Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: scawsby steve on July 09, 2023, 10:54:03 pm
-
I wonder who it is.
Sounds a dirty b*st*rd. Let's hope he gets what's coming to him.
-
I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.
-
I would advise anyone thinking of throwing a name out there to refrain from doing so, until the person has officially been named to avoid the risk of litigation
-
Let’s see who’s presenting the news at 10 tonight…
-
I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.
Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?
-
I can't for the life of me understand why this is headline news
Just seen a comment from a Minister saying it's very serious and needs urgent investigation, pity this type of thing isn't taken as seriously when MPs are involved
-
I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.
Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?
Although the age of consent is 16, it is a crime to posses these kind of images of anyone under 18
-
I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.
Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?
Although the age of consent is 16, it is a crime to posses these kind of images of anyone under 18
Which is a bit odd really that they're different you'd think they should be the same.
I can't really get my head around why the bloke whoever it is has done it, people are just bizarre.
-
The name I've been given, by someone who claims to be in the know, has shocked me
-
This is a clearly a very ‘sick’ man.
It seems the higher up the ‘money ladder’ they are & the more ‘famous’ they become, all sense & decency goes out of the window.
Jimmy Saville was ‘untouchable’ when alive & abusing young girls.
Clearly the same sickening behaviour prevails today.
‘They’ truly must believe their ‘status’ will protect them.
Unbelievable.
-
I find it unbelievable that someone has not been in custody already.
National Crime Recording Standards dictate that as soon as Police receive a report of a crime, no matter how insignificant, then it should be crimed and an investigation opened. Especiallly so if it involves Child Sexual Exploitation.
And as far as “complex” goes. This would be a Very simple investigation. The child’s bank account will make very easy reading and the money followed back to the account of the subject. With a court order if needed. This crucial info cannot be deleted or hidden.
The rest is pretty simple. And if the victim has retained any pics or messages from the subject then it’s game over. Very quickly.
I’m guessing the status of this subject is such that he is being afforded a lot of benefit. He is in for a very, very big fall. Life over as he knows it. Just a matter of time.
Does Child Sexual Exploitation cover someone over the age of consent?
Whilst the age of consent for she is 16, the sending and distribution of Indecent images of children ( and for this it’s under 18) is currently against the law. And it would be aggravated if the adult subject encouraged/ instigated this.
-
Careful.
'Anyone speculating today on social media about the identity of the presenter should think very, very carefully about the consequences. They could be sued for the harm they cause and financially ruined.'
-
And now the Met are “waiting” to establish if a crime has been committed. Bloody hell, I know I would not be allowed this much discretion.
If the lad was 17 at the time of the requested pics/clips, then that’s that. It’s that simple.
Of course, the lads family went to the bbc first and not the police. Which is interesting in itself. what they expected to achieve from this is anyone’s guess. Early indications is that it was not financially motivated. ?
Maybe the family don’t want to support a prosecution.?
Nevertheless, the reputational damage will be catastrophic for the subject concerned when this gets out. Which it will.
Money talks at the end of the day. This is about to go very, very public and get very, very messy. And we all know how that ends up.
The baying hounds of the media and their public are chomping at the bit.
-
Met Police already issuing proceedings against people who have wrongly named " potential perpetrators" and been incorrect. I think they also issue proceedings even if someone named the person because it can lead to complications reducing chance of a fair trial
Filo did warn of this above
-
I’ll bring you a cake with a file inside it Nudga.
-
It's always worth remembering that whilst high profile cases like this deservedly get ultra attention and usually justice, less high profile cases tend to get less justice. Such is our system.
-
It's always worth remembering that whilst high profile cases like this deservedly get ultra attention and usually justice, less high profile cases tend to get less justice. Such is our system.
What justice was meted out to Boris Johnson?
You don’t get much more high profile than being a lying PM.
-
The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.
Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!
-
The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.
Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!
She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.
-
£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)
-
The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.
Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!
She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.
Yet plenty of folks have..
-
£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)
He's 20 not 17.
Innocent till proven guilty.
The individual may be guilty of an offence or they may not be I've no idea. So I'm not going to speculate.
I'll condemn them if they're found guilty in a court of law. Not based on the wording of a newspaper article.
Trial by media is never healthy - ask Cliff Richard
-
Sorry to be pedantic, guys, but it's not a "she", it's a "he".
-
Sorry to be pedantic, guys, but it's not a "she", it's a "he".
You see, this is where things get mixed up.
Some saying she and others, including the tv saying he.
Some saying 17 years old and others saying 20.
I have seen people saying names suggested of who the bbc presenter might be, which is a bit dodgy.
-
We all know who the presenter in question is , He was 17 when the first photos were sent and now he is 20 and I will say the photos don't look photo look real ,but what I find admirable is they don't want to press charges,they just want the money to stop so there son cannot keep buying drugs ,they don't want money from this
-
Apparently The Sc*m were sent information from the alleged victim's lawyer on Friday saying the story they had was incorrect. They chose not to publish this or even make any reference to it.
When has a newspaper ever before refused to publish a statement by the actual person at the centre of a story? Very strange.
The young boy was 17 when the contact first began (via their Onlyfans apparently). They are now 20.
-
A reminder. Do NOT post names up here until/if anything is confirmed.
Thanks.
-
The young person involved has lawyered up and denied the whole thing.
Always worth erring on the side of caution, especially when a story comes from The Sun!
She hasn’t denied the whole thing she’s said “nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened” and is at odds with her mother about this.
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions either way yet.
"The whole thing" in this case being all the illegal stuff. If this presenter is silly enough to pay £30,000 to an only fans model then that's not a newsworthy scandal.
Between this and the police declining to investigate for now there will be some squeaky sphincters at news corp HQ tonight.
-
£35 grand, paid to a 17yr old, is a lot of money for “ nothing inappropriate” .
More to this than meets the eye there is ( yoda voice)
He's 20 not 17.
Innocent till proven guilty.
The individual may be guilty of an offence or they may not be I've no idea. So I'm not going to speculate.
I'll condemn them if they're found guilty in a court of law. Not based on the wording of a newspaper article.
Trial by media is never healthy - ask Cliff Richard
17 at the time of the alleged payments and contact
-
He's not presenting the news at 10
-
Here is my take on the whole thing.
It has been intimated that the now 20 yr old no longer lives with his mum and step dad. It is now clear that his mum in particular has an issue with evidence she alleges to have seen and presented to the sun.
Her son however disputes this saying nothing inappropriate happened.
This would suggest that the all is not well relationship wise in that family.
Mum wants to do right by her son and wants payments to stop to kerb sons drug habit.
Son however disputes the account. Why?
Now the devil will be in the detail with this sorry tale, but this I do know: if this lad is still using drugs , and there is still funding from the alleged presenter or promise of continued funding, then there will be no stronger motivation for the lad to want these allegations to go away.
And of course , whoever the mystery presenter is will want this to end.
But Pandora’s box, for both of them has been opened, and it’s going to take some closing.
Even without a criminal prosecution, the beeb have a hot potato to handle. Something they are not good at.
I’m unsure if there is case law for the eventuality of a historic allegation of CSE where the child is now an adult who does not support a prosecution.
Policing by consent means just that. The mum cannot now represent her son because he is now an adult.
-
I did hear the BBc have a new gameshow "The Masked Presenter"
-
Sorry normal rules but if this poor bugger is on crack, he’s not thinking long term he’s thinking about his next fix i.e., asap.
So if, for example, he’s offered by his abuser £x today to keep his mouth shut with possible future £x amounts in the future as opposed to £xx today, his habit will grab for that £xx today.
He’s the sad victim here who I’ve no doubt his abuser will have been well aware of. Vulnerability entices predators & worse.
-
Sorry normal rules but if this poor bugger is on crack, he’s not thinking long term he’s thinking about his next fix i.e., asap.
So if, for example, he’s offered by his abuser £x today to keep his mouth shut with possible future £x amounts in the future as opposed to £xx today, his habit will grab for that £xx today.
He’s the sad victim here who I’ve no doubt his abuser will have been well aware of. Vulnerability entices predators & worse.
My comment about strong motivation was exactly that. We are on the same page. If he is under the illusion that this presenter will be continuing to stump up cash for his habit, then all his common sense will be out the window.
-
The Sc*m said on Monday the family had not spoken to the BBC despite contacting them on 19th May.
The Sc*m says today the family spoke to the BBC for an hour after the BBC contacted them in May.
The lawyer of the young man who the story is about contacted the Sc*m on Friday giving a statement on the story. The Sc*m refused to carry this.
Lot of people putting a lot of faith in what the Sc*m is saying without asking how accurate/truthful that is. Wonder why?
-
He's not presenting the news at 10
he did say in 2021 it might be time to Stepdown from news at ten , allegedly when the first images were sent ,so how long has it been know by the BBC and why now has this only come into the public eye .
-
Two massive things the police have said so far... 1) there is no active investigation because there is no evidence..... 2) they've only received a complaint from one party ie the BBC
Part 1 might change depending on what really is going on with this poor lad caught in the middle. But until then we absolutely do not have a right to know who it is. John Lelsie, Cliff Richard, absolutely ruined by baseless allegations
Part 2 suggests the parents were that worried the first thing they did was ring the Sun for their ££££ and not the police
And as someone has already said the Sc*m knew on Friday that the lad didn't agree with the facts of the story but they published it anyway.
Anyone who buys this rag really needs to have a word with themselves!!!!
-
Funnily enough the only party involved in this we absolutely know has solicited images from an underage person is... The Sun, who have printed topless photos of 16 year old girls on page 3.
-
Two massive things the police have said so far... 1) there is no active investigation because there is no evidence..... 2) they've only received a complaint from one party ie the BBC
Part 1 might change depending on what really is going on with this poor lad caught in the middle. But until then we absolutely do not have a right to know who it is. John Lelsie, Cliff Richard, absolutely ruined by baseless allegations
Part 2 suggests the parents were that worried the first thing they did was ring the Sun for their ££££ and not the police
And as someone has already said the Sc*m knew on Friday that the lad didn't agree with the facts of the story but they published it anyway.
Anyone who buys this rag really needs to have a word with themselves!!!!
On point 1, the police have said there is no evidence. No evidence and not seen evidence are two very different things. The 20 yr old sounds like a non witness to this . Or a “hostile “ witness. So there is unlikely to be any evidence, if held, from his side.
-
How on earth can the BBC investigation be “rigorous and swift”. Last time I checked, the BBC are not a law enforcement body.
They can ask questions all they like. The subject is under no obligation to answer them. Utterly futile. And I’m sure he will be getting some pretty decent legal advice.
They have no power to delve into bank accounts. Which is where the payment evidence will clearly lie. They have no power to seize and interrogate electronic devices capable of sending messages .
And then they are left with a decision based on an allegation by the then child’s mother as to how to deal with it.
Love or loathe the scum newspaper, but they have opened a can of worms here that will take some closing.
-
It's always worth remembering that whilst high profile cases like this deservedly get ultra attention and usually justice, less high profile cases tend to get less justice. Such is our system.
What justice was meted out to Boris Johnson?
You don’t get much more high profile than being a lying PM.
Johnson should be boiled and thrown to the fish for sure but I was meaning specifically within underage sexual abuse/misconduct cases.
-
There are suggestions now that the presenter will never be formally identified given the material key witness will not support any prosecution. Furthermore, the bbc will be left with little option other than to last the presenter off and pay him off probably very substantially, as their tenure at the beeb will be untenable. More good use of licence fees coming our way.
-
15 MPs currently suspended for sexual, bullying or gambling scandals. I don't hear "Richie" demanding prompt investigation and action on them
-
There are suggestions now that the presenter will never be formally identified given the material key witness will not support any prosecution. Furthermore, the bbc will be left with little option other than to last the presenter off and pay him off probably very substantially, as their tenure at the beeb will be untenable. More good use of licence fees coming our way.
Yes I'm also extremely happy my hard earned wage doesn't contribute to the 1.3m pound pay pack of that lefty windbag liniker :laugh:
-
Bbc now ordered to pause their internal investigation as the Police taking another look at this.
I’d bet a small wager the BBC corporate Investigation dept had no idea that indecent images at age 17 was illegal. A very common lack of understanding regarding age of consent for sex and age of consent for images. Not that it will ever be disclosed. I’d love to see their case file log for this. It will be a catalogue of f**k ups.
The only reason they treat it seriously was probably because of the reputational damage it would cause them.
This is easy to bottom out. Metpol get one of their Financial Intel Officers to identify the accounts linked to the suspect. Then do pre order enquiries ( which you don’t need a court order for ) on these accounts for the time period that the child was 17. Look for unusual sums ( one rumoured to be 5k) being transferred to the same account. From there the reasonable suspicion is heightened to the point where you have corroboration for the info given so far. The rest would be down to the CPS. Minus a key witness, would it be in the public interest to prosecute? Can the crime ( if crimed) be looked upon retrospectively with a child victim, without their consent? This I am unsure of. There may be case law on this, but not that I am aware of.
With the lad possibly still being a crack addict, this whole saga may boil down to who has the deepest pockets? I can’t imagine he is paying for his own legal advice for starters?
-
I don't doubt this is serious, but it's now getting into the drama side of things, getting spun and spun. It makes me wonder who on earth might like a long running front page story like this to smudge over other news
-
A second person has come forward now and made accusations
-
A second person has come forward now and made accusations
This presenters right to privacy is slowly being eroded.
As I said in an earlier post. More to this there is.
If this presenter has been in the online space wanting to engage with “young” people, it won’t be confined to just one. It’s just a case of how many come forward. His bank account will make very interesting viewing.
-
A second person has come forward now and made accusations
Which now makes the retraction by the original person ( made by a crack* Lawyer based on Belgravia ) look even more ridiculous
* No pun intended but where has this person got the money for a crack Lawyer ?
Looks like Nudga was right all along
-
A second person has come forward now and made accusations
Which now makes the retraction by the original person ( made by a crack* Lawyer based on Belgravia ) look even more ridiculous
* No pun intended but where has this person got the money for a crack Lawyer ?
Looks like Nudga was right all along
Where has the person (with an Only Fans account) who was paid a substantial sum by an unamed BBC presenter got the money for a lawyer?
Hmmm...
Why did his mother and step-father go The Sc*m when he didn't want them to?
-
A second person has come forward now and made accusations
This presenters right to privacy is slowly being eroded.
As I said in an earlier post. More to this there is.
If this presenter has been in the online space wanting to engage with “young” people, it won’t be confined to just one. It’s just a case of how many come forward. His bank account will make very interesting viewing.
NR, sorry mate, I had to smile at the part of your post which says “more to this there is”.
Just my weird sense of humour but I imagined you saying it in a Yoda accent.
-
Two people have now come forward. One has said that the presenter agreed to meet them, which would at that time have broken Covid rules.
The net's closing in.
-
I hope I read your post correctly in that ‘the net is closing’ as opposed to ‘the Met’ is closing otherwise we’re al f***ed!
-
Two people have now come forward. One has said that the presenter agreed to meet them, which would at that time have broken Covid rules.
The net's closing in.
don't think him breaking COVID rules is the worst thing he has done
-
Been very quiet on George Osborne (Who lets remember austerity measures has killed countless thousands of people) & Boris Johnson not handing in his mobile phone?
Quiet in regards to the mainstream media.
-
South wales police now been in touch with the Met and the Beeb about the welfare of an adult linked to this case. I’m guessing this is the un named presenter. Hmm . So he has connections to wales and may be suffering mental health issues or perhaps has done in the past? The jigsaw pieces are falling into place .
-
I thought everybody connected to this case was an adult..?
-
I thought everybody connected to this case was an adult..?
I’m not so sure the south wales police would be contacting the beeb and the met about anyone other than the un named presenter
-
Huw Edwards it is then.
-
Officially now his Wife names him 1800 hours
-
Receiving hospital treatment for severe mental health issues.
A sad story all round.
-
Been very quiet on George Osborne (Who lets remember austerity measures has killed countless thousands of people) & Boris Johnson not handing in his mobile phone?
Quiet in regards to the mainstream media.
Nice dead cat for them
-
The Met have just confirmed nothing they've seen indicates a crime has been committed.
It sounds like the guy had a thing for his Onlyfans models and could be a dick on the dating apps, but that's not really a scandal worth losing his career over. Questions have to be asked over the Sun seemingly rushing a story out to further their anti BBC agenda. A pretty disgusting episode for the tabloid press, once again.
Now his inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues that's been alleged - that potentially is something that should cost him his job depending on their nature and seriousness. But that's nothing to do with his sex life, and shouldn't see the kind of lurid reporting we've seen over the weekend.
-
So the young people and associated family members with concerns should have just kept their mouths shut?
-
So the young people and associated family members with concerns should have just kept their mouths shut?
The young person at the centre of the row did keep his mouth shut. In fact he said nothing illegal had happened. His lawyer wrote to the Sc*m to say as much - and the Sc*m not only refused to interview him but refused to print it.
The BBC should have acted quicker to check out these allegations when they were first made to ascertain the truth and IF Edwards has been abusing his position.
Because the police say he hasn't done anything criminal. And the Sc*m say they haven't actually seen any evidence.
What this actually seems to be is a family feud and jealousy that the Sc*m have used to further their anti-BBC agenda (& why would the tax dodging, multi-millionaire Sc*m owner Murdoch would want to destabilise a rival broadcaster - I shall leave that for you to ponder).
-
I know that’s not what you think MM but if the BBC had dealt the serious allegations properly at the time (allegations that that if true would have been 10 years in prison) they would have suspended him and it would have got out in the open anyway.
Huw is not the only victim here.
-
But if he's done nothing illegal it's frankly none of any of our business and he does not deserve to lose his job over it.
What his family think of anything is a private matter aswell. I daresay there's people we associate with daily who've done worse and we have no idea at all.
-
Basically The Sun has outed a man with severe mental health issues, and potentially ruined his marriage and life for a few extra quid. Horrific people.
-
35 grand is a lot of Money for “nothing “
This has been rumbling on for more than long enough for any evidence that did exist to have been disposed of .
-
35 grand is a lot of Money for “nothing “
This has been rumbling on for more than long enough for any evidence that did exist to have been disposed of .
A couple of days ago you were saying that everything would be clear once the Met checked his financial affairs. Make your mind up.
-
But if he's done nothing illegal it's frankly none of any of our business and he does not deserve to lose his job over it.
What his family think of anything is a private matter aswell. I daresay there's people we associate with daily who've done worse and we have no idea at all.
Some things are not illegal, but are just plain wrong.
I’m in my 50s and it is perfectly lawful for me to have sex with as many 16 year olds as would consent.
I think all of us would agree that’s morally abhorrent?
-
But if he's done nothing illegal it's frankly none of any of our business and he does not deserve to lose his job over it.
What his family think of anything is a private matter aswell. I daresay there's people we associate with daily who've done worse and we have no idea at all.
Some things are not illegal, but are just plain wrong.
I’m in my 50s and it is perfectly lawful for me to have sex with as many 16 year olds as would consent.
I think all of us would agree that’s morally abhorrent?
Is it anyone but you and your families business though?
-
If I choose to make myself a “personality” to the public who pay my wages then I put myself on a pedestal.
The details of what he’s done and why, perhaps could remain private other than in a court of law..
-
I know that’s not what you think MM but if the BBC had dealt the serious allegations properly at the time (allegations that that if true would have been 10 years in prison) they would have suspended him and it would have got out in the open anyway.
Huw is not the only victim here.
Two separate police forces looked into it and found nothing illegal. The only witness who knows the truth of what happened denies anything untoward happened. The allegations then changed months after they were first reported to the BBC with new details, presumably the false one that the young person was underage at the time. Parents disapproving of their (adult) kid pursuing a career in porn and selling a story to the Sun aren't victims.
The Sun's reporting on this is a disgrace and they very nearly have blood on their hands because of it.
-
If I choose to make myself a “personality” to the public who pay my wages then I put myself on a pedestal.
The details of what he’s done and why, perhaps could remain private other than in a court of law..
It's not in the publics interests to know what kind of porn a news presenter likes, unless it's anything illegal which the police have confirmed it isn't.
-
35 grand is a lot of Money for “nothing “
This has been rumbling on for more than long enough for any evidence that did exist to have been disposed of .
A couple of days ago you were saying that everything would be clear once the Met checked his financial affairs. Make your mind up.
With no criminal investigation, they obviously have not got that far. Or didn’t want to. Or were advised against it. No complaint. No crime. Simple as that. The police haven’t SEEN anything criminal. Doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Don’t forget the adult “victim” is a hostile witness. They didn’t want to make a complaint. They said nothing untoward happened. But they were/ are on the payroll of HE.
The victim and HE have had plenty of time to get rid of any incriminating evidence and collude stories. And they have every reason to. It’s the family that blew the whistle.
No smoke without fire. 35 grand! Payments starting when the child was 17. For what exactly?
The payments have not been in dispute. Giving a child money is not illegal in itself. But what would an A list, high profile, media public figure be spending this sort of money on.” Catalogue “ shots of some 17 yr old in a roll neck sweater and jeans ?
Seriously?
The criminal side of this may have gone away, for now.
Let’s wait and see what happens when the money for the crack addict runs out.
-
But if he's done nothing illegal it's frankly none of any of our business and he does not deserve to lose his job over it.
What his family think of anything is a private matter aswell. I daresay there's people we associate with daily who've done worse and we have no idea at all.
Some things are not illegal, but are just plain wrong.
I’m in my 50s and it is perfectly lawful for me to have sex with as many 16 year olds as would consent.
I think all of us would agree that’s morally abhorrent?
If you took indecent pics of yourself having sex with a 16 yr old and then shared them , that’s illegal.
-
“Porn” is putting it lightly.
For the record I think we should expect better from the Sun, the BBC and Huw Edwards.
Huw’s wife he’s lied to is a victim in this I meant.
Allegations of further inappropriate behaviour being made by BBC staff.
-
Here’s another question.
3 years ago, HE was 58. What sort of arena, online platform etc was he exploring to make contact with a 17 yr old drug user?
Was it an online crotchet forum?
Or perhaps cooking?
New allegations over abuse of power within the beeb. Suggestive inappropriate comments made to junior staff members .
Dishonest infidelity with his wife of many years.
Meeting another during lockdown in another county.
It doesn’t look good does it?
-
Here’s another question.
3 years ago, HE was 58. What sort of arena, online platform etc was he exploring to make contact with a 17 yr old drug user?
Was it an online crotchet forum?
Or perhaps cooking?
New allegations over abuse of power within the beeb. Suggestive inappropriate comments made to junior staff members .
Dishonest infidelity with his wife of many years.
Meeting another during lockdown in another county.
It doesn’t look good does it?
From what I've read, didn't Huw find the other person on OnlyFans, where you need to say you are 18 or over to join.
-
Just remember, the Sun lied about the young person being 17. They lied by omission by not printing his denial in the initial story. And they keep backtracking further and further every day. Thats enough to cast doubt on every other aspect of the story. Very troubling some are taking a guilty until proven innocent stance in here.
-
I was not aware and I don’t think it had been made official that the platform
Was only fans . So right there is the defence . HE would have readily believed that the person at the other end was 18 . And so it’s no surprise a criminal case has not even been opened .
-
But if he's done nothing illegal it's frankly none of any of our business and he does not deserve to lose his job over it.
What his family think of anything is a private matter aswell. I daresay there's people we associate with daily who've done worse and we have no idea at all.
Some things are not illegal, but are just plain wrong.
I’m in my 50s and it is perfectly lawful for me to have sex with as many 16 year olds as would consent.
I think all of us would agree that’s morally abhorrent?
If you took indecent pics of yourself having sex with a 16 yr old and then shared them , that’s illegal.
Yes but that wasn’t my point.
My point was there are behaviours which are legal, but which are morally wrong. Adultery isn’t illegal (in this country) for example, but that’s quite tame.
What’s different about cases like this one is that these are public figures who may have used their status to influence what’s gone on. That’s a matter for bbc disciplinary procedures, but I agree as discussed here earlier, the precise details could remain private to those who need to know.
-
Here’s another question.
3 years ago, HE was 58. What sort of arena, online platform etc was he exploring to make contact with a 17 yr old drug user?
Was it an online crotchet forum?
Or perhaps cooking?
New allegations over abuse of power within the beeb. Suggestive inappropriate comments made to junior staff members .
Dishonest infidelity with his wife of many years.
Meeting another during lockdown in another county.
It doesn’t look good does it?
From what I've read, didn't Huw find the other person on OnlyFans, where you need to say you are 18 or over to join.
All the evidence coming out looks like he did not illegal, moraly wrong but like I said to a work colleague not illegal
-
Here’s another question.
3 years ago, HE was 58. What sort of arena, online platform etc was he exploring to make contact with a 17 yr old drug user?
Was it an online crotchet forum?
Or perhaps cooking?
New allegations over abuse of power within the beeb. Suggestive inappropriate comments made to junior staff members .
Dishonest infidelity with his wife of many years.
Meeting another during lockdown in another county.
It doesn’t look good does it?
From what I've read, didn't Huw find the other person on OnlyFans, where you need to say you are 18 or over to join.
All the evidence coming out looks like he did not illegal, moraly wrong but like I said to a work colleague not illegal
Agree and that should just be between him and his wife, not the whole country.
-
Trial by social media, it’s the norm these days
-
Absolutely and we have plenty of that on this very forum.
-
It looks to me as if the family smelt money and The Sun was only too happy to give it to them so they could smear the BBC.
-
If there was no market for smear campaigns there wouldn't be any. Unfortunately, searching on the media for them is a hobby for many of us, and the Sun is merely one of those outlets that exploit it.
-
Absolutely and we have plenty of that on this very forum.
This post is a prime example
-
The need for the establishment to present a moralistic front, a squeeky clean to aspire to is a form of social control, but is deeply dishonest and messed up. That people on the whole buy into that shows how messed up most people are.
This country, and others, has been ruled by people with the sickest of lifestyles for eternity. There are limits of behaviour of course. Huw's delvings don't seem to have gone much beyond the line, if at all.
Media distraction.
-
This type of behaviour by the press isn't new. Ever since we've had the printed press they've looked for 'victims' to help them sell papers and The Sun knew exactly what they were doing here. We've now reached a point where this is the lead story on every news channel when there are much, much more important things for us to worry about. How much of the country is almost financially bankrupt for one and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
-
The need for the establishment to present a moralistic front, a squeeky clean to aspire to is a form of social control, but is deeply dishonest and messed up. That people on the whole buy into that shows how messed up most people are.
This country, and others, has been ruled by people with the sickest of lifestyles for eternity. There are limits of behaviour of course. Huw's delvings don't seem to have gone much beyond the line, if at all.
Media distraction.
it's a class war, listen to what Mick Lynch says all ringing true
-
So, how do we get an honest, squeaky-clean establishment?
-
So, how do we get an honest, squeaky-clean establishment?
Not voting for serial liars/law breakers would be a good place to start!
-
Absolutely and we have plenty of that on this very forum.
This post is a prime example
Of what.
I looked at your post history today.
You didn’t put anything on here for three years and since coming back almost all of your posts are having a go at myself, BB and Belton.
And you have the nerve to call other posters trolls.
Oh, and your post above is a perfect example.
-
:kiss:
-
Absolutely and we have plenty of that on this very forum.
This post is a prime example
Of what.
I looked at your post history today.
You didn’t put anything on here for three years and since coming back almost all of your posts are having a go at myself, BB and Belton.
And you have the nerve to call other posters trolls.
Oh, and your post above is a perfect example.
Reading my posts history!
I've got a stalker,I must be a celebrity. Fame at last.
-
Here’s another question.
3 years ago, HE was 58. What sort of arena, online platform etc was he exploring to make contact with a 17 yr old drug user?
Was it an online crotchet forum?
Or perhaps cooking?
New allegations over abuse of power within the beeb. Suggestive inappropriate comments made to junior staff members .
Dishonest infidelity with his wife of many years.
Meeting another during lockdown in another county.
It doesn’t look good does it?
OnlyFans. And one of the other complainents is about HE being nasty to him on Grinder.
Go and do your research into what both of those outlets are for. And what sort of people have accounts on there.
Still at least the parent/step-parent are doing it for the right reason and not trying to earn money from their story about their son/step-son. Oh:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview
-
Absolutely and we have plenty of that on this very forum.
This post is a prime example
Of what.
I looked at your post history today.
You didn’t put anything on here for three years and since coming back almost all of your posts are having a go at myself, BB and Belton.
And you have the nerve to call other posters trolls.
Oh, and your post above is a perfect example.
Reading my posts history!
I've got a stalker,I must be a celebrity. Fame at last.
And so it continues.
Sad man.
-
GG.
-
Back to the topic in hand,anyone that buys the Sun needs their head examined. I wouldn't even believe the TV guide in that rag. Unfortunately,like Mail readers,people do.Along with bad governing for years ,bad decision making and shocking media,that is why the country is so funked up.
-
So, how do we get an honest, squeaky-clean establishment?
Not voting for serial liars/law breakers would be a good place to start!
That’s starmer done for then. And I refer to the repeated u turns on policy.
-
It's going to be interesting to see how The Sc*m cover this breaking story about one of their ex-journalists and current right-wing tv presenter. Who despite being extremely vocal about HE and cover-ups has now suddenly 'gone on leave'.
-
Blame Corbyn,Abbot or Starmer for it Wilts.
-
It's going to be interesting to see how The Sc*m cover this breaking story about one of their ex-journalists and current right-wing tv presenter. Who despite being extremely vocal about HE and cover-ups has now suddenly 'gone on leave'.
Who is this, Wilts?
-
Ask nudga Belts.
It could be that rabid right winger Terry Christain
-
Ask nudga Belts.
It could be that rabid right winger Terry Christain
Why ask me? First I've seen of this.
-
It was in jest Nudga as you had your finger on the pulse when the bbc presenter news broke!
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
-
So, how do we get an honest, squeaky-clean establishment?
Not voting for serial liars/law breakers would be a good place to start!
Not allowing individuals and families to hold so much power/wealth is another.
-
It's going to be interesting to see how The Sc*m cover this breaking story about one of their ex-journalists and current right-wing tv presenter. Who despite being extremely vocal about HE and cover-ups has now suddenly 'gone on leave'.
Who is this, Wilts?
Dan Wootton. I feel like, as the allegations against him actually name him specifically, it's ok to post this.
-
Thanks, Macho
He’s another unpleasant character.
-
So, how do we get an honest, squeaky-clean establishment?
Not voting for serial liars/law breakers would be a good place to start!
Not allowing individuals and families to hold so much power/wealth is another.
Ok now do Russia
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
-
I'll have to correct you on that BST. Johnson never had his finger on the button,he had it in lots of meat pies and even more fish pies.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Aren’t we all guilty of selective ‘be kind’ to some degree?
Take Edwards V Schofield, for example. My personal thoughts are that I feel sad for Edwards yet think of Schofield that he deserves everything that has come to him.
Why? No other reason than I liked watching Edwards and perceive him to be a nice chap, whereas I couldn’t abide watching Schofield on the box.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Aren’t we all guilty of selective ‘be kind’ to some degree?
Take Edwards V Schofield, for example. My personal thoughts are that I feel sad for Edwards yet think of Schofield that he deserves everything that has come to him.
Why? No other reason than I liked watching Edwards and perceive him to be a nice chap, whereas I couldn’t abide watching Schofield on the box.
I think so. Gobsh*ites like Dan Wootton change their mind on things depending on what is politically expedient to them.
I saw Owen Jones recently had no problem with someone interrupting George Osboure’s wedding but went on a huge Twitter rant about the Sun’s behaviour regarding Huw Edwards.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Jeremy Clarkson punched a producer at work. He regularly made overtly racist comments on TV.
Andrew Neil facilitated a huge public pile on against a female journalist who had the temerity to investigate Russian influence in UK politics.
I'm struggling to see what the comparison is with Edwards, whose failings, whatever they may be, seem to be entirely connected to his private life.
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Jeremy Clarkson punched a producer at work. He regularly made overtly racist comments on TV.
Andrew Neil facilitated a huge public pile on against a female journalist who had the temerity to investigate Russian influence in UK politics.
I'm struggling to see what the comparison is with Edwards, whose failings, whatever they may be, seem to be entirely connected to his private life.
That’s not what I was saying
-
OK. My mistake.
-
A chap at work today said the hooha over this and Schofield is homophobic. I said I want convinced however it got me thinking is it sexist?
Would Holly Wills be getting all this flack? Cheryl Cole had a relationship with Liam Payne with about a 20 year age gap and she first knew him when he was about 14...grooming a la the Schofield allegations? Cancel Cheryl?
The Finnish female PM recently seen girating with young men in a club. Instead of "that's disgusting" it was quite the opposite with all the doing it for the girls etc
-
Some parts of the media don't seem to have learned from Caroline Flack.
-
A chap at work today said the hooha over this and Schofield is homophobic. I said I want convinced however it got me thinking is it sexist?
Would Holly Wills be getting all this flack? Cheryl Cole had a relationship with Liam Payne with about a 20 year age gap and she first knew him when he was about 14...grooming a la the Schofield allegations? Cancel Cheryl?
The Finnish female PM recently seen girating with young men in a club. Instead of "that's disgusting" it was quite the opposite with all the doing it for the girls etc
The Sc*m in particular have a long history of front page stories imed at showing gay people in a bad light. Elton John sued them for it (and won).
Are they homophobic? Can anyone remember a story they ran that showed gay/trans people in a good light?
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Aren’t we all guilty of selective ‘be kind’ to some degree?
Take Edwards V Schofield, for example. My personal thoughts are that I feel sad for Edwards yet think of Schofield that he deserves everything that has come to him.
Why? No other reason than I liked watching Edwards and perceive him to be a nice chap, whereas I couldn’t abide watching Schofield on the box.
I think so. Gobsh*ites like Dan Wootton change their mind on things depending on what is politically expedient to them.
I saw Owen Jones recently had no problem with someone interrupting George Osboure’s wedding but went on a huge Twitter rant about the Sun’s behaviour regarding Huw Edwards.
Poster equates having confetti spread on you at your wedding with being accused of being a predatory peadophile. (No idea what Owen Jones said - but I doubt it was that).
-
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-wallpaper-gold-flat-carrie-invoice-b2118185.html
Was this journalism also condemned on this forum for invasion of privacy, or was it ok because it was someone you didn’t like?
So you don't see the difference between the private life of a newsreader and the private life of the man that people will vote to be the person with their finger on the button?
I don’t really have an opinion on either. It is what it is with a free press. I do think Huw should be left alone while he’s unwell and can’t respond to allegations.
The public helps to pay the salary of both. But the “be kind” brigade do seem to be quite selective. I would bet the reaction would be different even if it was an Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson while they were at the BBC.
Aren’t we all guilty of selective ‘be kind’ to some degree?
Take Edwards V Schofield, for example. My personal thoughts are that I feel sad for Edwards yet think of Schofield that he deserves everything that has come to him.
Why? No other reason than I liked watching Edwards and perceive him to be a nice chap, whereas I couldn’t abide watching Schofield on the box.
I think so. Gobsh*ites like Dan Wootton change their mind on things depending on what is politically expedient to them.
I saw Owen Jones recently had no problem with someone interrupting George Osboure’s wedding but went on a huge Twitter rant about the Sun’s behaviour regarding Huw Edwards.
Poster equates having confetti spread on you at your wedding with being accused of being a predatory peadophile. (No idea what Owen Jones said - but I doubt it was that).
Wilts, if this was a Tory MP or GB news presenter at the centre of these allegations your reasoning would be like normal rules’. I am incredibly confident of that. That’s the point I’m making about dogmatic people. It’s always ‘my side against yours’ on absolutely everything (political or not) and it’s draining.
This is why I posted the Boris examples.
-
If it was Andrew Neil or Clarkson they would be fair game as they are a pair of sexist,xenophobic kitsons.
Edit. That is also the kind of crowd they they play to.
-
Some parts of the media don't seem to have learned from Caroline Flack.
She was a domestic abuser who for reason is held up in light as some poster child for hard done by celebs. Not saying the press hounding is deserved on anyone but it totally undelines my point of the sexism at play
-
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/gb-news-star-dan-wootton-unmasked-in-cash-for-sexual-images-catfishing-scandal/
Ncrover must have had a premonition (see post above).
-
Wootton is an odious Kitson,however that would appear to be part of the job spec for gaining employment at GBNews
-
So it turns out that all the way through the Huw Edwards story, the Mail had put Dan Wootton on gardening leave because of the issue of him deceiving colleagues into sending him sex pics.
But while they were plastering their front page with attacks on Edwards and the BBC, they never thought to mention this.
Ah well. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
OK, I look forward to the Daily Fails front page splash when the full facts are known.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
OK, I look forward to the Daily Fails front page splash when the full facts are known.
Regardless what the Mail publish on their front page (i doubt they will say anything about this case) its the employees right's i'm referring too.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
OK, I look forward to the Daily Fails front page splash when the full facts are known.
That’s not really the point that was being made.
-
Aye aye, he's here.
-
Aye aye, he's here.
Grow up, Tommy.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
He wasn't an employee. He was a freelancer.
-
Can freelancers be put on gardening leave?
-
It's a phrase. Possibly a technically incorrect one. I apologise profusely if so. They've not run his bi-weekly column since 29 June.
-
I get that, but if he’s not employed by them then they’re not responsible for him in any way.
I don’t believe that the Mail, of all newspapers, would hold back on a story that would sell, because of some hypocritical, unfounded loyalty to someone like him.
He’s nothing to the Daily Mail.
-
Belton
It's the fact that they led, day after day, on the topic of one media personality supposed sex crimes while not mentioning those of a person they'd been paying until a few days earlier.
It's not about them having any responsibility for him. It's about them having a policy aim to direct anger of readers in certain directions.
As I've said several times in here, I've had direct and personal experience of how the bas**rds at the Mail chose to very deliberately mislead their readers. It runs through every fibre of their organisation.
-
It’s quite understandable that if you have been affected personally by how they mislead, you would have such a strong, unwavering view. However, as someone who hasn’t, the way the Mail has responded to both ‘scandals’ is neither surprising nor different to what any other tabloid would do: whatever is best for them.
-
Which, of course, is my point Belton.
I wouldn't trust that rag to tell me truthfully the time of day. And yet millions of people rely on it as a primary source of information about what is going on in the world.
-
The press prints the news, not necessarily the truth. It prints what its readers want to read.
-
A mate of mine has had dealings with Wootton in the past.
Said he wouldn't p!ss on him if he was on fire.
-
A mate of mine has had dealings with Wootton in the past.
Said he wouldn't p!ss on him if he was on fire.
I’ve heard the same. That’s why I thought, initially, that Billy’s point was more about him than the Mail.
-
Which, of course, is my point Belton.
I wouldn't trust that rag to tell me truthfully the time of day. And yet millions of people rely on it as a primary source of information about what is going on in the world.
you are right about the mail, but be honest certain people come on this off topic on a football message board simply to try and get people to think the way they do, of course the numbers are different but the principle is the same
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
I don't remember you saying that about the BBC presenter/Huw Edwards when this story first broke? Your right of course but...
As far as I am aware none of these alleged incidents have taken place in relation to his employment at the Daily Mail - so they are not investigating him. So nor will they be disciplining him. It was whilst he was with The Sun.
The Heil and The Sc*m were very prominnat discussing alleged sexual impropriety by a major media figure emplyed by the BBC. They have yet to mention alleged sexual impropriety by one of their employees. Like people here putting a defence up for one rather than the other.
Which makes you think it's not the actions they are bothered about.
-
Come on BST you should know better, any business who have an employee under an allegation of wrongdoing have to suspend them pending an investigation.
If and when the investigation has something concrete to go on they can then carry out whatever disciplinary measure they deem fitting to the incident.
Nobody, regardless of their likes or political persuasion should be compromised or certain claims made about them before the full facts are known.
I don't remember you saying that about the BBC presenter/Huw Edwards when this story first broke? Your right of course but...
As far as I am aware none of these alleged incidents have taken place in relation to his employment at the Daily Mail - so they are not investigating him. So nor will they be disciplining him. It was whilst he was with The Sun.
The Heil and The Sc*m were very prominnat discussing alleged sexual impropriety by a major media figure emplyed by the BBC. They have yet to mention alleged sexual impropriety by one of their employees. Like people here putting a defence up for one rather than the other.
Which makes you think it's not the actions they are bothered about.
You don't remember me saying anything about Hugh Edwards because like you and others i've made no comments about him at all.
It's usually best to get your facts straight before engaging brain.
Ive got no time for people like Wooton (or Edwards) but they have a right to explain their side of any story, if its then proven that they acted as charged then they deserve whatever sanction is coming their way.
-
Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .
Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news, the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.
-
Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .
Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news, the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.
Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?
-
Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .
Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news, the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.
Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?
I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.
-
Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .
Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news, the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.
Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?
I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.
''The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday''
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go
fish in a barrel.
-
Well well well.
Hugh Edward’s charged last month with offences relating to indecent images of children. Including cat a, b and c.
The bloke clearly has a sexual interest in children.
Throw the f**king book at him .
Interesting that on this tragic day, when the news is rightly dominated by other news, the bbc have slotted in into their news feed as a minor item. It’s almost like they don’t want to advertise the fact they employed (unknowingly) a paedophile. He was charged last month and yet they post this news today, of all days.
Was is posted in other media previous to this nr or were they hiding it also?
I’m not interested in other media outlets. He worked for the bbc. Do you not think the bbc posting this at least 28 days after the event is a little odd? Regarding one of their most high profile ex employees?
Regarding a very serious criminal matter? On a day where all news has been overshadowed by the tragedy in Southport they slip it in as a side matter. It stinks of reputational damage limitation. By the heads of the bbc.
They have even put it under their “culture” sub heading.
''The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday''
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go
fish in a barrel.
Do you not think I read that? Seriously?
I find it incredulous that the news of charges of this nature involving someone as high profile as him has take a month, anctually just over a month to be released. Whilst not employed by the bbc anymore, I struggle to believe they would not have know about this.
He was actually charged on 26 June.
Perhaps the question I should be asking if that’s the case, is why was this not released by the Met on the 26th June? It’s pretty much in the public interest given the recent allegations made against the third biggest earner the bbc had.
-
Yes take it up with the police.
-
Edwards has pleaded guilty to all charges relating to indecent images. I hope they lock him up.
The Crown Prosecution Service said most of the category A images were estimated to show children aged between 13 and 15. Two clips showed a child aged about seven to nine.
Category A images show the most serious abuse including penetrative sexual activity.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c880zykre4lo
-
Simply disgusting behaviour. He deserves all he gets. And if the BBC knew about this months ago and didn't suspend him without pay, there's some very serious questions to ask if the senior management.
-
As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.
What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?
And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!
And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.
Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.
-
The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.
“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”
Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?
-
The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.
“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”
Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?
I'd guess this was the phone of the person sending him the images, but that's just a guess.
-
The BBC story is a bit vague on the timeline of events here.
“After the hearing on Wednesday, police said the investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”
Which probe? The one raised by The Sun? Did all of this only come after they broke the story?
I'd guess this was the phone of the person sending him the images, but that's just a guess.
Yes, Edwards' phone number was identified during the investigation into an offender called Alex Williams.
-
As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.
What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?
And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!
And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.
Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.
Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?
-
Getting to be quite a high profile list down at the BBC perhaps a qualification of getting set on in the first place, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville and now Hugh Edwards.
Be interesting to know where the interviews take place.
-
Yep.
Because the BBC has only employed 3 people in the past 60 years.
-
As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.
What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?
And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!
And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.
Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.
Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?
Big difference between someone like me and an organisation that sucks on the nations teat.
They need to be whiter than white, but always fail in every aspect of their governance.
Its also clear that they will close ranks and protect some of the very worst paedophiles and wrong uns at the expense of the general public.
In my book that's an organisation that's not fit for purpose and a direct danger to the general public.
If their not spouting piss wet bol*ocks their rapeing and molesting the general public. It actually looks like you need to be some sort of "strange outsider" to be even considered for a post.
Rancid shape shifting weirdos, have you applied?
-
I wouldn't know Billy, I fell out with them when they stopped Muffin the Mule and Andy Pandy.
-
As a news gathering and producing agency the BBC have serious questions to answer about this whole sordid and disgusting episode.
What i'd like to know is who was giving this cretin cover and protection going back to way before his disappearance off our screens?
And all done on taxpayers money, heck, the guy was even given a pay rise!
And they wonder why the general public are fed up to their back teeth of this busted and overtly politicised disgrace of an organisation.
Will be very interesting to see their "forced subscription receipts" dwindle to nothing.
Would your employer know everything you do in your down time and would you offer up your phone to be examined by them if asked?
Big difference between someone like me and an organisation that sucks on the nations teat.
They need to be whiter than white, but always fail in every aspect of their governance.
Its also clear that they will close ranks and protect some of the very worst paedophiles and wrong uns at the expense of the general public.
In my book that's an organisation that's not fit for purpose and a direct danger to the general public.
If their not spouting piss wet bol*ocks their rapeing and molesting the general public. It actually looks like you need to be some sort of "strange outsider" to be even considered for a post.
Rancid shape shifting weirdos, have you applied?
So no preconceptions blurring your vision dd?
-
6 months, suspended!!! :ohmy:
Don't do it again you very naughty boy
-
6 months, suspended!!! :ohmy:
Don't do it again you very naughty boy
Quite amazing the affect of what mentioning "mental health issues" can do for your sentencing.
With this being the case perhaps 95% of the prison population ought to ask for a re-trail!
-
He will need to keep a very low profile for some time now, imagine walking down the street and some undesirable nutcase recognises him!
-
All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim... :police: :police: :police:
-
And yet if say hurty words on social media then expect 2 years in jail.
-
All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim... :police: :police: :police:
It’s nothing to do with the fact he’s rich though.
https://x.com/barristersecret/status/1835673864614887851?s=46&t=oRfX1WiRiEXeMOmtN1TPDA
I agree the justice system should be much harsher on this type of thing, but to suggest it’s because he’s rich appears to be far from correct.
-
All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim... :police: :police: :police:
It’s nothing to do with the fact he’s rich though.
https://x.com/barristersecret/status/1835673864614887851?s=46&t=oRfX1WiRiEXeMOmtN1TPDA
I agree the justice system should be much harsher on this type of thing, but to suggest it’s because he’s rich appears to be far from correct.
Maybe not because he's rich but possibly because of who he is?
At work we now shift through the job applications after HR have taken out personal details like name, age, sex, religion, ect. So in effect we just concentrate on the individuals technical skills that are a requirement for the role, this is done before we decide who goes forward to the interview stage, that then becomes the time when the personal details are first aired. Many companies will be doing this same thing.
Its just a pity that in this case something could not have been done in a similar manner, just to take out the element of who the accused was.
I know its not as simple as this but i just wonder if consideration was given to the status of Edwards and it having a bearing on the sentence decision.
We just don't know these days, the justice system is so skewered it will make people think like this.
-
Part of his defense was he never searched for the photos ,he paid someone to send them to him just shocking
-
All rather two tier isn't it.as if being rich and a kiddy fiddler you're ok. Tweet about a Muslim... :police: :police: :police:
It’s nothing to do with the fact he’s rich though.
https://x.com/barristersecret/status/1835673864614887851?s=46&t=oRfX1WiRiEXeMOmtN1TPDA
I agree the justice system should be much harsher on this type of thing, but to suggest it’s because he’s rich appears to be far from correct.
Maybe not because he's rich but possibly because of who he is?
At work we now shift through the job applications after HR have taken out personal details like name, age, sex, religion, ect. So in effect we just concentrate on the individuals technical skills that are a requirement for the role, this is done before we decide who goes forward to the interview stage, that then becomes the time when the personal details are first aired. Many companies will be doing this same thing.
Its just a pity that in this case something could not have been done in a similar manner, just to take out the element of who the accused was.
I know its not as simple as this but i just wonder if consideration was given to the status of Edwards and it having a bearing on the sentence decision.
We just don't know these days, the justice system is so skewered it will make people think like this.
Did you read the thread?
As much of a madness as this fact is, it’s a standard sentence for this type of thing.
-
Yep, he probably did read it but .....................