The Huw Edwards situation

[Participant]

you're a nonce

Personal attack!


So who is it then?

 

[Malevolence]

You need to be 18 and over for nudes/sexually explicit material in the uk

Yep. You can legally get married and have sex at 16, but recording your wedding night antics can land you on the nonce list.

 

[Dis86]

I used a passport photo as an example of a none sexually theme image.

Whoever it is paid for sexual images of a 17yo.

I'm not sure on how the word images is being used, as it can also mean moving images eg, video.

Got a source for what you're claiming? Nothing I've read says they paid for sexual images when the person was 17.

 

[Efour]

Who's the new nonce on the block?
Which one of my childhood idols is a deviant now....

 

[Dirk Diggler]

More disgusting than what's being alleged?

Yep. Post #3 nails it.

If someone is accused of criminal behaviour then they should be dealt with in the courts - randomly throwing names around is out of order. This thread has next to zero compassion for the victim of the alleged crime, it's all about the tabloid-esque sport of guessing who the "wrong 'un" is, with no thought given to the reputations, careers or even lives that get ruined along the way.

And The Sun "news"paper, I mean really - they used to publish nude pictures of 17 year olds on a daily basis.

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

Whoever it is has just been suspended so I guess the guessing game of who it is will get even worse!

 

[C Kent]

Yep. Post #3 nails it.

If someone is accused of criminal behaviour then they should be dealt with in the courts - randomly throwing names around is out of order. This thread has next to zero compassion for the victim of the alleged crime, it's all about the tabloid-esque sport of guessing who the "wrong 'un" is, with no thought given to the reputations, careers or even lives that get ruined along the way.

Whose the victim? The crackhead selling explicit piccies or the gentleman whose been caught buying them?

And The Sun "news"paper, I mean really - they used to publish nude pictures of 17 year olds on a daily basis.

What relevance does that have?

 

[Fubsy]

Yep. Post #3 nails it.

If someone is accused of criminal behaviour then they should be dealt with in the courts - randomly throwing names around is out of order. This thread has next to zero compassion for the victim of the alleged crime, it's all about the tabloid-esque sport of guessing who the "wrong 'un" is, with no thought given to the reputations, careers or even lives that get ruined along the way.

And The Sun "news"paper, I mean really - they used to publish nude pictures of 17 year olds on a daily basis.

I agree randomly throwing around names and guessing is out of order, but the BBC have facilitated that by not acting in a timely manner if The Sun is to be believed. Just because it's The Sun doesn't make it less bad for the BBC, the victim or the accused in a way, if is indeed the truth.

 

[darkgen]

Whoever it is has just been suspended so I guess the guessing game of who it is will get even worse!

Suspended with pay?

 

[m@rty]

Is it the ghost of Jimmy Savile?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Whose the victim? The crackhead selling explicit piccies or the gentleman whose been caught buying them?

That's for the courts to decide.

What relevance does that have?

Really, I need to explain that?

 

[Tykey]

It's license payers money (ie ours) that have been funding a young persons crack addiction, it's normal to wonder who it is imo, no-one has definitely said it's x or y in this thread afaik. The bbc hasn't helped by not naming them but it'll come out eventually.

 

[the shadow]

35K quite a few licences

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I agree randomly throwing around names and guessing is out of order, but the BBC have facilitated that by not acting in a timely manner if The Sun is to be believed. Just because it's The Sun doesn't make it less bad for the BBC, the victim or the accused in a way, if is indeed the truth.

The BBC are following their disciplinary process as they have legal obligations to consider - unlike the OP; they're not forcing or facilitating anyone's behaviour.

 

[NVP]

And it’s been leaked who it is now

 

[C Kent]

That's for the courts to decide.

Who do you think is the victim? after all you said there was no compassion for the victim in the thread..

Really, I need to explain that?

Yes

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

Suspended with pay?

Not sure but I'd assume so.

 

[Fubsy]

That's for the courts to decide.

Really, I need to explain that?

The courts just handle whatever is illegal at the time. In the past they have punished people for things we would find totally acceptable nowadays and vice/versa, e.g. it wasn't illegal at the time for The Sun to have 16/17 years topless in their paper as far as I am aware. The law is something that reflects us at certain points, and lags behind sometimes.

The BBC hiding behind their disciplinary process is fine, but I can't really find much sympathy for them as an organisation when a) they covered the Cliff Richard escapade, b) they've known for months apparently, c) they acted fast on Lineker for arguing with the Home Secretary. d) bonus, they hid Savile for decades.

 

[Stu999]

I always knew he was a wrong ‘un.

 

[Efour]

edited