colston did many things that benefited the people of Bristol and I for one will always refer to its legendary music venue as the Colston Hall.

[and]

2 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Why do you continue to defend the BBC?

 

2 hours ago, Wolfie said:

I utterly resent having to pay a TV Licence to watch not just the BBC but other channels on the back of this ongoing legal extortion.

Why are you still paying the licence fee?

Are you so addicted to the drivel they churn out that you can't stop switching it on every evening?

Don't give me that bullshit about it being 'the law' and you're compelled to cough up, just stop paying the cunts or stop fuckin' whining about it.

BTW, fuck knows when you have time to watch the tv anyway, you're on here spouting your bigoted nonsense 24/7.

You thick, hypocritical cunt.

[King Billy]

7 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Are you showing him more support than you otherwise might because he's Welsh?

Or maybe because she’s an insufferable, never been wrong about anything ever, expert on every subject under the sun, far too clever for MENSA, Olympic class wanker, so you better just shut up or else?

[Mrs Roops]

19 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Why do you continue to defend the BBC? They're ripping people off while abusing their power, mostly through manipulation of news rather than being impartial. While I wholeheartedly understand the defamatory aspect, and I genuinely express my gratitude to you for keeping this unique site's survival in mind, you'll be hardly surprised when I say I don't agree. And I name-dropped you for obvious reasons... so get off your high horse, especially as you responded directly to my previous comment! Let me keep this really simple (as to why this fiasco ought to be in the public eye, and the end of the BBC's modus operandi as we know it).

--o0o--

Edwards' behaviour is a clear abuse of power. If a teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker et al. was to engage in such behaviour they would quite rightly be struck off. Agreed?

As a mother (perhaps your kids are older than teens now), you must have experienced their vulnerability at most stages of their lives, so what a shame both you – and the BBC & Guardian lefties – haven't expressed much thought about the effect Edwards' actions have had on these teens and their families... you have offered sympathy only for the Edwards family. Come on! The fact The Sun had its cheque book out is irrelevant. Facts are facts, and facts about a trusted public sector worker buying sex pics from a teenager should be brought to the attention of the public, especially as the enforcement of the licence fee pays Edwards' hugely inflated half a million quid wages. You reap what you sow, Huw.

I utterly resent having to pay a TV Licence to watch not just the BBC but other channels on the back of this ongoing legal extortion. All the money you pay is lining the pockets of the BBC elite, Huw Edwards included. People are sick of it. It's time the BBC was decompartmentalised and made into a subscription-only service, as with other leading channels such as Sky. Would it survive? Who cares! People buy because they want the service; the BBC knows damn well it'd be the end of it (as we know it) if such a private route was taken, thanks to the likes of Linekar, Vine and Edwards et al. So why do you continue to support them? Times have changed.

And, again, the £440,000 this makeup-clad (and probably spunk-clad) tosser is paid to read the news is absolutely obscene! On the back of your comment, let me ask you a question: when Schofield had a relationship with a youngster, and tried to conceal it, which caused him an acrimonious public outing, he cried "mental health" and no one cared. So how and why is Huw and the BBC any different? Are you showing him more support than you otherwise might because he's Welsh?

...so after making a bogus claim about the BBC's mental health "stance" you're now carrying on in the same vein whilst keeping this "really simple".

Firstly, you've made the claim that I continuously defend the BBC with the strong inference that I'm a BBC/Guardian type lefty. Actually, I'm on record on having a jaundiced view of the BBC but I always endeavour to be objective in my assessment of the Corporation's news reporting.

On 28/02/2020 at 10:18, Mrs Roops said:

With both wings of the political spectrum accusing The BBC of bias towards the other side, one can be fairly sure the broadcaster is trying to be as even-handed as possible. But yes, with charter renewal looming the corporation seem to be stepping up a gear. That said, the new Director General really, really needs to do something about the bloated management structure and to temper the wokeness that seems rife in all facets of the BBC's operation.

There are many more posts where I have criticised the BBC's top-heavy management structure and the resultant lazy journalism that occurs by replacing specialists with generalist reporters which has resulted in merging the World Service, news reporting and the current affairs divisions mainly at the expense of the once superb local and regional news hubs. FTR I have stated that my personal political philosophy is towards the right of the political spectrum (with soft libertarian values), have zero tolerance for third wave feminism and my position on gender politics is similar to J K Rowling's.

You then go on to make the risible claim that the possibility of chequebook journalism is "irrelevant". Of course its relevant as it calls into question the motivation of the young man's family, more so when calling in the police was the last port of call. As for the young man, very little is known - he could be a lost soul driven to desperation to obtain funds to feed an out of control habit yet he seems quite adept in monetising his body parts which begs the question has he had prior experience in dealing with weak men, in which case who was exercising "power"? All we know is that no criminality took place so not our business. Let the the two families, one of which is clearly dysfunctional, sort themselves out - hopefully with health professionals.

[Last Cunt Standing]

On 16/07/2023 at 17:57, Mrs Roops said:

Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.

Amen. Anyone who thinks differently at this point I suspect has a rather rusty anti-BBC axe to grind. The size of the inevitable libel payout is already the talk of the locker rooms at the Inns of Court, though I suspect Old Rupe will consider it worth every penny if he keeps the BBC in the crosshairs. The possibility that commercial broadcasters might want to neuter the Beeb as the only resistance to their own pernicious news agenda seems to pass so many people by. I’m also astonished that so many people who spend so much time wrapping themselves in the flag seem to so keenly trash a source of considerable British soft power heard around the world. 

Those still waving their pitchforks whine about vulnerable teens and abuse of power. There is of course much we don’t know about how Huw met this young person. Doctors, teachers and other public servants are rightly in trouble if they abuse their position to solicit sex or sexual services from people they have professional contact with. But if a fiftysomething teacher in Dumfries strikes up an internet relationship on Grinder with an 18 year old man he doesn’t know in Truro, no crime has been committed. The regulators would soon be overwhelmed if every publicly funded employee who ever purchased internet porn from an adult provider was referred to them to be “struck off”. That indeed is the police’s view in this case. Once “no crime” was the outcome, the story surely died and it’s interesting to note The Sun’s editorial board have already called in a small army of KCs for insulation. The young person appears to have protested at his parentally-imposed victimhood, and it’s worth reminding ourselves he himself made no complaint of improper conduct. How this constitutes an abuse of power is a bit of a mystery to me. Pip Schofield had the additional problem of relations with a young employee. I’m not aware the BBC Newsroom is shared by the parties in the Edwards case.  

Some might be morally queasy at these events. They might be angry at the licence fee model or the salaries some people earn in the BBC. These are often long-standing grievances, and might well be driving some of the outrage. But those are surely entirely different debates which don’t need polluting with pearl-clutching “won’t someone think of the children!” bluster, which is as fatuous as it is transparent. If those still outraged want to turn their fire on the likes of Grinder, OnlyFans, Snapchat and TikTok, which are facilitating many relationships which would seem to mirror this one, good luck to you. 

[Wolfie]

5 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

...so after making a bogus claim about the BBC's mental health "stance" you're now carrying on in the same vein whilst keeping this "really simple".

Firstly, you've made the claim that I continuously defend the BBC with the strong inference that I'm a BBC/Guardian type lefty. Actually, I'm on record on having a jaundiced view of the BBC but I always endeavour to be objective in my assessment of the Corporation's news reporting.

There are many more posts where I have criticised the BBC's top-heavy management structure and the resultant lazy journalism that occurs by replacing specialists with generalist reporters which has resulted in merging the World Service, news reporting and the current affairs divisions mainly at the expense of the once superb local and regional news hubs. FTR I have stated that my personal political philosophy is towards the right of the political spectrum (with soft libertarian values), have zero tolerance for third wave feminism and my position on gender politics is similar to J K Rowling's.

You then go on to make the risible claim that the possibility of chequebook journalism is "irrelevant". Of course its relevant as it calls into question the motivation of the young man's family, more so when calling in the police was the last port of call. As for the young man, very little is known - he could be a lost soul driven to desperation to obtain funds to feed an out of control habit yet he seems quite adept in monetising his body parts which begs the question has he had prior experience in dealing with weak men, in which case who was exercising "power"? All we know is that no criminality took place so not our business. Let the the two families, one of which is clearly dysfunctional, sort themselves out - hopefully with health professionals.

 

3 hours ago, Last Cunt Standing said:

Amen. Anyone who thinks differently at this point I suspect has a rather rusty anti-BBC axe to grind. The size of the inevitable libel payout is already the talk of the locker rooms at the Inns of Court, though I suspect Old Rupe will consider it worth every penny if he keeps the BBC in the crosshairs. The possibility that commercial broadcasters might want to neuter the Beeb as the only resistance to their own pernicious news agenda seems to pass so many people by. I’m also astonished that so many people who spend so much time wrapping themselves in the flag seem to so keenly trash a source of considerable British soft power heard around the world. 

Those still waving their pitchforks whine about vulnerable teens and abuse of power. There is of course much we don’t know about how Huw met this young person. Doctors, teachers and other public servants are rightly in trouble if they abuse their position to solicit sex or sexual services from people they have professional contact with. But if a fiftysomething teacher in Dumfries strikes up an internet relationship on Grinder with an 18 year old man he doesn’t know in Truro, no crime has been committed. The regulators would soon be overwhelmed if every publicly funded employee who ever purchased internet porn from an adult provider was referred to them to be “struck off”. That indeed is the police’s view in this case. Once “no crime” was the outcome, the story surely died and it’s interesting to note The Sun’s editorial board have already called in a small army of KCs for insulation. The young person appears to have protested at his parentally-imposed victimhood, and it’s worth reminding ourselves he himself made no complaint of improper conduct. How this constitutes an abuse of power is a bit of a mystery to me. Pip Schofield had the additional problem of relations with a young employee. I’m not aware the BBC Newsroom is shared by the parties in the Edwards case.  

Some might be morally queasy at these events. They might be angry at the licence fee model or the salaries some people earn in the BBC. These are often long-standing grievances, and might well be driving some of the outrage. But those are surely entirely different debates which don’t need polluting with pearl-clutching “won’t someone think of the children!” bluster, which is as fatuous as it is transparent. If those still outraged want to turn their fire on the likes of Grinder, OnlyFans, Snapchat and TikTok, which are facilitating many relationships which would seem to mirror this one, good luck to you. 

You both make some good points, especially with your teacher analogy Doc. I get it, though I can't recall any teacher ever receiving a half-million quid salary, especially not in Dumfries. Can you? As for you, Roops baby, it appears you've got your stockings in a twist. Actually, I didn't word my previous comment very clearly: I was merely making a present-day comparison with you & the BBC lefties' stance on this latest White City decable, in which you haven't criticised their handling of the Edwards scandal. I'm well aware your politics can sometimes be right of Ghengis Khan, so my riling of your sensitivities wasn't intended. Keeping on topic – all I can say to the pair of you otherwise collectively is bullshit. 

What Huw Edwards has done may not be legally wrong, but it is definitely morally wrong - and it appears the BBC was prepared to cover it up, because this is the first thing it always does in sex scandals involving senior members of its staff.

The whole mental health card Huw has played has probably come about on the back of his team of solicitors' advice as way of damage limitation (if I may opine, you may think differently). Mental illness is an illness and not an excuse for immoral behaviour; this card has been played too many times by entitled people such as he.

Feeling bad because you were caught out doing something embarrassing or shameful, like paying a 17-20yo £35k for images of his privates and allegedly doing videocalls in underwear does not equate to genuine mental health issues. It’s more accurately known as feeling sorry for yourself because you are deeply embarrassed about your behaviour. The British public had and has every right to know who this person was, and to watch as the tabloids tear his arsehole to shreds. Frankly, it comes with the territory of happily receiving a half-million quid salary, and abusing this position of familiarity and trust (esp. in the eyes of young people). Mental health should not be used by powerful people such as Huw (in my opinion) to justify any questionable behaviour. I very much get the feeling this route has been taken by him. After all, this then-unrevealed person was quoted "I'm in it for the long game" on Ratty's R2 show before his wife spilled the beans, such was her intolerance of the ensuing ignominy. 

Let the (most certainly) former BBC news anchor be made an example of, for others in future to avoid behaving like filthy, trust-abusing dickheads who are paid huge salaries by the public. You never know – this clear victory for the right-wing chav's paper of choice might just clear up the BBC a little bit.

[and]

On 16/07/2023 at 11:35, Penny Farthing said:

On social media I am seeing dirty old men of 75+ ranting about Huw Edwards behaviour

I'm shocked.

I had no idea @Decimus @Wolfie were that age, I always thought they were a couple of kinky, ne'er-do-well schoolboys, hoping to make a few bob by getting picked-up on CC by some desperate, sex-starved, television presenter.

[Decimus]

1 hour ago, Zev said:

I'm shocked.

I had no idea @Decimus @Wolfie were that age, I always thought they were a couple of kinky, ne'er-do-well schoolboys, hoping to make a few bob by getting picked-up on CC by some desperate, sex-starved, television presenter.

Your end of the pier, Chubby Brown, "Oooohhh Matron!" act doesn't cut the fucking mustard here, R-Soles. Look at your 'like' count, 95% of them come from Pen whose comedy hero is Arthur Askey, what does that tell you?

It tells me that you'd be more at home peddling your above quoted shite on a 'Carry On...' fans tribute board. Take the fucking brain-dead tranny with you.

Idiot.

 

[Wolfie]

3 hours ago, Zev said:

I'm shocked.

I had no idea @Decimus @Wolfie were that age, I always thought they were a couple of kinky, ne'er-do-well schoolboys, hoping to make a few bob by getting picked-up on CC by some desperate, sex-starved, television presenter.

 

2 hours ago, Zev said:

It was actually on YTV, Yorkshire television, but don't tell @Decimus or @Wolfie or they'll have nothing to whine about wasting licence payers money.

BTW, the best episode was when they, allegedly, lined up the Yorkshire cricket team, and they all went through Raquel Welch (unfortunately the tape was wiped, by accident) ;-( 

Jesus bloody Christ, you obsessive, easily-rattled Yiddish shitstick.

I think you've always wanted to progess on this site, R-Soles, however Stubbs, Decs, Ape, Jake & myself (and others) have made every worthy newcomer know precisely who you are, and the Shitführer legacy this carries, which is why you're riled to the point of obsessive anger, name-dropping either myself or Decs in particular in every other comment.

The reason why is because we're right under your fucking skin, you painfully sensitive little dimwit. Make it easier on yourself... I ask again, on behalf of the dog-lovers of the Corner: why do you hate dogs & all things canine to the point of wishing them to suffer? Does this coincide with your empathy for those allegedly abusing children? I'd have more respect for you if you were honest for a change. Come one, get to the question – most here want to know. You also seem to have little or no respect for animal welfare vis-a-vis meat production etc. Why is this?

There's a door-opening, right there. An opportunity to earn a little respect other than from idiot Pen. Answer the questions, or the onslaught continues, you otherwise hateful wanker.

[Penny Farthing]

7 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

 

Jesus bloody Christ, you obsessive, easily-rattled Yiddish shitstick.

I think you've always wanted to progess on this site, R-Soles, however, Stubbs, Decs, Ape, Jake & myself (and others) have made every worthy newcomer know precisely who you are, and the Shitführer legacy this carries, which is why you're riled to the point of obsessive anger, name-dropping either myself or Decs in particular in every other comment.

The reason why is because we're right under your fucking skin, you painfully sensitive little dimwit. Make it easier on yourself... I ask again, on behalf of the dog-lovers of the Corner: why do you hate dogs & all things canine to the point of wishing them to suffer? I'd have more respect for you if you were honest for a change. Come one, get to the question – most here want to know. You also seem to have little or no respect for animal welfare vis-a-vis meat production etc. Why is this?

There's a door-opening, right there. An opportunity to earn a little respect other than from idiot Pen. Answer the questions, or the onslaught continues, you otherwise hateful wanker.

Whilst we on the subject of mental health .. what are your thoughts about people who say that they have been abducted by aliens and taken aboard flying saucers?

[Decimus]

19 minutes ago, Penny Farthing said:

what are your thoughts about people who say that they have been abducted by aliens and taken aboard flying saucers?

I'd be more concerned about being probed by your collosal Mandingo than anything a four foot tall, three stone alien had stashed inside his space suit.

Lolololol.

Fuck off.

[King Billy]

11 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

. Let the the two families, one of which is clearly dysfunctional, sort themselves out

Which one of the two then is ‘clearly not dysfunctional’ in your opinion? Both of them would be a shoe in for an hour long Jeremy Kyle special, with Huw participating via Zoom from his BBC funded BUPA padded cell, and the crack smoking waif rentboy via FaceTime from the privacy of Franks bedsit. Fuck knows what Graham’s solution would be after 50 minutes or so?

[Eric Cuntman]

4 minutes ago, King Billy said:

Which one of the two then is ‘clearly not dysfunctional’ in your opinion? Both of them would be a shoe in for an hour long Jeremy Kyle special, with Huw participating via Zoom from his BBC funded BUPA padded cell, and the crack smoking waif rentboy via FaceTime from the privacy of Franks bedsit. Fuck knows what Graham’s solution would be after 50 minutes or so?

I remember that Graham sidekick. Something very wrong with someone who styles themselves on post career Gary Glitter. 

[Last Cunt Standing]

17 hours ago, Wolfie said:

 

You both make some good points, especially with your teacher analogy Doc. I get it, though I can't recall any teacher ever receiving a half-million quid salary, especially not in Dumfries. Can you? As for you, Roops baby, it appears you've got your stockings in a twist. Actually, I didn't word my previous comment very clearly: I was merely making a present-day comparison with you & the BBC lefties' stance on this latest White City decable, in which you haven't criticised their handling of the Edwards scandal. I'm well aware your politics can sometimes be right of Ghengis Khan, so my riling of your sensitivities wasn't intended. Keeping on topic – all I can say to the pair of you otherwise collectively is bullshit. 

What Huw Edwards has done may not be legally wrong, but it is definitely morally wrong - and it appears the BBC was prepared to cover it up, because this is the first thing it always does in sex scandals involving senior members of its staff.

The whole mental health card Huw has played has probably come about on the back of his team of solicitors' advice as way of damage limitation (if I may opine, you may think differently). Mental illness is an illness and not an excuse for immoral behaviour; this card has been played too many times by entitled people such as he.

Feeling bad because you were caught out doing something embarrassing or shameful, like paying a 17-20yo £35k for images of his privates and allegedly doing videocalls in underwear does not equate to genuine mental health issues. It’s more accurately known as feeling sorry for yourself because you are deeply embarrassed about your behaviour. The British public had and has every right to know who this person was, and to watch as the tabloids tear his arsehole to shreds. Frankly, it comes with the territory of happily receiving a half-million quid salary, and abusing this position of familiarity and trust (esp. in the eyes of young people). Mental health should not be used by powerful people such as Huw (in my opinion) to justify any questionable behaviour. I very much get the feeling this route has been taken by him. After all, this then-unrevealed person was quoted "I'm in it for the long game" on Ratty's R2 show before his wife spilled the beans, such was her intolerance of the ensuing ignominy. 

Let the (most certainly) former BBC news anchor be made an example of, for others in future to avoid behaving like filthy, trust-abusing dickheads who are paid huge salaries by the public. You never know – this clear victory for the right-wing chav's paper of choice might just clear up the BBC a little bit.

Shite, even by your usual pub-bore standards. 

1. You concede Huw Edwards hasn’t done anything legally wrong, but find his conduct morally dubious. So? Who died and made you witchfinder general? (What’s a decable, when it’s at home, anyway?). 

2. You seem very aggrieved at the size of Huw’s wages, and somehow you conflate this with his behaviour. The more he is paid, the higher moral standards you apply, is that it? So a janitor at Bush House can do pretty much as she pleases and you’re not bothered? By all means make your case that BBC staff are overpaid, but to base your expectations for personal behaviour on the back of income is balls. To imply that people in receipt of public funds as salary devolve all personal agency to the public is mad, and leads to the sort of spectacle where ignorant string-vested tossers hammer on provincial Council reception desks bellowing “I pay your wages, pal”, an odious behaviour I suspect you aren’t unfamiliar with. 

3. You patently know nothing about mental health either in general or in this case. You allege it’s used as cover for bad behaviour after the fact, and all I can say is I hope you aren’t a magistrate or serve on a jury. Huw has talked publicly about his depression since at least 2016. So he was just playing the long game, was he? In moments of psychological crisis, people make decisions they wouldn’t normally, which might not later stand up to scrutiny. This doesn’t ever excuse criminality, but provided no crimes are committed, I’d suggest a little more empathy and a little less spittle-flecked fury might be a better approach. Never done anything wrong you later regretted, you silly little man? No mental infirmity affecting the branches of the Lupine family tree? Perhaps not, as I suspect you’d have to shake hands with someone to form a synapse. 

4. You’ve tried several times to obfuscate the age of the non-complaining image provider, using a vague 17-20 catch-all and the label “teenager” to conjure up in the reader images of a naive spotty youth. For all you know, this might be a razor-sharp young adult with zero shame about legally selling images of their naked body for cash. Like say, Samantha Fox, once enriched by the very paper you line up to defend, and at 16, rather younger than this young man who has done nothing illegal according to Police, and who’s conduct is literally fuck all to do with you. 

5. This is a clear victory for The Sun, is it? Well I’ll be filing that away for the coming day Huw walks away with seven figures from the High Court for the most egregious career-ending libel. If he can’t read out the news of his inevitable victory himself, I hope he rubs some noses in it by writing a large cheque to The Terence Higgins Trust, then stomps off down Old Compton Street to party all night with a Twink army.  

6. The BBC Cover-up angle is particularly nonsensical to me. To review, they supposedly had a parental complaint that a senior employee was in contact with their adult drug-using son over the internet eight weeks ago. Before they could investigate fully or act, a gutter rag broke what they thought was a great scoop, mostly because it fitted their owner’s jaundiced view of the BBC. Turns out to be not much of a story, with no clear “victim” other than a few butt-hurt Mary Whitehouse types. But the BBC, being so terrified of gobshite armchair HR experts post-Savile, ran wall-to-wall coverage of the feeding frenzy on their channels, rather than saying, entirely reasonably, “it’s an internal matter currently under investigation, fuck off”. Some cover up. Contrary to your purple-faced rage, the public has zero right to know if a public employee is being investigated for a non-criminal personal matter, and even then no right to know anything exists until the matter is concluded. What would you do, if some seedy allegation was made to the owners of your West Country Estate Agency (different! Not publicly funded! Tosser.) against you by the parents of a porn star you’d once happened across on the internet? Pull out a blade and disembowel yourself at your desk? Good to know. I mean, why bother with due process at all, eh? Just let the public scream nonce at anyone they dislike with no evidence and no investigation, then drag them onto TV for a forced ritual humiliation and thumbscrews. Sounds like a very healthy system. 

7. The British public had and has every right to know who this person was, and to watch as the tabloids tear his arsehole to shreds. This sentence is disgusting. It’s about vengeance, not justice. Because you don’t like the politics of his employer, or how much he is paid, you’re effectively sanctioning the public lynching of someone on suspicion of their legal behavioural choices you happen to dislike, and before any proper inquiry occurs. You’re a thug, and a pretty shameful one at that. 

8. Have you paused to reflect on why Huw? I can think of hundreds of UK targets more befitting a savaging by the tabloid press. Yet time after time, they get a pass, a soft-focus lifestyle piece in the Sunday supplement, or worse still, promotion of their ideology in the organ you so idolise. You might spend a little time trying to work out why that is, once you pull your head from your arse. 

[Penny Farthing]

14 hours ago, Decimus said:

I'd be more concerned about being probed by your collosal Mandingo than anything a four foot tall, three stone alien had stashed inside his space suit.

Lolololol.

Fuck off.

Annual leave or sick (gardening) leave?