Ok, no actual evidence he’s addicted to crack
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Are we not allowed to call people crackheads anymore?
My instinct is we should probably be shown what the BBC considers abusive, expletive-filled messages that constitute menacing and bullying behaviour.
Is there a good argument against that?
Is there a good argument against that?
Not if you don't want to be called a cnut, I guess? It's obviously a term of abuse.
Mate, you were getting angry about people speculating about the presenter, you said people should wait for the facts. But then you keep creating a narrative about how he’s a victim of crack connoisseurs and low life’s.
I too think that should happen. As it is, it seems like he told some fella to feck off (with added abuse and aggression) after he threatened to out the presenter. Seems completely fair, unless the abuse was somehow way way over the top. Dangling these details without revealing either who it is, or actually giving proper details, is all a bit shite from BBC and I expected better (naïvely, some might say).
The Sun and BBC have been incredibly reckless
I'd expect it from the cnuts at the Sun, but not from BBC. What's going on there.
I thought the same. It feels as though they’re over-compensating in an attempt to be seen as even handed. Sending some mean, aggressive messages seems like an entirely appropriate response to that sort of threat.
So we can call people cnuts but not crackheads, noted.
Regarding the crack dude, has he actually done anything? I saw that he spoke out through his lawyer denying his estranged mother’s claims, has he done anything else? (Blackmail/extortion)
Talking of cnuts ….there’s little sympathy for selfish feckers who choose drugs over family, friends and others. The misery they cause is incalculable.
The messages might not even have been menacing. He might have meant he’ll beat them within an inch of their life in a sexual way.
It would currently appear you can but ask a mod, I guess, if you desire clarification. I'm not one, I cannot stop posters calling people crackheads, I can but share my view that they are indeed cnuts.
They’re terrified of Rupert. The story should be why the feck is this currently a story and why was it printed without including the denial from the alleged victim. Wait for the Met to once again conclude no illegality and go on the attack against a publication that wants to destroy you. But no - instead they’ve joined the witch-hunt party.
To be fair, drugs are really good
You have no sympathy for addiction? Is your opinion based on all drugs or more the unfavorable ones?
So this is all a big huge non story at the end ?
In other news, Boris Johnson did actually break the law again yesterday.
Well the guy who, apparently has mental health issues, is effectively outed at this point even if he's found innocent. IF he didn't do anything illegal then i feel sorry that his life and career has been massively affected by all this.
It doesn't sound like this is any of our business.
I’ve seen the rumoured name people are branding about.
Naturally I’m not going to say the name.
But bloody hell, if it turns out to be him….
Naturally I’m not going to say the name.
But bloody hell, if it turns out to be him….
In a lot of news stories about online ‘abuse’, a lot of it boils down to celebs like politicians or footballers receiving legitimate, non-abusive criticism from ordinary people. It seems like the word ‘abuse’ has lost all meaning in recent years.
They've changed it now, but I thought it was pretty amazing that the BBC headline earlier was basically a statement of fact.
They didn't put "sent abusive and menacing messages" in quote marks, they posted it as if it was the established truth. I didn't think that's how allegations worked.
They didn't put "sent abusive and menacing messages" in quote marks, they posted it as if it was the established truth. I didn't think that's how allegations worked.
Last edited:
I bet there's very, very few people who choose drugs over family. Framing drug addiction as a choice is pretty ridiculous
Addiction no, but choosing to take drugs in the first place is usually a choice and they know what the possible consequences are
Yes, I'm sure the timing of this topic being promoted to the main news story of the day for days on end is entirely coincidental....
The police can find out if there is any illegal activity by subpoenaing the presenter's bank records, to see if payment started while the subject of the phots was under 18. I think that's the next logical move.
Of course they aren't, only whack jobs on Twitter think that's how the world works. The BBC has more reason to hate Johnson that anybody if they were so inclined to ignore their own impartiality rules (which I very much doubt they would).
Last edited:
It's kind of amazing that the BBC can be despised by both left and right simultaneously.
I've always thought they err on the side of left wing bias, but reading the 'caf, you'd think they're some kind of Tory propaganda outlet.
Shows they’re doing a good job.
This is clearly a witch hunt, he pissed off the wrong the person.
Probably sent them the pic of his bare arse by accident.
It actually shows they are trying to build up a national consensus around a middle ground status quo that no longer exists. People who want to change things on both sides don't like that.
jesusIf they've already come near your - you know what, forget it.
That’s how they got Capone and all.
It’s an incredible ‘sex scandal’ this one. 3 allegations so far and none of them actually involve sex. The first involve pictures (the sun have since played down allegations the person was underage), the second involved talking on a dating app and tonight’s big reveal is a 23 year old man consensually had a cup of tea with him in his fecking flat.