Why do you have a problem with my “inflammatory comments” about an (alleged) child groomer? Plenty of abusers aren’t convicted for their crimes.

 

What does my questioning Lucy Letby’s conviction have to do with this exactly? So because I think one person may have been wrongfully convicted I’m not allowed to believe in anyone else’s guilt?

 

My problem is with your conduct and attitude. You’ve been fairly rude and nasty and not to mention gaslighting to people on here who, unlike you, only made comments on issues based on the evidence at hand.

 

And as for LL, I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy.

My problem is with your conduct and attitude. You’ve been fairly rude and nasty and not to mention gaslighting to people on here who, unlike you, only made comments on issues based on the evidence at hand.

 

And as for LL, I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

Please explain to me and provide examples of how I have gaslit anyone here. You’re using very extreme language.

 

Hypocrisy? It’s two completely different cases. Huw pled guilty, Lucy maintains her innocence to this day. Again, this isn’t relevant to this particular discussion, no idea why you brought it up.

Please explain to me and provide examples of how I have gaslit anyone here. You’re using very extreme language.

 

Hypocrisy? It’s two completely different cases. Huw pled guilty, Lucy maintains her innocence to this day. Again, this isn’t relevant to this particular discussion, no idea why you brought it up.

 

I’ve already explained why I brought it up. Another difference is that she is a convicted felon whereas the other examples either aren’t or weren’t at the time.

 

You said you hoped people defending a pedophile feel ashamed. Said people didn’t know as fact that they were ‘defending a pedophile’.

 

I’m done talking to you on this. You do you, but try not to paint posters here as ‘defending pedophiles’ as it’s not a good look or even close to the truth.

Interesting that the BBC knew he’d been arresting for child abuse images last year yet still kept paying him. Pretty insane

Interesting that the BBC knew he’d been arresting for child abuse images last year yet still kept paying him. Pretty insane

 

I think by law you can't terminate somebody's employment or stop paying them until a conviction happens (or they quit, in this case)

The whole thing seems insane to me. How can someone so visible to the public think they could get away with this?

 

As far as I understand he had the option to report to the police/delete images etc, but he chose not to.

 

 

I’ve already explained why I brought it up. Another difference is that she is a convicted felon whereas the other examples either aren’t or weren’t at the time.

 

You said you hoped people defending a pedophile feel ashamed. Said people didn’t know as fact that they were ‘defending a pedophile’.

 

I’m done talking to you on this. You do you, but try not to paint posters here as ‘defending pedophiles’ as it’s not a good look or even close to the truth.

 

Ah yes, the famously infallible British justice system :rolleyes: I find it ironic the same people that have issues with The Sun’s coverage of Huw’s accusations have none of the same anger towards the biased coverage of the Letby trial, long before she was convicted.

 

I suppose not, they were just defending an accused pedophile. I didn’t single any members out like you’ve done with me. And in fact I was not just referring to Buzzjack posters, I saw the same sentiment across social media last year. And honestly I’m a bit disgusted by the anger towards the victims family at the time, accusing them of homophobia for coming forward with the accusations.

Interesting that the BBC whistleblowers have spoken out again today and specifically reference power dynamics which is very key in things like this

 

 

Two whistleblowers who gave evidence to the BBC internal inquiry into Huw Edwards have criticised the way it was handled.

A staff member who told BBC News last year about flirtatious private messages sent by the presenter said they were "disappointed" not to have heard more about the inquiry's progress.

A second person, who claimed Edwards sent suggestive messages alongside a picture of his hotel suite in Windsor at the time of Prince Philip's funeral, said it felt like "things have been swept under the carpet".

Edwards was suspended in July 2023 after reports in the Sun newspaper claiming he had paid a young person for sexually explicit images.

The BBC started an internal inquiry which is thought not to have continued after Edwards left his job in April. The findings have not been published.

The BBC has been approached for comment.

The staff member claiming to have been sent flirtatious messages by Edwards said they considered them an abuse of power and were made to feel uncomfortable.

They said they did not feel reassured that BBC management have taken steps to deal with internal complaints or issues with power dynamics in the newsroom.

The whistleblowing team asked "all the questions they hoped they would" and were taking it seriously, they said.

"Then I was sort of surprised that I haven’t been informed about the findings or how the report was used," they said.

"I certainly don't feel like I've heard anything of substance about how the investigation went. In a way that's disappointing because it was quite a stressful thing to go through. It was all a big ordeal."

The staff member came forward after emails were sent out encouraging people to do so, saying "it felt like we had an obligation to report it".

 

 

Meanwhile, the second whistleblower, who has since left the BBC, said Edwards was "pushy" in trying to arrange to meet them.

Referring to the messages at the time of Prince Philip's funeral, which they first revealed to the Sun, external but have also shared with the BBC, they said he asked if they were staying overnight.

In the morning, the whistleblower claimed Edwards sent a photograph of the room he had stayed in – a suite paid for by the BBC.

"(The message) went, oh there’s plenty of room here.”

“…he replied in the morning and said, you missed a good night.”

On the investigation, they said they "gave everything and co-operated", and want the findings to be published.

They said: “It doesn’t seem transparent, it seems like things have been swept under the carpet, they’ve marked their own homework.”

Guilty pleas

Their comments came after Edwards pleaded guilty on Wednesday to three counts of making indecent images of children, in a separate case.

He accessed indecent images of children as young as seven on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021, which police said were sent to him by a convicted paedophile.

The BBC knew at the time of his arrest in November 2023 that he was being accused of offences relating to child abuse images.

The news presenter would have been dismissed had he been charged while still an employee, the corporation said in a statement on Wednesday.

The first staff member said they felt there was "less risk" of Edwards working for other media organisations following his court hearing, which was one of their main concerns.

But the employee said they did not feel the "power dynamics with these big stars, working in close proximity with junior staff" had been reflected on very much.

"I certainly haven't seen that in any of the kinds of messages that we've had from bosses or anything that they've thought about how somebody was kind of allowed to feel like he could get away with anything," they said.

"Probably not just by BBC bosses, but by the media world. He was treated like this God of news."

They said they were "not convinced" others would not be able to feel that powerful working for BBC News in the future.

On what they want from the BBC now, the staff member said: "I would just like some some kind of indication that they've taken it seriously. And I don't see any indication of that.

"Even if it was not publishing a report, but just putting out something that says we've been reflecting on how these power dynamics are dealt with and the power of the most senior employees."

"I’d just like to hear from the managers about what they think, have they reflected, is anything going to change?" the staff member added.

Ah yes, the famously infallible British justice system :rolleyes: I find it ironic the same people that have issues with The Sun’s coverage of Huw’s accusations have none of the same anger towards the biased coverage of the Letby trial, long before she was convicted.

 

I suppose not, they were just defending an accused pedophile. I didn’t single any members out like you’ve done with me. And in fact I was not just referring to Buzzjack posters, I saw the same sentiment across social media last year. And honestly I’m a bit disgusted by the anger towards the victims family at the time, accusing them of homophobia for coming forward with the accusations.

 

I ‘singled you out’ because I objected to a specific comment that you made, that no one else made. Perhaps had more people done so, I’d have addressed them too.

 

From what I recall, the media mainly reported the facts in the Letby trial. She wasn’t once branded a murderer until she was convicted. Alleged and accused were used-two words you should get used to using when discussing people before they’re convicted of anything.

 

Whereas at the time, there was no police investigation of Huw Edwards and the media were leaking out bits of info and getting everyone speculating about who it was, etc. That was a cheap and disgusting thing to do regardless and just because something has come out about that individual doesn’t mean it was the right way to go about it. What if the next person that happens to ends up not being guilty of anything?

Edited August 1, 2024Aug 1 by T Boy

I ‘singled you out’ because I objected to a specific comment that you made, that no one else made. Perhaps had more people done so, I’d have addressed them too.

 

From what I recall, the media mainly reported the facts in the Letby trial. She wasn’t once branded a murderer until she was convicted. Alleged and accused were used-two words you should get used to using when discussing people before they’re convicted of anything.

 

Whereas at the time, there was no police investigation of Huw Edwards and the media were leaking out bits of info and getting everyone speculating about who it was, etc. That was a cheap and disgusting thing to do regardless and just because something has come out about that individual doesn’t mean it was the right way to go about it. What if the next person that happens to ends up not being guilty of anything?

 

This thread isn’t about Lucy Letby, but if you think the coverage during the trial wasn’t biased then you must be very naive. Of course they can’t straight up brand her a murderer or they’d be sued into oblivion. But the coverage was not balanced at all.

 

And the exact same tactics were used for Russell Brand, not saying that’s right either , but you didn’t see many people running to his defence the way they did for Huw. I’d also like to know more about exactly what I said about Phillip Schofield that you consider “inflammatory” - is the man not an accused child groomer?

 

Also I’ve seen you do this thing in a few threads recently where you aggressively and persistently take on anyone with a dissenting opinion from the herd as if that makes you somehow righteous. Is there a need for it?

Edited August 3, 2024Aug 3 by No Sleeep

I’m just countering your points, not sure there’s any need to get that personal.

 

Phillip Schofield is not an accused groomer as far as I can see. There doesn’t appear to be an investigation into him or anything going on. Of course, that doesn’t mean something definitely won’t ever come out along those lines but it’s best to reserve any comments for if/when that happens no matter what your personal opinion.

I’m just countering your points, not sure there’s any need to get that personal.

 

Phillip Schofield is not an accused groomer as far as I can see. There doesn’t appear to be an investigation into him or anything going on. Of course, that doesn’t mean something definitely won’t ever come out along those lines but it’s best to reserve any comments for if/when that happens no matter what your personal opinion.

 

How is that any different from you bringing up my previous defence of Lucy Letby and condemnation of Phillip Schofield, as well as calling me a gaslighter and rude?

 

And if you want to defend Phillip Schofield then I think that is definitely where I have to draw the line with this conversation lol. Harvey Weinstein’s conviction was overturned, I suppose you’ll be defending him next?

 

ETA: also, I’m not a journalist, if I want to call a middle aged man a groomer for having relations with teenage boys I will

Edited August 3, 2024Aug 3 by No Sleeep

I’m not defending him. I’m just saying that until there’s been a criminal conviction, you need to be more careful about what you say. Which is also why I said you were wrong to shame anyone who defended Huw a year ago. As for LL, I mentioned it only because you had someone else down as guilty before there was even a police investigation and yet defended someone with an actual conviction. I did just find it a tad hypocritical.

Well there you go. I hope the people that defended this pedophile are ashamed

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgr49q591go.amp

 

I'm not at all ashamed. I witheld judgement until more information was released, because the intial source was full of holes.

 

Maybe YOU should be ashamed of casting aspersions on your fellow forum members. What exactly are you trying to imply here?

 

I'm not at all ashamed. I witheld judgement until more information was released, because the intial source was full of holes.

 

Maybe YOU should be ashamed of casting aspersions on your fellow forum members. What exactly are you trying to imply here?

 

Did I specify that it was only the people on this forum that should be ashamed?

 

And I stand by it, people were trying to attack the victims family, calling them homophobic chancers etc. it was disgusting.

Edited August 3, 2024Aug 3 by No Sleeep

Did I specify that it was only the people on this forum that should be ashamed?

 

And I stand by it, people were trying to attack the victims family, calling them homophobic chancers etc. it was disgusting.

 

Oh come off it. Why would you post that in the thread unless you were directing it at us? Pull the other one.

 

I stand by my homophobic chancers comment too until proven otherwise. Why would a parent claim a crime was committed against an adult when the adult themself denied it?

Oh come off it. Why would you post that in the thread unless you were directing it at us? Pull the other one.

 

I stand by my homophobic chancers comment too until proven otherwise.

 

I said it wasn’t JUST directed at the people on here.

 

And I stand by being disgusted by it. You really need to take a look at what you’re defending. A 17 year old boy was co-erced (allegedly etc.) into sending nude pictures to an elderly man. I just can’t get over this being deemed acceptable by anyone.

Edited August 3, 2024Aug 3 by No Sleeep

And the person in question claims that that wasn't actually the case.

 

Why would you do that when you could sue for damages?

 

If he changes his tune or something comes out that changes the story then I will hold my hands up.

 

Until that point we have parents that seem to be estranged from an adult son claiming that their adult son was child abused, which their adult son denies ever happened and denies that he was working in the adult industry until he was an adult anyway so it functionally could not have happened.

 

Why haven't we seen a birth certificate to clear the whole thing up?

 

For context, I was raised in a very homophobic background where any number of parents that thought they had a gay child would pull any kind of tricks like this to try and demonstrate to their kid that being gay led to punishment.

I said it wasn’t JUST directed at the people on here.

 

Oh,so you weren't JUST casting aspersions on us. That's alrighty then. Equal opportunities aspersions only /s

I said it wasn’t JUST directed at the people on here.

 

And I stand by being disgusted by it. You really need to take a look at what you’re defending. A 17 year old boy was co-erced (allegedly etc.) into sending nude pictures to an elderly man. I just can’t get over this being deemed acceptable by anyone.

 

No one defended behaviour like that once.