Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

hammocity said:
I’d feel the same if it was ITV/Sky, etc, it just fits the BBC agenda of hiding deviant behaviour despite the Management knowing this has been a long standing issue. Do your research before posting a flippant comment.
Click to expand...
"anything to nail the BBC with is ok by me"

Whether true or not, presumably.

Which is the problem with this thread.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I'm not sure of the parameters, but they seem pretty broad, because almost every celebrity affair is deemed 'in the public interest.' But 'man buys porn', which in essence is what this story is, doesn't seem like it'd qualify to me. Obviously they try to then do some bullshit about the BBC's handling of the case to try and give it some public interest legitimacy.
Click to expand...
I suspect the bigger story may end up being the motivation of the parents going to the sun. Especially as the 20 yr old 'child' has said nothing untoward went on and the police agree.
 
hammocity said:
You are a fucking prick with that comment, I’ve seen what this kind of thing had done to a family and it’s effect, go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

Blimey the hypocrisy and the false upset stinks. Weren't you pulling a sly one comparing me to Mr Edwards because I posted an article proving that he has had depression that affected his working, published 2 years ago.

If that's the level you sink to with someone not sharing your opinion, then with the greatest respect, go fuck yourself, you are getting a boner as you think the BBC are the evil empire and Huw is the tool to beat then with.

What's next, a ducking stool for witches....and for anyone who calls out that the process is flawed?

Any suggestion that you don't have any facts to go on at the monent falls on deaf ears....and here was me thinking it wanking that affected your eyesight
 
hammocity said:
Do you want me to send you PM links of a family that’s almost been destroyed by this kind of behaviour? I’ll do it under the proviso you don’t divulge on here, it’s very sad and has affected the lives of a mother and her 4 kids, a successful businessman who has been convicted twice, the second time after his wife gave him a second chance. There’s an aura of desperation about the family as they try to live a normal life. I can imagine Edwards, wife and kids going through the same dilemma.
Click to expand...

What you could do is answer the very simple question I asked. Mr moral-high-ground
 
Vic said:
"anything to nail the BBC with is ok by me"

Whether true or not, presumably.

Which is the problem with this thread.
Click to expand...
To nail the BBC is the kicker, the initial vilification applies to any deviant like Edwards.
 
Northerndave said:
Blimey the hypocrisy and the false upset stinks. Weren't you pulling a sly one comparing me to Mr Edwards because I posted an article proving that he has had depression that affected his working, published 2 years ago.

If that's the level you sink to with someone not sharing your opinion, then with the greatest respect, go fuck yourself, you are getting a boner as you think the BBC are the evil empire and Huw is the tool to beat then with.

What's next, a ducking stool for witches....and for anyone who calls out that the process is flawed?

Any suggestion that you don't have any facts to go on at the monent falls on deaf ears....and here was me thinking it wanking that affected your eyesight
Click to expand...
Fuck me, wrong again, it wasn’t me who posted about his depression, you must have been drinking. Anyway like that other **** on here saying “boner”, no, I just like winding woke cunts up. I don’t give two fucks to be honest but anyone defending Edwards is seriously lacking in understanding.

The law says a man over the age of 16 up to any age limit, let’s say 85 can have sex with a girl who is 16 years old and one second past midnight, illegal, no. Immoral, absolutely 100%.
 
Northerndave said:
Quick, dial 999 and get the morality squad on hot standby !
Click to expand...
I’m so hoping this is the tip of the iceberg, if reporting the truth about the BBC had come out years ago perhaps the Yew Tree enquiry might not have had so many victims. I don’t understand why you’re defending a **** who couldn’t possibly have known what age this boy/girl was. If he/she was under 16 it’s illegal to have child pornographic images on a computer, it’s a place on the sex register at the very least and classed as a paedophile, you’re fucking sick if you’re defending that. I’ll repeat, he had no idea how old this young person was but he was 60 ish, dirty old ****.
 
hammocity said:
Is there something you need to admit? Empathy is ok in some circumstances, it’s what people with the same tendencies need to do to reassure themselves everything’s ok.
Click to expand...

So you didn't post this did you not? Maybe put down the keyboard and the bottle
 
hammocity said:
Fuck me, wrong again, it wasn’t me who posted about his depression, you must have been drinking. Anyway like that other **** on here saying “boner”, no, I just like winding woke cunts up. I don’t give two fucks to be honest but anyone defending Edwards is seriously lacking in understanding.

The law says a man over the age of 16 up to any age limit, let’s say 85 can have sex with a girl who is 16 years old and one second past midnight, illegal, no. Immoral, absolutely 100%.
Click to expand...

Should Harold and Maude be banned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.