Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

So you didn't post this did you not? Maybe put down the keyboard and the bottle
Fuck all to do with mental illness and I didn’t read the link. FYI, I don’t do bottles and certainly not on week days unless going to the match.
 
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 ****.

Mate, you are obviously a little mental. Here's just 4 facts and then I'm going to have to leave you to stew with your zealotry

Four facts:
  • She was not under 16
  • You don't know if he knew her age
  • Yes I'm defending the right of a person to be innocent until proven guiity
  • You have no facts to back your argument, only rumours
Go back to book burning you fucking puritan.
 
To nail the BBC is the kicker, the initial vilification applies to any deviant like Edwards.
Genuine question. Why is he a deviant beyond someone who watches porn? Or subscribes to OnlyFans? Or donates to live cam girls and asks them to do things. Do you consider all forms of porn deviant or is there something specific about this case? Assuming that everyone was over 18 at the time, which seems to be the case given that the police confirm nothing illegal happened.
 
Last edited:
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%.
You sort of address your own concern there. I'm afraid the days of doing prison time for being immoral are some way behind us.
 
Mate, you are obviously a little mental. Here's just 4 facts and then I'm going to have to leave you to stew with your zealotry

Four facts:
  • She was not under 16
  • You don't know if he knew her age
  • Yes I'm defending the right of a person to be innocent until proven guiity
  • You have no facts to back your argument, only rumours
Go back to book burning you fucking puritan.
I think you need to stop casually assuming @hammocity isn't posting from Iran and respect his personal views on morality/ legality.
 
You are aware of course the scandal going back 30 years , and the growing number of people telling the BBC to stick the TV licence up there arse? That people in general don’t fall for the BBC propaganda.
How do you feel about the BBC constantly publishing articles about City being guilty by the way ? Aren’t the club innocent until proven guilty ? They are one of the biggest culprits in degenerating City , so is that okay then ? Or is it just Edwards showing his arse on a website that’s acceptable ?
That’s certainly true.

Even one of their own presenters had to say, ‘you do know we won a treble?’ when they were doing an expose on Kalvin Phillips having a tough season and never playing yet not bothering doing anything about City winning three trophies.
 

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.