Forum Topic

BBC

Bit strange this has come about, about a Newsreader paying out thousands to a young girl, when the story lines on Emmerdale and Eastenders are of a similar story line. Also how come a Newsreader can give out all that money, even though they earn a lot, but want to put up the TV Licence to £172.

Barbara Stevens ● 708d39 Comments

Someone, who apparently describes himself as a “patriot and proud Brit” who doesn’t “do small talk” on his Twitter profile, should stick to small talk in future.

David Ainsworth ● 700d

Good job your source was correct,  Barbara, otherwise it could have been expensive. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-vine-bbc-presenter-huw-edwards-b2376391.html

Michael Ixer ● 700d

Hello Barbara,You are right, I did not believe (nor did not want to believe you) and I was very sceptical of your post.The source of the story is a newspaper that I certainly do not trust, neither do I trust its owners.The whole saga is very convoluted, we really do not know much and all speculation on this I find unhealthy.Just to let you know, this is a posting on the rolling news on the BBC website on this mattervat 17:26 today:"News UK skilled at amplifying its journalism, ex-employee saysThe Sun is part of a "media ecosystem" - News UK - that is "extremely good at amplifying its own reporting", a journalist who used to work for the company has said.Jake Kanter, investigations editor at Deadline, said the Sun's story about the BBC presenter has been "talked about endlessly in the outrage machine that is TalkRadio and TalkTV" - both media organisations that fall under the News UK brand.Kanter is the former media correspondent at the Times, which is also owned by News UK."Then you have politicians that work for that news station, someone like [Conservative MP] Nadine Dorries, commenting on the story, saying the BBC is not doing enough here and accusing the BBC of a cover-up."So this all works in the favour of News UK and they've got the BBC right where they want them," Kanter tells the BBC's Media Show."

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

I wouldn't say that I only put his name you didn't have to believe me. Could have been somebody else I was told that was who it was. So thought you might like to know.

Barbara Stevens ● 704d

Hello Barbara,I copy-paste below the comment I posted a short while ago under the thread "Jury by media!!! ???????  It relates to your post above of 9 July 2023 at 14:02:"Well, Barbara, I cannot say congratulations because in your posting you sounded triumphant based on hear say.  But, yes, you had been given the correct name, purportedly in FB. You were not too sure at the time if it had been your son or another friend.One thing that is confusing - cannot think of another word - is that the police have confirmed, again, that no criminality took place hence they will not continue with the investigation.While Huw Edwards was named by his wife after the police confirmation, there are too many loose ends still to know for certain what really happened.I fear this saga will not end well and not necessarily for Huw Edwards....."

Ivonne Holliday ● 704d

Well ask me another it is now confirmed.

Barbara Stevens ● 704d

Meanwhile it all becomes evermore convoluted and opaque!

Caroline Whitehead ● 705d

Fair comment, Robert. There's also an issue with threads going off topic and answering a new point that can be incorrectly correlated with an older comment; particularly as threads on the old and new interfaces sometimes seem to appear in different formats or sequences. 

Michael Ixer ● 706d

Actually Andy, I did think it was my son. Then when I looked this morning realized it wasn't they both must have messaged me at about the same time, I thought it was still son.

Barbara Stevens ● 706d

Probably why Barbara attributed her info to her son and then corrected it to someone who knows someone. Although that still leaves Barbara at risk

Andy Pike ● 706d

Reporting of alleged facts from named sources making it clear they are alleged may be in the public interest.  Speculation on threads about a named individual can quickly move that to defamation.

Robert Wheeler ● 706d

Unfortunately, this site doesn't appear to be moderated so it's unlikely anything will be done. I've seen some speculation on FB which doesn't appear to have been removed, but FB also say they're a communications not a publishing company ... not sure a community forum can claim that. I think with regard to the other thread some of the speculation was raised by Mr F and it could be argued the cancelling of bank accounts without specific reasons could be of interest to us all?

Michael Ixer ● 707d

I agree so should the Nigel Farage one for the same reason.

Robert Wheeler ● 707d

I think maybe this thread should be removed by Neighbourhood.net.  Other websites such as Mumsnet and Reddit have taken down threads or cancelled particular comments. I think they are worried from a legal point of view.

Martine Guy ● 707d

According to a senior libel lawyer (sorry, didn't note the name) on BBC News/5 Live reposting is considered as defamatory as originating the speculation.Interestingly, an HR consultant was saying that if a criminal act is suspected an internal company investigation should not be started before confirming with the police it's ok to proceed. (I guess that's in case evidence is tainted, etc.)

Michael Ixer ● 707d

Hello Barbara,I agree that names should not be branded about. If you are very curious and want to know first, that is up to you.You have heard a name from at least two sources, one of them at least on FB. OK. That does not mean both sources are correct.  The person you mention may be totally innocent and our justice system is based on being innocent till proven guilty.  I think I prefer our justice system.

Ivonne Holliday ● 707d

We've gone past that Caroline, well perhaps you will all eat your words. Also I was told it by somebody else, I didn't make it up just to annoy you all that I might have had information you didn't.

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

Perhaps you could have been considered to have defamed Huw Edwards Barbara!

Caroline Whitehead ● 707d

Yes, but of who.

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

Apparently speculation can also be considered defamation.

Michael Ixer ● 707d

Probably tried to blackmail him and it didn't work.

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

why would someone ask a person's employer to investigate a potential crime? why did the mother not go straight to the police? was she looking for a payday?

Adam Tripp ● 707d

Speculating is not naming

Sue Hammond ● 707d

A warning from former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal: "Bit of legal advice... If you name someone and get it wrong then they may sue you for defamation and you can say goodbye to everything you own. So don't."

Richard Carter ● 707d

It wasn't my son who told me, it was somebody else on my FB. 2 people messaging me at the same time, getting confused.

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

My son in Sweden said Huw Edwards, he watches only English TV. Don't know where he saw it.

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

Thats 2 then. If enough names are put out there someone is bound to get it right.

Andy Pike ● 707d

The Graham Norton show was replaced at the end of May due to BBC rescheduling ...

Sue Hammond ● 707d

Whoever it is has now been suspended.

Sue Hammond ● 707d

HUW EDWARDS

Barbara Stevens ● 707d

Hopefully not another BBC coverup à la Jimmy Saville ...

Sue Hammond ● 707d

Whilst a complaint has been made to the BBC it seems no complaint made to the police yet.

Andy Pike ● 708d

I think there are two separate laws, Ivonne. The one you mention and another covering images of under 18 year old. Yes, one would think the police should be involved if only to protect evidence?

Michael Ixer ● 708d

I was under the impression that showing intimate images or videos, send them to other people or upload them to a website without the person's consent, was a crime, regardless of age.It is all very unclear.  Why is the police not involved?  We cannot have a legal system run by the media....

Ivonne Holliday ● 708d

And paying to someone to provide them is also procurement surely?

Sue Hammond ● 708d

But it is illegal to produce sexual images of under 18s.

Michael Ixer ● 708d

Hello Barbara,I do not know if it is a BBC newsreader, but we all know it is either a star or a presenter....Neither do we know the sex of the child.  If it is true that all this started to happen when the child was 17, he/she can legally consent to sexual activity after 16.  He/she has been an adult for two years.....The other thing that surprises me is that the police have not been involved.  According to press reports, the young person's family complained to the BBC on 19 May and now The Sun has splashed the story.  I find this very odd.

Ivonne Holliday ● 708d

I said story lines in Emmerdale and Eastenders, not a newsreader.  Eastenders is on BBC.  Perhaps this is what has upset the girls mother to bring up about the Newsreader.

Barbara Stevens ● 708d

Is it a newsreader?Not that I see a connection with a couple of 5th rate soaps but aren't they meant to mirror 'real' life.Who is the newsreader in emmerdale who is paying thousands to a youngster? Or Eastenders  for that matter.Whoever it is has no connection I can see to the licence fee increase.

Andy Pike ● 708d