This Thursday, January 26, Thomas Hugues was questioned about the PPDA affair of which he was the joker at 20 Hours of TF1. The journalist wanted to show his support for the victims.
A case that is causing a stir at TF1. All those who passed through the TF1 tower at the same time as Patrick Poivre d’Arvor – or who crossed his path at any time – cannot escape the question: did they know? Since February 2021, the former star host has been the target of numerous accusations of rape and sexual assault. The latter would have put in place a modus operandi that sends shivers down your spine.
The testimonials “describe Patrick Poivre d’Arvor as a sexual predator abusing his notoriety and using a similar modus operandi in approaching his victims and in the brutality of his acts, committed without the slightest attempt at seduction, nor the slightest consideration towards the women who would dare to refuse his advances“, noted the police officer in charge of the investigation, as reported Release. Since then, the man – who denies the facts – has received the support of personalities such as Claire Chazal and Jean-Pierre Pernaut. What about Thomas Hugues, who was the joker for PPDA and Claire Chazal on TF1 news?
Thomas Hugues: “I believe the women who testify against the PPDA”
Guest of the Buzz TV of Figaro this Thursday, January 26, the one who now officiates on Public Senate wanted to take the side of the victims of Patrick Poivre d’Arvor. “I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, the women who testify against him. I know and have worked with some of them and I believe them“, he assured. However, the ex-husband of Laurence Ferrari promises that he was not aware of the actions of the journalist-star. “In 15 years spent at TF1, no one has ever come to see me and told me that creepy things were happening in the PPDA office. We all knew he was a seducer, even if he exists more vulgar words to describe his behavior“, he reported. And to add: “This unpacking is major! Because there are centuries of silence behind it. If sometimes there are risks of slippage or media frenzy, this liberation of women’s speech is not only necessary but also essential!“