Cable Forum
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712014)

Paul 31-07-2023 00:57
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36157597)
Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.
Thats enough, you were warned last time.
You have been removed from the topic for 7 days.
Seems you cannot discuss this subject without being an ass.

Maggy 31-07-2023 07:09
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36157590)
Fan of noncing are you?

17 / 18. Hey as soon as the clock strikes they’re fair game.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------



As I said before Maggy, as a teacher.

If the 60yr old head teacher of your school was paying a 6th form girl for naked photos, you’re on board with that? No worries?

You didn’t answer last time, I’ll wait.
Have been in a situation where the teacher was in his 30s.It was completely legal..Yes I as a teacher I was concerned but at the end he wasn't involved directly in her education and they were two consenting adults.

As for this situation there has been so many red herrings and misinformation from so many muddying the case with so called righteous indignation I'm suspecting it's all about selling newspapers not about any true concern for the 18 year old.

Consider this.An 18 year old can be fighting in the armed services,serving in the police,firefighting,vote,have sexual relations with whomever they choose to and the law doesn't figure in any of those choices unless they are breaking the prostitution laws in the last situation.

When do any of you consider the age of adulthood begins?Are we going to insist that childhood continues until 22,25,30?Just because we are living longer there is no need to insist that childhood lasts longer.

peanut 31-07-2023 07:42
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
A lot has changed over the years. An 18 year old a couple of decades ago was considered a adult without question, today's Gen Zs / Millenials with the changes in parenting and attitudes these days an 18 year old are now treated a whole lot differently.

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 09:08
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36157614)
A lot has changed over the years. An 18 year old a couple of decades ago was considered a adult without question, today's Gen Zs / Millenials with the changes in parenting and attitudes these days an 18 year old are now treated a whole lot differently.
Many 18 year olds fought and died in both WWI and WWII

The UK still enlists 16 and 17 year olds but do not deploy them until they are 18

Yet some here still want to consider 18 year olds as children

Damien 31-07-2023 09:28
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
I do think 18 is young and that such an age gap is dodgy. I think age gaps become less of a problem when the younger person is older, i.e late 20s, and fully into adulthood.

The focus on legality though is that a lot of what made this a story in the public interest has turned out not to be true. It seems not only were no images exchanged when the person in question was under 18, but Edwards also didn't even meet them until they were 18. It's also clear the person consented and said as much to The Sun which didn't publish that whilst also pushing the 'might be illegal line'. Finally if what Private Eye has said is true and the 'money for drugs' was not part of the original allegations (and certainly not part of the complaint to the BBC) then they can't be classed as vulnerable.

The Sun slammed the BBC for their lack of investigation but, from what we know now, the BBC was told of a relationship between two consenting adults of legal age. You can't suspend someone from their job for a legal relationship because you have qualms about the age gap. The Sun also started a narrative of 'who is the BBC presenter soliciting illegal images from a crack-addicted 17-year-old?' story. The story wasn't 'who is the BBC presenter engaged in a consensual and legal relationship with an inappropriate age gap?'. The reason for that is that is far less obvious that it's in the public interest to root that person out.

OLD BOY 31-07-2023 09:43
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
[Post withdrawn]

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 10:56
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157609)
Well being immoral in most instances is not illegal. Sex outside marriage, adultery, viewing porn. I am sure a good portion on this forum have done at least one of those
Nobody said being immoral was illegal. It's all about a respected, austere, public figure doing immoral stuff and being complained about.

ianch99 31-07-2023 11:03
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
I think the wider problem here is not what Huw Edwards did or did not do, but rather the ease & degree with which so many people are triggered by the media. We have so many public figures, both living and past, that have had relationships of a dubious nature with their partners but rarely have garnered the sort of outage we see here.

It is as if the population is being directed who to "rage" against. I find this very sinister.

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 11:03
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157619)
Nobody said being immoral was illegal. It's all about a respected, austere, public figure doing immoral stuff and being complained about.
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 11:19
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157621)
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

So what?

He that is with sin among the great unknown can also cast stones at those with sin who project themselves with gravitas that conceals their immorality.

I guess there are two camps:

1. The misguided woke camp that won't criticise immorality if it's legal.

2. The more reasonably minded old school who might not care so much what people like Edwards do (because they don't know about it) but are aghast when it comes into public view.

What you and your fellow posters avoid is an answer to Pierre's question: If it were your 18 year old son/daughter, would you be OK with what Edwards was doing? Why do you and others avoid answering that? I know why.

peanut 31-07-2023 11:25
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
I can't answer the question because I don't have kids. And I don't know all the facts. For all I know it could have been the 18 year who took advantage. After all he made a lot of money out of it all for what, a few pics.

ianch99 31-07-2023 11:34
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157622)

So what?

He that is with sin among the great unknown can also cast stones at those with sin who project themselves with gravitas that conceals their immorality.

I guess there are two camps:

1. The misguided woke camp that won't criticise immorality if it's legal.

2. The more reasonably minded old school who might not care so much what people like Edwards do (because they don't know about it) but are aghast when it comes into public view.

What you and your fellow posters avoid is an answer to Pierre's question: If it were your 18 year old son/daughter, would you be OK with what Edwards was doing? Why do you and others avoid answering that? I know why.
A good example of a post based on no objective evidence but following the raging mob:

"I am so angry!! Grrr..."

"Why are you so angry?"

"I just am! I was told that something terrible happened and it must be true! Oh, and what's worse, it something to do with woke! Grrrr ...."

"But the lawyer for the young person said: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”"

"I don't care! I know what I think happened so it must be true! Grrr...."

:p:

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 11:49
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Another one who won't answer Pierre's most fundamental question in morality.

TheDaddy 31-07-2023 11:57
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36157613)
Have been in a situation where the teacher was in his 30s.It was completely legal..Yes I as a teacher I was concerned but at the end he wasn't involved directly in her education and they were two consenting adults.

As for this situation there has been so many red herrings and misinformation from so many muddying the case with so called righteous indignation I'm suspecting it's all about selling newspapers not about any true concern for the 18 year old.

Consider this.An 18 year old can be fighting in the armed services,serving in the police,firefighting,vote,have sexual relations with whomever they choose to and the law doesn't figure in any of those choices unless they are breaking the prostitution laws in the last situation.

When do any of you consider the age of adulthood begins?Are we going to insist that childhood continues until 22,25,30?Just because we are living longer there is no need to insist that childhood lasts longer.
You sure it was completely legal as I seem to remember from my teacher training that the law says it's illegal for a student and teacher to indulge in a relationship and the example used was exactly as you describe 30+ teacher and 18 year old student

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 12:05
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157622)

So what?

He that is with sin among the great unknown can also cast stones at those with sin who project themselves with gravitas that conceals their immorality.

I guess there are two camps:

1. The misguided woke camp that won't criticise immorality if it's legal.

2. The more reasonably minded old school who might not care so much what people like Edwards do (because they don't know about it) but are aghast when it comes into public view.

What you and your fellow posters avoid is an answer to Pierre's question: If it were your 18 year old son/daughter, would you be OK with what Edwards was doing? Why do you and others avoid answering that? I know why.

I did not avoid it. Read back and see my honest answer then apologise

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 12:23
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36157627)
You sure it was completely legal as I seem to remember from my teacher training that the law says it's illegal for a student and teacher to indulge in a relationship and the example used was exactly as you describe 30+ teacher and 18 year old student

Setting aside the student/teacher aspect, there is a huge moral difference between 30+ and 60+



---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157629)
I did not avoid it. Read back and see my honest answer then apologise

I’ve looked back over a few pages and cannot find your answer. Maybe you woul oblige with a link. I’m always keen to apologise when I’ve committed a wrong.


Mythica 31-07-2023 12:33
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36157597)
A great comfort to all the parents out there.

Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.
That's the second time I've seen you do that and quite frankly it's disgusting of you to say such things.

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 12:35
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157632)

Setting aside the student/teacher aspect, there is a huge moral difference between 30+ and 60+



---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------




I’ve looked back over a few pages and cannot find your answer. Maybe you woul oblige with a link. I’m always keen to apologise when I’ve committed a wrong.

it was a reply to you mentioning his question simply stating I would be more concerned about the drug problem. Which is 100% true

My eldest works hard has 2 kids and struggles. If she decided to start selling pictures and found a mark of whatever age who paid her £35K I would not approve of her choice of selling the pictures and the older mark I would just think what an idiot a fool and his money and all that. I certainly would not think he was exploiting her though

Now if she was doing it to fuel a drug addiction all my concern would be focused on that

Inactive Digital 31-07-2023 12:43
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157622)

If it were your 18 year old son/daughter, would you be OK with what Edwards was doing?
Perhaps I've missed something but what exactly was he doing? I'm not sure we've seen any facts/proof yet?

Mythica 31-07-2023 12:43
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157632)

Setting aside the student/teacher aspect, there is a huge moral difference between 30+ and 60+



---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------




I’ve looked back over a few pages and cannot find your answer. Maybe you woul oblige with a link. I’m always keen to apologise when I’ve committed a wrong.

What huge difference? If you take 36, that would be double the age gap. I'm not sure why when moving into the 40s, 50s and 60s makes it any worse. Let's also not forget there is a huge porn industry based on teen (legal) and also let's not forget, teens (legal) are making vast amounts of money by not even selling naked pictures on Onlyfans, some even millions.

Hugh 31-07-2023 12:46
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157632)

Setting aside the student/teacher aspect, there is a huge moral difference between 30+ and 60+



---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------




I’ve looked back over a few pages and cannot find your answer. Maybe you woul oblige with a link. I’m always keen to apologise when I’ve committed a wrong.

What is the "huge moral difference", please?

GrimUpNorth 31-07-2023 12:55
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
So to all those trying to take the moral high ground by being disgusted with a 'relationship' between two people 60+ and 18, I'm intrigued to know what age gap would make you come down and stop being outraged?

Also, there's been plenty of stories out there about aging millionaires who just happen to marry someone maybe 60 years younger than them but in all the years I've been here I've never heard anyone complaining about them. Is the outrage in this case maybe because they were the same sex and some people are just letting their unconscious bias show through?

The worrying bit of all this to me is what sort of mental health episode did he have that ended up with him being admitted to hospital? I hope he didn't try and harm himself, because if he did then all those shouting from the rooftops about how disgusted they are should maybe stop and think.

Hugh 31-07-2023 13:42
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36157642)
So to all those trying to take the moral high ground by being disgusted with a 'relationship' between two people 60+ and 18, I'm intrigued to know what age gap would make you come down and stop being outraged?

Also, there's been plenty of stories out there about aging millionaires who just happen to marry someone maybe 60 years younger than them but in all the years I've been here I've never heard anyone complaining about them. Is the outrage in this case maybe because they were the same sex and some people are just letting their unconscious bias show through?

The worrying bit of all this to me is what sort of mental health episode did he have that ended up with him being admitted to hospital? I hope he didn't try and harm himself, because if he did then all those shouting from the rooftops about how disgusted they are should maybe stop and think.
The S*n didn’t think it was immoral, disgusting, or perverted a year ago…

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/18...ge-gap-couple/

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 13:44
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157635)
it was a reply to you mentioning his question simply stating I would be more concerned about the drug problem. Which is 100% true

My eldest works hard has 2 kids and struggles. If she decided to start selling pictures and found a mark of whatever age who paid her £35K I would not approve of her choice of selling the pictures and the older mark I would just think what an idiot a fool and his money and all that. I certainly would not think he was exploiting her though

Now if she was doing it to fuel a drug addiction all my concern would be focused on that
So, you didn't answer it then, you pivoted on drugs - and thus no apology.

Your second paragraph attempts a reply based on your parental feelings. It was a bit of a roundabout explanation, but the gist seems to explain your feelings toward the "mark" as you put it (e.g. Edwards). As you would not approve of selling the pictures, can I take it that you would consider it immoral at both ends of the transaction? That's how it reads.

daveeb 31-07-2023 13:45
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36157643)
The S*n didn’t think it was immoral, disgusting, or perverted a year ago…

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/18...ge-gap-couple/
Double standards in the S*n, well fancy that :erm:

Mythica 31-07-2023 14:12
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157644)
So, you didn't answer it then, you pivoted on drugs - and thus no apology.

Your second paragraph attempts a reply based on your parental feelings. It was a bit of a roundabout explanation, but the gist seems to explain your feelings toward the "mark" as you put it (e.g. Edwards). As you would not approve of selling the pictures, can I take it that you would consider it immoral at both ends of the transaction? That's how it reads.
Most parents would hate the fact their children would join the army or go out drinking heavily every weekend, but it's legal and nothing they can do about it. I'm not sure what point the question poses?

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 14:23
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157644)
So, you didn't answer it then, you pivoted on drugs - and thus no apology.

Your second paragraph attempts a reply based on your parental feelings. It was a bit of a roundabout explanation, but the gist seems to explain your feelings toward the "mark" as you put it (e.g. Edwards). As you would not approve of selling the pictures, can I take it that you would consider it immoral at both ends of the transaction? That's how it reads.
It was an answer to the question

Attempts? roundabout explanation?

Honest opinion but you can shove it

Paul 31-07-2023 14:31
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157648)
Honest opinion but you can shove it
I suggest everyone calms down.

One person has already been removed from this topic for crossing the line in reference to other members, dont be the second.

Jaymoss 31-07-2023 14:49
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36157651)
I suggest everyone calms down.

One person has already been removed from this topic for crossing the line in reference to other members, dont be the second.
Fair play. As you will know I edited so I did chill

One thing is for sure when in discussion with certain members here no matter what you reply with it is never good enough. Time for me to just not try to discuss anything with them :)

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 14:59
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36157646)
Most parents would hate the fact their children would join the army or go out drinking heavily every weekend, but it's legal and nothing they can do about it. I'm not sure what point the question poses?
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.

ianch99 31-07-2023 16:00
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157656)
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.
Interesting use of words:

perpetrator

a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act: "the perpetrators of this horrific crime must be brought to justice"

You have obvious convicted the man so where is your evidence?

Mythica 31-07-2023 16:06
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157656)
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.
But I literally don't get the point of the own children thing. I see 18 year olds drinking themselves silly each week and I think nothing off it, but if I had an 18 year old, I'd be worried sick. Plenty of 18 year olds have Onlyfans and I personally see nothing wrong with it, if it was my child, I'd be mortified, but I still don't see the point, I wouldn't want my child going in the army and to 'war' but I see nothing wrong in it.

nffc 31-07-2023 16:28
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157656)
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.
That represented as a Venn diagram would presumably have some overlap.


If this "kid" was indeed over 18 the whole time, then legally there is nothing wrong, if they were in contact when he was 17 but no images or cash were exchanged until after he had turned 18, again, legally nothing wrong.


We have to accept that in terms of legality the police looked at the evidence they had and decided there was no case.



There are indeed some who would question the morality of the decision but it is possible both for this to be done when the actions are themselves legal but do not register as appropriate with an individual. For example it is possible to get married, split up with your partner, get a divorce and marry again but would a Catholic church allow you to marry again? Some people think separating from a marriage is morally wrong especially if you're leaving it for someone else (as you're breaking a promise you made to be with your married partner for life) but it is allowed under law. It is also possible to think that HE's actions were immoral but legal.


Personally I wouldn't have an interest in teenagers even if they're 18 or 19 and in every possible sense of the word classed as adults. A 18 or 19 year old is under half my age and that's quite a significant age gap - even more so if you're in your 60s. You'd almost be in a relationship with someone similar age to a grandchild, but technically this is legal.



The kid having (apparently) a drug habit with the money this (apparently) funded adds another moral slant onto it, indeed, why did the police not do anything about a 18 yr old boy taking illegal drugs? Maybe they did and we didn't know. Maybe it is all made up.

Hugh 31-07-2023 18:38
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157656)
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.

Those who argue about the illegality seem to be avoiding being put on the spot in relation to their own children and the morality towards on older perpetrator.


---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Maybe the topic's run its course. It's we who are keeping it alive.
It's yesterday's news and may flare up again when and if the Edwards case resurfaces.
What’s the moral difference between a 40 year old doing this, and a 60 year old?

Russ 31-07-2023 19:12
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36157588)
You are a Christian man aren’t you? And a father. So if a man of influence ( which Huw Edwards is, no argument) was soliciting photographs of your naked 18yr old son or daughter……would you just dismiss it as just immoral, and move on?…………or would you want to rip out his spine.

I know what I would want to do.
What *I* may want to do is not always (or even sometimes) the RIGHT thing to do.

I most probably would be livid that a man so much older was lusting after my 18 year old but there would be very little I could (legally) do to stop it. Don’t get me wrong if I saw him down the street and we came face to face then I’d likely explode but as they’re both consenting adults I’d end up worse off and most probably lose my job

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 19:32
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36157658)
Interesting use of words:

perpetrator

a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act: "the perpetrators of this horrific crime must be brought to justice"

You have obvious convicted the man so where is your evidence?
Every flipping news report on the topic!

OLD BOY 31-07-2023 19:45
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157679)
Every flipping news report on the topic!
There’s no evidence for conviction reported in the papers as far as I know.

Sephiroth 31-07-2023 19:53
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36157680)
There’s no evidence for conviction reported in the papers as far as I know.
Not you, OB! Ian has accused me of convicting Edwards.
The evidence of his immorality (perpetrator) is all over the media.

OLD BOY 31-07-2023 23:09
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157681)
Not you, OB! Ian has accused me of convicting Edwards.
The evidence of his immorality (perpetrator) is all over the media.
Sorry, Seph, but I think that other people’s morality is none of our business. We should just let it be and do something more important.

All people seem to do these days is criticise others.

Sephiroth 01-08-2023 07:27
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 


Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!

ianch99 01-08-2023 09:10
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157691)


Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!
I see you have attained full cult membership, congrats! :D

Hugh 01-08-2023 09:51
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post
It's about the division between those who say nothing illegal occurred and those who question Edwards' morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36157691)


Actually, OB, you are quite right. But it becomes fun when it’s all over the media and the wokerati here start immoralising!
I hope your neck recovers quickly from your whiplash injury, caused by your sudden 180 degree turnaround… ;)

https://media.tenor.com/Opq-yj3ounMAAAAC/handbrake.gif


Thinking about it, it was more like this…

https://i.gifer.com/9Kid.gif

daveeb 01-08-2023 10:43
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36157696)
I hope your neck recovers quickly from your whiplash injury, caused by your sudden 180 degree turnaround… ;)
Could be inline for a significant payout for that one, where there's blame there's a claim. ;)

GrimUpNorth 01-08-2023 21:10
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36157684)
Sorry, Seph, but I think that other people’s morality is none of our business. We should just let it be and do something more important.

All people seem to do these days is criticise others.
Doesn't happen often, but couldn't agree more. Well said, spot on etc

Pierre 07-08-2023 07:09
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Well as has been said, no more to be gained from this discussion. Maggy never answered the question.

But I’ll be keeping the receipts from this discussion as it seems everything is OK on here as long as it’s legal.

Just so the next time some one is angry and attacks the morality of a Tory MP, Pop star or comedian that squirrels away millions in perfectly “legal” tax avoidance schemes.

Or when a Prime Minister’s wife avoids up to £20m in tax with non-dom status. “Legally”paying £30,000 a year to keep the status.

Or MPs, of all colours, expensing a new kitchen.


So until next time.

Russ 07-08-2023 07:20
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
MPs are a different subject for me. I can’t stand any of them, I’ve never met an honest one and if they wear a blue rosette then in my eyes they can do no right regardless. Most likely because they’re incapable of it.

Tax avoidance schemes, yes of course they’re legal. Immoral? Yep. Are Tory MPs hypocrites for using them? Absolutely 100% they are.


Huw Edwards - what he did was it immoral? Whilst keeping in mind that it’s subjective word I’d say yes it is but he broke no laws. I’m not suggesting it’s ok on that basis and I wouldn’t agree with anyone who said it was.

I’d put pop stars and comedians in the same bracket.

Maggy 07-08-2023 07:26
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36158051)
Well as has been said, no more to be gained from this discussion. Maggy never answered the question.

But I’ll be keeping the receipts from this discussion as it seems everything is OK on here as long as it’s legal.

Just so the next time some one is angry and attacks the morality of a Tory MP, Pop star or comedian that squirrels away millions in perfectly “legal” tax avoidance schemes.

Or when a Prime Minister’s wife avoids up to £20m in tax with non-dom status. “Legally”paying £30,000 a year to keep the status.

Or MPs, of all colours, expensing a new kitchen.


So until next time.
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.

Jaymoss 07-08-2023 09:12
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
So sorry for your loss

joglynne 07-08-2023 09:34
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
Hope you are getting all the support you need Maggy. My love to you and your family at this sad time. <<hugs>>

Maggy 07-08-2023 10:43
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36158055)
Hope you are getting all the support you need Maggy. My love to you and your family at this sad time. <<hugs>>
:tu:

ianch99 07-08-2023 11:09
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
I am so sorry to hear this. My mother died last week so I understand some of what you are going through. Take care ...

Kursk 07-08-2023 18:00
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36158059)
I am so sorry to hear this. My mother died last week so I understand some of what you are going through. Take care ...
My condolences to you both. Remember them in their best times.

Sephiroth 07-08-2023 18:42
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
@Maggy

Sincere condolences.

GrimUpNorth 07-08-2023 20:32
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36158059)
I am so sorry to hear this. My mother died last week so I understand some of what you are going through. Take care ...
Condolences to both of you, it's a difficult time when you loose someone close.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36158084)
@Maggy

Sincere condolences.
Not done yourself any favours with that reply. Bad karma :td:.

Pierre 07-08-2023 21:02
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36158088)
Not done yourself any favours with that reply. Bad karma :td:.
Ironically, neither have you :td:

GrimUpNorth 07-08-2023 21:50
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36158091)
Ironically, neither have you :td:
Why not?

Hugh 07-08-2023 21:58
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 

Gentlemen, two CF’ers have recently lost close family members - let’s not get in a bun-fight; it would not be appropriate.

Russ 07-08-2023 22:45
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
I need new glasses.

I swear I read “bum fight” then.

TheDaddy 08-08-2023 02:56
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36158052)
MPs are a different subject for me. I can’t stand any of them, I’ve never met an honest one and if they wear a blue rosette then in my eyes they can do no right regardless. Most likely because they’re incapable of it.

Tax avoidance schemes, yes of course they’re legal. Immoral? Yep. Are Tory MPs hypocrites for using them? Absolutely 100% they are.


Huw Edwards - what he did was it immoral? Whilst keeping in mind that it’s subjective word I’d say yes it is but he broke no laws. I’m not suggesting it’s ok on that basis and I wouldn’t agree with anyone who said it was.

I’d put pop stars and comedians in the same bracket.
We've had this discussion before, 80% of aggressive tax avoidance schemes, like the ones the very wealthy and their paid for schills indulge in are found to be not legal in court, yet this government will have you believe it's the knackered over 50's that are the problem or the people on small boats, "don't look over here at us look over there that asylum seekers kid, it's got taxpayer funded shoes on", anyone claiming this to be politics of envy is either not paying attention or an apologist as of course no laws are broken when you're the one making them, Edwards is another useful distraction for them or he would be if the story hadn't gone cold

---------- Post added at 02:56 ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.
Sorry for your loss :hugs:

Pierre 08-08-2023 21:02
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36158137)
Well, since not everyone* applied that philosophy in that thread, why should everyone do so?

*in fact, very few did…
Well here’s a selection for you then and these are just the obvious ones.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36155989)
I imagine it is the press and this coming out that has sent him into hospital. End of the day all he has done is something countless others do every day
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36156012)
Being caught doing what? Paying a teenager for some nudes?

No criminal proceedings and until there are he is guilty of nothing more than getting his rocks off. You never watched Porn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36156014)
As I have said. Until there is a crime then I am not gonna judge him harshly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36156027)
What is your point? People are free to make moral judgement about what he was doing but it appears it was consensual and legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36156054)
legally, there would be nothing wrong with him having a relationship with, or getting sexual photos from, someone on their 18th birthday. Morally it's a different question, but that's a case of personal values.


Let us not forget the police have investigated this and decided no laws have been broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36156099)
IF the person was over the age of consent then whatever went down between them is none of our business. If he wants to buy or engage in porn then that's up to him and the only thing that will result from this will be an awkward chat with his wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36156120)
The long and short of it is thus, no criminal office has been committed and there's been a witch hunt instigated by an organisation with highly questionable morals
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36156122)
Who exploited who? The old man who got a few pictures or the teen who got 35K. Seriously I think you got it the wrong way round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36156359)
He was good at his job and if found to have committed no crimes then he should be allowed to go back to his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36157460)
Why would the BBC stop it, or do anything (act) ?
Nothing illegal was happening according to the reports.

They (the parents) didnt have a "need" to do anything at all.

In fact, if the "child" was 18, they were actually an adult, entitled to do as they pleased.
It sounds rather like controlling parents having a tantrum when they didnt get their own way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36157469)
Cobblers. Nothing illegal. Hes not like a hypocritical politician criticising others, while doing differently themselves. Just a news reader with mental health issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36157540)
Influence and power? He just reads the news from an autocue. As long as he can still do that then thats all that matters to us and his employer. He isn't the PM, and hasn't done anything illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36157584)
In the UK an 18 year old id legally an adult and entitled to make his own choices and decisions.That's the entire situation here.There has to be a cut off point where adulthood begins and ends.
All the furore that has ensued is purely down to a newspaper trying to sell it's product by trying to make salacious innuendo without reference to the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 36157606)
The law is quite clear and unambigous, as long as two consenting adults are involved. Personal morals don't come in to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36157609)
Well being immoral in most instances is not illegal. Sex outside marriage, adultery, viewing porn. I am sure a good portion on this forum have done at least one of those
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36157613)
Have been in a situation where the teacher was in his 30s.It was completely legal..Yes I as a teacher I was concerned but at the end he wasn't involved directly in her education and they were two consenting adults.

jfman 08-08-2023 22:10
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
I’m not the biggest Pierre fan going.

However I do believe politicians should at least pretend to be upstanding and beyond reproach. That requires at least some journalistic integrity, not least among those at the state broadcaster, to hold them to that standard.

I do not - and never will - accept morality is merely operating within the law.

I also find it ludicrous for forum members who criticised Boris Johnson so vociferously to pretend there’s a morality in doing nothing illegal while condemning him.

Jaymoss 08-08-2023 22:32
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36158152)
Well here’s a selection for you then and these are just the obvious ones.
I stand by what I said. I am not judgemental on morality it is not my place to judge

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36158157)
I’m not the biggest Pierre fan going.

However I do believe politicians should at least pretend to be upstanding and beyond reproach. That requires at least some journalistic integrity, not least among those at the state broadcaster, to hold them to that standard.

I do not - and never will - accept morality is merely operating within the law.

I also find it ludicrous for forum members who criticised Boris Johnson so vociferously to pretend there’s a morality in doing nothing illegal while condemning him.
I really do not like him at all

He quoted my points quite a bit but I personally do not think I said anything that turned out to be wrong in this thread at all

I did not judge Huw when a good few had judged him a nonce and as that turned out I was right not to. I refuse to judge someone on their morality I do not agree with a lot of their choices but who am I to condemn them? In my world only Jehovah can do that

jfman 08-08-2023 22:48
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36158161)
I stand by what I said. I am not judgemental on morality it is not my place to judge

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------



I really do not like him at all

He quoted my points quite a bit but I personally do not think I said anything that turned out to be wrong in this thread at all

I did not judge Huw when a good few had judged him a nonce and as that turned out I was right not to. I refuse to judge someone on their morality I do not agree with a lot of their choices but who am I to condemn them? In my world only Jehovah can do that
The biblical imagery of “let he ho is without sin cast the first stone” is nice and all that but I prefer my journalists whiter than white nailing Conservative politicians to the wall.

If the bold Huw needs some sick leave for acting within the law he’s not up to the task.

Jaymoss 08-08-2023 22:54
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36158163)
The biblical imagery of “let he ho is without sin cast the first stone” is nice and all that but I prefer my journalists whiter than white nailing Conservative politicians to the wall.

If the bold Huw needs some sick leave for acting within the law he’s not up to the task.
He needs sick leave because his mistakes have been misreported by the None Whiter than White Sun newspaper

Please tell me what papers out there really fit your requirements?

jfman 08-08-2023 23:01
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36158164)
He needs sick leave because his mistakes have been misreported by the None Whiter than White Sun newspaper

Please tell me what papers out there really fit your requirements?
No newspaper needs to meet my standard for the bold Huw to fall beneath his own.

If you sincerely believe the bloke who reads news at 10 on the state broadcaster can survive this then I don’t know what to say.

Zelensky is more likely to turn up conceding the already lost territories to Russia on RT than Huw Edwards read news at 10.

Jaymoss 08-08-2023 23:06
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36158165)
No newspaper needs to meet my standard for the bold Huw to fall beneath his own.

If you sincerely believe the bloke who reads news at 10 on the state broadcaster can survive this then I don’t know what to say.
I do not think anything. It is not up to me if he keeps his job or not.

My view is all about not judging him for what he has done. Many many people do the same. I question who the victim is. I personally do not think the young man is a victim he raked it in. And there is no evidence to show Huw knew he was spending it on drugs

jfman 08-08-2023 23:11
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36158166)
I do not think anything. It is not up to me if he keeps his job or not.

My view is all about not judging him for what he has done. Many many people do the same. I question who the victim is. I personally do not think the young man is a victim he raked it in. And there is no evidence to show Huw knew he was spending it on drugs
Very well what’s he got to worry about? Get in front of the camera and start trousering 400k a year of taxpayers money. Let the public judge with their eyeballs.

His cowardice when he gets a six figure pay off to not front up who he is will be the final insult to the licence fee payer.

Damien 09-08-2023 08:14
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36158152)
Well here’s a selection for you then and these are just the obvious ones.
I said multiple times I thought what he did was immoral but also made the point it was legal which was relevant because he was accused of illegality.

Maggy 09-08-2023 10:11
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36158163)
The biblical imagery of “let he ho is without sin cast the first stone” is nice and all that but I prefer my journalists whiter than white nailing Conservative politicians to the wall.

If the bold Huw needs some sick leave for acting within the law he’s not up to the task.
Then you are doomed to constant disappointment.

Hom3r 09-08-2023 16:40
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36158053)
My apologies but I've forgotten the question and I'm currently having to deal with the death of my husband.

Sorry for you loss
:(

Damien 29-07-2024 16:21
Re: BBC Presenter Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36158170)
I said multiple times I thought what he did was immoral but also made the point it was legal which was relevant because he was accused of illegality.
This, on the other hand, is illegal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go. :shocked:


Quote:
Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children.

The offences are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday.

Paul 29-07-2024 18:04
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Thread title updated.

Quote:
The offences are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022 and relate to 37 images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat, according to the Metropolitan Police.
Strange how its taken this long, almost a year now.

nomadking 31-07-2024 11:16
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images

jfman 31-07-2024 12:31
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Beast.

denphone 31-07-2024 17:44
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
How evil hides behind the veneer of supposed respectability

nffc 31-07-2024 18:19
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.


After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.


Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.


If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.


The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.

nomadking 31-07-2024 18:40
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36180286)
Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.

After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.

Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.

If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.

The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.
And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link
Quote:
After the hearing, police said officers started investigating Edwards after seizing a phone as part of an unrelated probe, which revealed his participation in a WhatsApp conversation.
The Metropolitan Police said a 25-year-old paedophile called Alex Williams, who was sentenced to a suspended 12-month jail sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in Wales on 15 March, had shared indecent images of children with Edwards.

jfman 31-07-2024 18:51
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36180286)
Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.


After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.


Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.


If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.


The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.
Nor do they present that a man on the coin of the state to the extent of four hundred and forty thousand pounds a year committed a crime.

Hugh 31-07-2024 18:54
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36180288)
And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct

Quote:
Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort."

He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else".
Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.

nomadking 31-07-2024 18:59
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36180293)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct



Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.
Link
Quote:
Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images,the most serious classification of indecent images, on a phone. He is also accused of having 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs.
He still set out to join that WhatsApp group and remained there.

nffc 31-07-2024 19:06
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36180288)
And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link
Yes, there's absolutely no fair way that HE can go down for this when the sender wasn't jailed.


But he was still being sent images of children in August 2021 after requesting adults only in February 2021.


There isn't a lot which can defend this behaviour, because you can simply either report it, delete the content from your phone (even though technically that doesn't stop the fact you were making CP by being sent a copy), leave the group, block the sender, etc. Indeed getting this content presumably doesn't happen randomly anyway


He didn't and it's the scale of the stuff he was sent along with the nature and the repeated occurrence over time which is the key thing here.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36180293)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct



Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.
Totally agree with bib


There's a lot wrong here. But there's also a lot of sensationalism which means people will be misled by headlines, from what actually did happen.

nomadking 31-07-2024 19:12
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36180297)
Yes, there's absolutely no fair way that HE can go down for this when the sender wasn't jailed.


But he was still being sent images of children in August 2021 after requesting adults only in February 2021.


There isn't a lot which can defend this behaviour, because you can simply either report it, delete the content from your phone (even though technically that doesn't stop the fact you were making CP by being sent a copy), leave the group, block the sender, etc. Indeed getting this content presumably doesn't happen randomly anyway


He didn't and it's the scale of the stuff he was sent along with the nature and the repeated occurrence over time which is the key thing here.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------


Totally agree with bib


There's a lot wrong here. But there's also a lot of sensationalism which means people will be misled by headlines, from what actually did happen.
See my post where I quote the source of they were on his phone.

Hugh 31-07-2024 21:39
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36180299)
See my post where I quote the source of they were on his phone.
There seems to be contradictory statements…

From the Telegraph report today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...guilty-latest/

Quote:
Speaking in Edwards’ defence, his barrister Philip Evans KC said: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.

“It is important also to remember for context that devices, Mr Edwards’ devices, have been seized, have been searched, and there’s nothing in those devices.

“It is only the images that are the subject of the charges that came via a WhatsApp chat.

“Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”

nomadking 31-07-2024 21:56
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Link
Quote:
Huw Edwards, once the BBC's most senior news presenter, has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.
He admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by another man on WhatsApp, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.
They included seven category A images, the most serious classification - two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.
Maybe "having" was meant to be "was sent" or "received"?

Whatever way you look at things, he was looking for "barely legal" content and carried on communicating with somebody who had under-age content.

Hugh 31-07-2024 22:12
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36180305)
Link
Maybe "having" was meant to be "was sent" or "received"?

Whatever way you look at things, he was looking for "barely legal" content and carried on communicating with somebody who had under-age content.
Yup - abhorrent behaviour, and he has, quite rightly, been found guilty.

Paul 01-08-2024 20:35
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
The law is against the "making" of illegal images.

However, while not defending Mr Edwards, the law seems a little alarming in some cases.

Quote:
To 'make' has been widely interpreted by the courts, and can include the following:

* live-streaming images of children
* storing an image in a directory on a computer
* downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen
* accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism
* opening an attachment to an email containing an image
* receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
Most of those make sense (not sure how you would prove Live Streaming) - its the last two seem a bit alarming.

Someone could randomly send you/group an image, without warning, and you're classed as "making" it ?
The same with an email, how could you possible know what was in an attached image, until you opened it ?

In fact, the previous one about an automatic 'pop-up' seems a bit concerning as well, the point of an "automatic pop-up" is you had no control.
Accessing a pornographic website itself is not normally illegal - of course you could just run any half decent pop-up blocker to prevent that happening.

Also, how do you even report it ?
If you keep the image in any form as evidence, or forward it on to police, you're breaking the law yourself ?
I suppose the relevant word is "can", so isnt always interpreted that way, depending on context, events etc.

In the case of Huw, what he should have done is as noted above "delete the content, leave the group, block the sender".

So the thing that (for me) points towards his guilt is that he didnt do the last two of those things.
Why you would be in a private group unless you were looking for dodgy images, its not as if legal porn is hard to find, just google it.

spiderplant 01-08-2024 20:49
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
I assume the principle of mens rea applies, so you would only be guilty if you could reasonably foresee that it could contain illegal content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Paul 02-08-2024 03:39
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36180356)
I assume the principle of mens rea applies, so you would only be guilty if you could reasonably foresee that it could contain illegal content
What I came across in a later report suggests he could not use "mens rea" as a defence.
Quote:
Edwards admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by a convicted paedophile, Alex Williams, on WhatsApp.
While its not mentioned in that report, I saw in another report that these were over a period of time, not all at once.
You could only get that many, over time, if you stuck around waiting for them. He was guilty, and had little choice but to plead as such.

spiderplant 02-08-2024 09:14
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36180363)
What I came across in a later report suggests he could not use "mens rea" as a defence.

While its not mentioned in that report, I saw in another report that these were over a period of time, not all at once.
You could only get that many, over time, if you stuck around waiting for them. He was guilty, and had little choice but to plead as such.
Absolutely. I was addressing these points:
Quote:
Someone could randomly send you/group an image, without warning, and you're classed as "making" it ?
The same with an email, how could you possible know what was in an attached image, until you opened it ?

Russ 02-08-2024 09:33
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
I’m no expert on these kinds of things but from what I’ve been told anecdotally by police from the hunting stuff if someone sends you an illegal image, whether you requested it or not, whether you kept it or not, if you view the image you’ve committed an offence. Sounds harsh but given the serious nature of this I get that it needs to be. However whereas the police may arrest you for it, a very in-depth investigation will likely show whether you intended to receive it or have gone looking for it in the past. These sorts of details will only come out in court. The best you can hope for (assuming someone genuinely did not request the stuff and isn’t legitimately interested) is a no further action from the CPS but that’s unlikely.

This kind of reason is why WhatsApp shows you a preview of what someone is trying to send you - you don’t have to download it.

It’s a legal minefield with no obvious way to answer.

I get the impression Edwards isn’t interested in underage material but used very poor judgement in his actions and who he keeps in contact with.

I’m happy to be proven wrong though - if it turns out he knew what he was doing then he deserves to be put away for a very long time.

Hugh 02-08-2024 15:18
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
On WhatsApp on my Android Pixel 8 Pro and in my iPad Pro (WhatsApp on Chrome Browser), I don’t get thumbnails, I get the picture as soon as I open the Chat Group.

On a walk this morning/afternoon with a friend who was a Crown Prosecutor, she said if it is sent to a chat group/conversation on WhatsApp, one doesn’t need to have opened it, as your phone will have "made" the photo by receiving it.

Russ 02-08-2024 15:24
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
I tend to keep out of chat groups - fair enough. It would explain how he’s been charged. I still get the impression he’s not deliberately searched for this stuff but a good tip is not to get involved with anything involving adults just above “legal age”.

It’ll all come out in the end…

RichardCoulter 03-08-2024 14:30
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36180355)
The law is against the "making" of illegal images.

However, while not defending Mr Edwards, the law seems a little alarming in some cases.



Most of those make sense (not sure how you would prove Live Streaming) - its the last two seem a bit alarming.

Someone could randomly send you/group an image, without warning, and you're classed as "making" it ?
The same with an email, how could you possible know what was in an attached image, until you opened it ?

In fact, the previous one about an automatic 'pop-up' seems a bit concerning as well, the point of an "automatic pop-up" is you had no control.
Accessing a pornographic website itself is not normally illegal - of course you could just run any half decent pop-up blocker to prevent that happening.

Also, how do you even report it ?
If you keep the image in any form as evidence, or forward it on to police, you're breaking the law yourself ?
I suppose the relevant word is "can", so isnt always interpreted that way, depending on context, events etc.

In the case of Huw, what he should have done is as noted above "delete the content, leave the group, block the sender".

So the thing that (for me) points towards his guilt is that he didnt do the last two of those things.
Why you would be in a private group unless you were looking for dodgy images, its not as if legal porn is hard to find, just google it.
The Met advise people not to delete such images as they say that this will help to trace the offender.

The Online Safety Act amended the 1978 legislation to grant Ofcom the right to be granted immunity from the various charges of viewing, creating etc of illegal material because of their duty of online safety.

Russ 03-08-2024 14:49
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36180372)
I tend to keep out of chat groups - fair enough. It would explain how he’s been charged. I still get the impression he’s not deliberately searched for this stuff but a good tip is not to get involved with anything involving adults just above “legal age”.

It’ll all come out in the end…
Having read the Mirror’s interview with the 21 year old Welsh guy Edwards allegedly groomed I’m taking back what I believed about him not deliberately seeking out this stuff.

Innocent until proven guilty of course. But my guess is we won’t see or hear from him in many years.

jfman 03-08-2024 15:00
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36180411)
The Met advise people not to delete such images as they say that this will help to trace the offender.

The Online Safety Act amended the 1978 legislation to grant Ofcom the right to be granted immunity from the various charges of viewing, creating etc of illegal material because of their duty of online safety.
Don’t delete items we can prosecute you from holding whether you’ve opened them or not. Fantastic.

RichardCoulter 03-08-2024 17:10
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36180415)
Don’t delete items we can prosecute you from holding whether you’ve opened them or not. Fantastic.
Indeed:

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/adv...n/pornography/

The law on this is a mess, even the police can fall foul of the laws on child pornography:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...robyn-williams

Stephen 03-08-2024 18:34
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
I've seen also that an episode of Doctor Who, where Edwards featured reading the news has been temporarily removed from iPlayer so they can edit the episode to remove him and add in a different voice over or something.

Paul 04-08-2024 03:58
Of course, the BBC goes to great lengths to cancel you, once convicted.
A huge number of old Top of the Pops are no longer shown (i.e. repeated).

Here you go : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo

1andrew1 04-08-2024 08:24
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
You don't need to be convicted to be removed, as BBC Children in Need has removed its advert that starred the Southport stabbing suspect. To be fair, I think we'd have all done the same in this instance.
https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-remov...spect-13189841

jfman 09-08-2024 14:07
Re: BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended
 
Dear Huw,

Since we kept paying you while you were investigated for being a beast is there any chance of 200 grand back?

Yours,

DG, BBC

https://www.theguardian.com/media/ar...-return-salary


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum