Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't believe everything I read in any newspaper but in a few words, Sluffy, are you trying to say that The Sun is trying to mislead the public and its readers in this case or that they have no right to publish the story because of an association with Rupert Murdoch or for some other reason?
What about Victoria Derbyshire? Would you suggest that she had no right to follow up the concerns that appear to have been brought to her notice? Or is it all just too sordid and should be swept under the carpet because that's what usually happens?
No, nothing like that at all.
The story started out as someone at the BBC was implied to be some sort of a child pervert - in terms of paying an eyewatering large some of money for 'naughty' pictures of the under 18 year old, and why hasdn't the BBC done something to stop it, was it not?
Obviously that disgusted all decent people and we obviously wanted that person to be held accountable and if true dealt with and punished.
The thing though was as they days passed, the story changed too.
The Sun took a step back in terms of their initial imply and started to put emphasis that the person had known the youth from the age of 17 BUT did not 'suggest' that anything happened when he was 'under age' - did it not?
So whilst most of us may well have been disgusted by the story (if true?) there wasn't anything actually illegal in it.
The 'boy' via his solicitor even told the Sun there was nothing in the story - that it was 'rubbish' and was delivered to the Sun before they first broke the story - but they went ahead anyway AND did not even state in their article that the youth in question flatly DENIED the allegations.
Do you believe that was good newspaper practice, as I don't without either checking further before going to print or at least including the denial as well as the initial allegations.
Even before the story broke, the parents had gone to the BBC - who did commence an investigation on what the parents had told them and did try to contact them both by telephone and email from the details the parents had supplied them with.
How come then the parents didn't receive these attempts to communicate with them by the BBC - AND even if there was a good reason they didn't in fact receive the communications, try again to contact the BBC themselves - they must had least have had the name and contact details of the person they had spoken to?
They then went to the South Wales police force who again investigated and found nothing criminal had happened. Again why did the parents not chase up with them what they were doing and why nothing resulted from it - again they must have had a contact name and details of an officer.
So what exactly was the evidence the parents provided to the Sun that convinced their legal advisors that they could go to print - and if the information was different to what the parents had told the BBC and South Wales police force, then why didn't they contact them again (especially the police!)
The story the Sun seems now to be pushing is that they acted on behalf of the parents by printing their story because the BBC hadn't pulled their finger out.
But what rightly could the BBC have done. they had instigated an investigation both on the parents allegations and seemingly of in-house complaints and tried to contact the parents with the number and email address the parents had given to them?
Whilst all the complains so far seem to be tacky and not desirable, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about them does there?
Yes Edwards should have been seen, spoken to and maybe even given a formal warning but isn't that about the level of his behaviour warrant and not a full scale national witch hunt that has just occurred?
Since the story broke a second police force, The Met, has looked into ALL the allegations and still found nothing illegal in them.
Doesn't something about all this not ring true to you irrespective of what paper (and ownership) did all this?
If Edwards DID pay £35k for dick pics, the BBC should have done something, warned him about bringing them into disrepute, moved him side ways, offered him early retirement. maybe long-term sick leave, or a number of other things - but they can't actually sack him because legally he's done nothing wrong.
Perhaps he was being played or blackmailed, if so then the BBC could have helped him go to the police.
If the Sun was so convinced he'd done something illegal then why didn't they go to the police with what they had???
They only handed their file to the BBC some 5 DAYS after they first published the article and after Edwards had had an apparent nervous breakdown.
And on top of all this, isn't a person deemed to be innocent until proven guilty?
We might not like (well I certainly don't) how he's behaved if he has sought our dick pics and texted young boys that they are cute or whatever but it isn't a crime and I can live and let live about it, so what really has all the fuss been about?
The end result is Edwards has been destroyed his family has and is suffering and the Sun has made a lot of headlines, sold a lot of papers/clicks on their web pages and made a lot of money AND still going to make more by interviewing the parents and pay them thousands.
It's nothing about me being a lefty or a righty or whatever you think I am, it is all about something that has gone on here that somehow doesn't seem normal to me, something doesn't sit right with this story - I can't really put it into words other than to say what has just gone on has resulted in a punishment to Edwards and his family far more brutal than what he or them really deserved?
In fact his family was entirely innocent and their husband, father, son has been destroyed before their very eyes simply for nothing illegal that he had done!
Can you not see that?