I'm saying people can live with depression. I've done it for the last 20 years. If someone told me I wasn't capable of doing my job id be ****ing furious.
Who's the BBC presenter ...
- Thread starter Smug in Boots
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Apologies, I misread your post.
So, if you're capable of doing your job with depression it doesn't excuse all of your actions outside of work.
Isn't that reasonable?
I didn't say people can't live with depression but if they have the serious mental issues he's claiming is it fair to put him on the front line.
Not sure there's a clinical through line from depression to paying young people for naked photos on the internet mind.
To be fair it now seems nobody knows what he has or hasnt done. That seems a pretty central point.
I am kicking myself for going along with a Sun story to be honest. I think the British media are generally useless and not even worth being used for toilet paper. The Sun are the worst of the lot. Years and years of public dissservice, lies and dubious practices. I hope they get closed down permanently, but doubtful I suppose, as always they will have lawyers in the wings to take the dollar, whatever the cause.
P
Prehab26
Guest
Sure the statement was timed to perfection given the police said there was no criminal case. You'll now have people using that, combined with mental health references, to completely forgo ethical and moral compass in a position of power.
Is it fair to say he can't rise to the top of his profession because of his mental health?
I keep coming back to this too, but what do we KNOW he has done that needs public scrutiny?
Have to disagree. I think it is significant backtracking. From implying a criminal offence, to the usual 'we understand drivel', written by lawyers not journalists.
What I'm asking is whether someone with 'serious mental health issues' should be in one of the most stressful high profile posts at the BBC.
I don't think that's an unreasonable question.
I think you're confusing depression with anxiety. Sometimes they travel together but not always.
Geet up sausageIt's not necessarily a question of criminality, that's the thing.
If a BBC presenter set up a website of photos, already in the public domain, of Laura Kuenssberg, Naga Munchetty and Carol Kirkland it wouldn't be illegal. But it would be totally inappropriate and you'd expect the perpetrator to be dismissed.
If I did it there's nothing anyone can do ...
... PM if you want the link, I've some nice ones of Fiona Bruce
You must log in or register to see images
The phrase 'serious mental health issues' can cover a host of conditions and without knowing the specifics, it is impossible to say what jobs an individual is capable of doing.
Personally I have no sympathy with Edwards, whether his actions were illegal or immoral, he would have known the risk involved and impact on his family.
yeh I’m purely commenting on the fact that his wife has said he will address the allegations when he’s better. My point being that nobody is excusing what he’s done yet as nothing is confirmed. The only “excuse” is not making a public statement due to mental health - which I think is fair enough. He must be broken.
That is it exactly. Now it will be the fault of the journalists.
It isn't their fault when they discover a different type of public figure with a similar non existent moral compass. They are often lauded for their work.
For me, it still comes down to this; Why, by their own admission, did they not even speak to Edwards after the allegations until several weeks later?
Obviously, they should not make every allegation public immediately, that would be absurd. But the first thing that should have been done was to talk to Edwards.
" We've had this complaint Huw. Sure there's nothing in it, but you should know about it and it would be a good time for you to give us your formal denial. We'll take it from there"
Something like that should have been said right then, but the BBC have said that they didn't speak to him until the Sun spoke to them.
Why? Presumably they hoped it would go away.
Fair play mate. Who knows what has gone on here really. Whatever he has or hasnt done you have to assume his career at least in serious jeopardy, even if much of what is alleged is not true. It didnt take the police very long to decide it wasnt illegal. I think it is pretty brave of his wife tonight. Feel for his kids as well personally. Cant be easy for them at all, in the social media age.
I'm confusing nothing to be fair.
The wife says he's suffering from 'serious mental health issues' so it may be neither depression nor anxiety.
You're assuming it's one or the other.
What I've learned, over the years, is that there's no point in any discussion once the mental health card has been dropped.
Anyone criticising the person with issues is declared wrong/uncaring/ignorant no matter how logical or reasonable the point.
'Mental health' is just becoming an instant gag in more and more cases ...
... that's unfair to people with real issues imo.
I'm out, can't be arsed.