Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? " You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..?" Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Mark Page.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..?" Agree, one case is too many with such things.. They employ now in excess of 21000 so it was more than that 40 years ago.. How many in other specific professions in that time might be a comparison but doubt the op would be bothered about such things.. I can add that in one of the emergency services since the late eighties I know of two Nationally, one rightly went to prison and one took the option of suicide before trial.. For some anything to attack an institution they see as left, hey ho.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These institutions will be sorted once they take human beings out of them. Once you have human beings working in any organisation you are going to get the imperfection of the human race." AI is coming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..?" how long did Savile work for the BBC and also Edwards?…… also, look at the level Savile went to! His ‘one case’ is probably akin to hundreds! No doubt many people knew about both but nothing was done! That is a total disgrace. Think about all the victims and all aided with taxpayers money. There is no way you can simply say “ It’s only 2, the average is low”. Unbelievable!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..? how long did Savile work for the BBC and also Edwards?…… also, look at the level Savile went to! His ‘one case’ is probably akin to hundreds! No doubt many people knew about both but nothing was done! That is a total disgrace. Think about all the victims and all aided with taxpayers money. There is no way you can simply say “ It’s only 2, the average is low”. Unbelievable!!!" Just asked the question, to which the OP has not answered. Maybe you can enlighten us more..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..? how long did Savile work for the BBC and also Edwards?…… also, look at the level Savile went to! His ‘one case’ is probably akin to hundreds! No doubt many people knew about both but nothing was done! That is a total disgrace. Think about all the victims and all aided with taxpayers money. There is no way you can simply say “ It’s only 2, the average is low”. Unbelievable!!!" Is it not a factor in an organisation over a forty year period..? Again one is too many, to denigrate a whole organisation or profession on the actions of a minority is bizarre and shows a lack of critical thinking perhaps or an agenda.. We rightly don't demonise all Doctors because of Shipman.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These institutions will be sorted once they take human beings out of them. Once you have human beings working in any organisation you are going to get the imperfection of the human race. AI is coming " AI lol (Artificial Idiots?) Ask Alexa to set a timer for 'chihuahuas' Listen to BBC's AI ChatBot to get IPlayer working by signing in to your BBC account . . . 'First turn off your device !!!!!' Then Return here!' BT's Chatbot suggests that you consider another supplier for internet deals. MIT says AI can't get its 'head' around Covid-19 - even though an algorithm was written specifically to research it. All data coming out never mentions covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? " Let's ask the same question of the Conservative and Unionist Party when it is revealed what its leader Sir Jeffery Donaldson and his wife got up to. From what has been published so far it makes one's stomach turn. Sex offenders infiltrate into many different organisations. Of course the BBC has made mistakes, so have many other organisations, but just highlighting one shows your obvious bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I wonder if this is a "bbc" problem, or a man in power problem, or a man seeking positions to abuse, or just a function of high profile people being reported on.
From what I've read there was no abuse of power or position.
But I've avoided reading too much tbh. TW by proxy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? " Who is forcing you to fund them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perpetrators are more likely to get work when there is access to under 18s. Teachers, youth workers, specific sports trainers (gym, football etc). Suggesting an employer is at fault is ridiculous. And most under 18s suffer at the hands of those known to them and family. An awful subject, but to safeguard children we need to know the facts." Your Labour Party won’t safeguard children, just ask the Rotherham children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? Who is forcing you to fund them?" Well....apart from the folks who pay their licence fee which is defined as a tax on viewing by some, even if they do not watch the BBC's content, there is the FCDO who contribute a substantial sum, paid from our taxes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perpetrators are more likely to get work when there is access to under 18s. Teachers, youth workers, specific sports trainers (gym, football etc). Suggesting an employer is at fault is ridiculous. And most under 18s suffer at the hands of those known to them and family. An awful subject, but to safeguard children we need to know the facts. Your Labour Party won’t safeguard children, just ask the Rotherham children. " Oh ffs it's not the job of the govt, it's everyone's duty. There were whistle blowers, but a disgusting culture. The televised drama made me cry, there were heroes trying their best to protect the girls being groomed, given alcohol and the rest, but they forever were banging their heads against the brick wall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perpetrators are more likely to get work when there is access to under 18s. Teachers, youth workers, specific sports trainers (gym, football etc). Suggesting an employer is at fault is ridiculous. And most under 18s suffer at the hands of those known to them and family. An awful subject, but to safeguard children we need to know the facts. Your Labour Party won’t safeguard children, just ask the Rotherham children. Oh ffs it's not the job of the govt, it's everyone's duty. There were whistle blowers, but a disgusting culture. The televised drama made me cry, there were heroes trying their best to protect the girls being groomed, given alcohol and the rest, but they forever were banging their heads against the brick wall." But it got covered up in the name of political correctness, Oxford, Telford etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have an issue with the “making images” term as it implies something different to receiving and having images. Not excusing the latter, it is still perverted but Edwards was not involved in actually making the images which, I think, is even worse!" Without recipients, there'd be no call. And before you ask, there would never be no recipients. I heard Edwards had told the guy he didn't want to receive more. Anyone abhorrent by the images would have shopped the guy to the police. Anyone in fear of being discovered having received them, hopefully would now shop whomever, to the police. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have an issue with the “making images” term as it implies something different to receiving and having images. Not excusing the latter, it is still perverted but Edwards was not involved in actually making the images which, I think, is even worse! Without recipients, there'd be no call. And before you ask, there would never be no recipients. I heard Edwards had told the guy he didn't want to receive more. Anyone abhorrent by the images would have shopped the guy to the police. Anyone in fear of being discovered having received them, hopefully would now shop whomever, to the police." Not remotely defending. My issue is terminology. When I saw the headlines my first impression was he has be assaulting kids and taking pictures of it. I see that as worse than receiving images from someone else…and no I am not saying that isn’t absolutely awful too, but not the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is seems like a very extreme but a line has to start somewhere and from a legalese perspective this does them give the police a broad catch all for perusing and apprehending perpetrators. At the of the day "arrested on suspicion of xyz" is just part of the process of bringing someone in front of a judge. The CPS may well change the exact wording or intent of the original arrest warrant depending on the evidence presented by the police to gain the greatest chance of conviction. However once guilt has been found +/- admitted then the sentencing guidelines which judges should follow do make more distinction between possession, distribution and include aggravating factors such as encouragement, incitement and financial gain etc. This is why similar cases often seem to have different outcomes. A well paid KC defence barrister at sentencing should be able to obtain a suspended sentence at harshest and a community order would not be impossible to achieve either. An immediate custodial sentence would be very unlikely without a lot of so far undisclosed aggravating factors in play." The 25year old who sent the pictures got a 12 month suspended sentence .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its not a case of how many people they employ (which is quite a lot) but rather how many nonces are getting into powerful influential positions. The ones that appear our TV screens garner the most interest but there have been plenty of other scum on production crews and back office staff roles too." How many do you think? Have the others you refer to been convicted? #all unlawful sexual behaviour is wrong.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..?" A few years ago I worked for an organisation that had less than 400 employees. 3 of the employees over a 2 year period were arrested and convicted of paedophilla offences. 1 director and 2 senior managers…. This was a non media organisation. I think this is not unique to the BBC…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..? A few years ago I worked for an organisation that had less than 400 employees. 3 of the employees over a 2 year period were arrested and convicted of paedophilla offences. 1 director and 2 senior managers…. This was a non media organisation. I think this is not unique to the BBC…." Least we forget, for the Catholic Church it appeared to be almost the norm and unlike the BBC they knew and actively covered it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its not a case of how many people they employ (which is quite a lot) but rather how many nonces are getting into powerful influential positions. The ones that appear our TV screens garner the most interest but there have been plenty of other scum on production crews and back office staff roles too. How many do you think? Have the others you refer to been convicted? #all unlawful sexual behaviour is wrong.." https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/former-bbc-employee-found-with-almost-60-000-indecent-images-of-children A quick Google search turns them up easily enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I bet there are a few more hoping and praying they don’t get rumbled  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its not a case of how many people they employ (which is quite a lot) but rather how many nonces are getting into powerful influential positions. The ones that appear our TV screens garner the most interest but there have been plenty of other scum on production crews and back office staff roles too. How many do you think? Have the others you refer to been convicted? #all unlawful sexual behaviour is wrong.. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/former-bbc-employee-found-with-almost-60-000-indecent-images-of-children A quick Google search turns them up easily enough." searching "indecent images" on nca gives the impression that one common theme is age. A fair percentage of cases were 60+. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing you can almost guarantee is that he’s not the last to get caught
I bet there are a few more hoping and praying they don’t get rumbled "What's funny? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? You have mentioned 2 cases over what a 40 year timescale...? If we take into consideration the amount of people it employs and the timescale. Is it worse than than other organisations, average or below average..? Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Mark Page...." You forgot to mention Jonathon "Everyone's gone to the moon" King. I understand that he liked a good moon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing you can almost guarantee is that he’s not the last to get caught
I bet there are a few more hoping and praying they don’t get rumbled
What's funny?"Life! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports: “Huw Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, including one image of a child believed to be as young as seven years old”. First highly paid star Savile. Now highly paid star Edwards. No doubt questions will now be asked as to who knew what and when about Edwards’ proclivities. And don’t forget of course all of the luvvies who came out in support of Edwards when the allegations initially surfaced. No wonder trust in journalism has collapsed. Why does the BBC have such a problem with this? And why should the rest of us be forced to finance them? " Shhhh it’s a national institution and a proud kiddy fiddle company. Just shut up and pay your TV licence fee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have an issue with the “making images” term as it implies something different to receiving and having images. Not excusing the latter, it is still perverted but Edwards was not involved in actually making the images which, I think, is even worse! Without recipients, there'd be no call. And before you ask, there would never be no recipients. I heard Edwards had told the guy he didn't want to receive more. Anyone abhorrent by the images would have shopped the guy to the police. Anyone in fear of being discovered having received them, hopefully would now shop whomever, to the police. Not remotely defending. My issue is terminology. When I saw the headlines my first impression was he has be assaulting kids and taking pictures of it. I see that as worse than receiving images from someone else…and no I am not saying that isn’t absolutely awful too, but not the same." if your making the images or viewing them makes no difference,if you get ya jollys looking at kids people need taking out of society unfortunately my way of dealing with kiddy fiddlers won't ever happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have an issue with the “making images” term as it implies something different to receiving and having images. Not excusing the latter, it is still perverted but Edwards was not involved in actually making the images which, I think, is even worse! Without recipients, there'd be no call. And before you ask, there would never be no recipients. I heard Edwards had told the guy he didn't want to receive more. Anyone abhorrent by the images would have shopped the guy to the police. Anyone in fear of being discovered having received them, hopefully would now shop whomever, to the police. Not remotely defending. My issue is terminology. When I saw the headlines my first impression was he has be assaulting kids and taking pictures of it. I see that as worse than receiving images from someone else…and no I am not saying that isn’t absolutely awful too, but not the same.if your making the images or viewing them makes no difference,if you get ya jollys looking at kids people need taking out of society unfortunately my way of dealing with kiddy fiddlers won't ever happen" This. If you consume a product you create demand which fuels production. Every person who looks at this shit directly contributes to the creation of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have an issue with the “making images” term as it implies something different to receiving and having images. Not excusing the latter, it is still perverted but Edwards was not involved in actually making the images which, I think, is even worse! Without recipients, there'd be no call. And before you ask, there would never be no recipients. I heard Edwards had told the guy he didn't want to receive more. Anyone abhorrent by the images would have shopped the guy to the police. Anyone in fear of being discovered having received them, hopefully would now shop whomever, to the police. Not remotely defending. My issue is terminology. When I saw the headlines my first impression was he has be assaulting kids and taking pictures of it. I see that as worse than receiving images from someone else…and no I am not saying that isn’t absolutely awful too, but not the same.if your making the images or viewing them makes no difference,if you get ya jollys looking at kids people need taking out of society unfortunately my way of dealing with kiddy fiddlers won't ever happen This. If you consume a product you create demand which fuels production. Every person who looks at this shit directly contributes to the creation of it. " I don’t agree. You are correct re the creation of demand but as with anything production and supply is more serious than possession. That doesn’t mean possession isn’t very serious (and in the case of this stuff it is completely vile and unforgivable) but I still think receiving an image is not as bad as creating the image. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
