Is there any organisation in the world as gigantic as the BBC which hasn't employed a handful of paedophiles over the past 50 years? Statistically, that seems extraordinarily unlikely. It's just that their job would not play a central role in the narrative.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm...
There we go again. The black and white world of modern Britain. Expressing distaste for the systematic destruction of Huw Edwards does not automatically equate to approving of his alleged behaviour. If a young person has genuinely been hurt, that’s terrible for them too and they deserve every...
Understood. Makes sense. Even if there were any truth in the allegations that he had engaged in some form of sexual online exchange with a 17 year old, it'd still be a gigantic stretch to equate that with Savile's horrific decades of vile abuse. You're right though, plenty would be prepared to try.
Haven't read through all this thread so I'm not sure of the context of the above - and I think we're probably on the same side of the argument overall. Just want to go further and point out that any comparison people make to Savile is not 'arguable', it's outrageous. Edwards, on the available...
With the proviso that nobody knows what he actually did, yes, the risk of it becoming public was high. Social media is a cesspit and impossible to control but it doesn’t follow that mainstream media have to turn private relationships between adults into a scandal.
If The Sun is the country’s moral arbiter, we’re in huge trouble. Some people may find his behaviour unsavoury but - as it’s now clear there is no evidence of anything illegal - absolutely nobody’s business but his own. A half-baked story they couldn’t follow through. What’s really immoral is...