Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

hammocity said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...
Strong Hammo - but morally correct imo - but each to their own - whatever morals are, and indeed whether morals are still relevant at all (I saw that "comedian" clip posted previously, shouting at us all that anyone can do what the hell they like - because ultimately we all have a shit on the toilet - enlightening it was). However, should point out this person is apparently not of the age you suggest - and guess what!!?? "No crime has been committed".
Interesting battle lines being played out over Household Huw. I wonder if the tolerance of a 61 year old man dropping his Keks to young people over 40 years younger would be "understood " as much if it was say, a household name like Farage, Ferguson, Prince Andrew, etc etc? You get the drift.
Anyway, cleanly a far more compassionate society now - which can only be a good thing. No more pitchforks and torches. Ensuing threads will be interesting.
 
Last edited:
Feel sorry for his kids personally, finding out your dads been chasing after men who were probably only being born when you were leaving school,can’t be good for the Napper
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
What about fisting?


_110281754_huwboxing2.png


1007.png
Click to expand...
2 pairs of underpants on...wrong un...
 
flb said:
It’s a well orchestrated, well planned end to his tv career , anyone who can’t see that this is all about preserving the BBC’s reputation is extremely naive.
Click to expand...
So what you're actually saying is that the BBC conspired with The Sun and the parents to get Huw Edwards off the payroll? That's QAnon levels of conspiracy right there
 
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...
As awful as that is, it doesn't sound to me like the 2 situations are comparable though. For a start, you say that someone was convicted twice whereas in this case the police are saying there's no case to answer
 
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...

It's clearly not just a 'man buys porn' story though, is it?

jma said:
Man watches porn - that's not the story though, is it?

The (alleged) story is man spends 35k on buying porn pictures from one person - which for anyone brings into question their judgement or levels of obsessions regarding the seller.

Plus, potentially, married man also is active on dating websites and is accused of breaking lockdown rules to meet much younger person (who he is alleged to have given monetary gifts).

The ridiculousness of people (Jonathan Pie or on here) saying the story is 'man watches porn' is deliberately ignoring that the story is about a much older man is showering young people with gifts for sexual gratification. That is not what "most" 60 year olds do. And that's before you add in the potential of him leading of a double life as a married man.

Now, if all the above points are proven to be nonsense, then the outrage about it being reported is justified. But if not, what is surprising about such odd behaviour from an old public figure being in the news?

As i said earlier, I couldn't care less if he is back on TV next week (or not). But to argue that it is not outlandish and always going to be reported on is mad.
Click to expand...


Honestly, it is not really for anyone on here to say what should happen to him and anyone who is too exercised by the repercussions/consequences he should face is a bit down the rabbit hole.

But the rush from many if his aquiaintences in the media and others on here to try to say this is a non story and just 'man buys porn' is through the looking glass stuff and in another dimension.

It's quite clear why this is out of the ordinary and of interest to the press.
 
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.