4,204 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 1, 2024 13:59:02 GMT
The Strictly scandal and now this.
The legal department at the BBC must be in overdrive!
It is my understanding that in jail they have their own 'laws' when it cone to inmates convicted of anything to do with children- especially when it comes to a sexual offence.
I dread to think of what they'll do to him if he's sent down.
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 14:01:36 GMT
... Edwards was wrong to engage in image sharing with this person. ... So how does that work then? The moment you join a WhatsApp group/individual conversation you are potentially image sharing. I am opening myself up to image sharing simply by browsing threads on TheatreBoard. The only way to avoid it is by going offline permanently. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2024 14:01:39 GMT
The court system is atrocious when it comes to prosecuting these crimes and I entirely agree with you that perpetrators continuing on as if nothing has happened is sick.
I doubt very much that in this case Edwards was in a fit mental state to be making decisions based on the impact to the BBC, though. He was hospitalised in the midst of a mental health crisis, which does not happen lightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 14:04:50 GMT
He's criminalised because the CPS has chosen a particular - what seems to me to be a pretty unreasonable - interpretation of 'making'. No one thinks he made images. It is absurd.
I would be interested in how these situations have been dealt with in other juristictions because it worries me that, where we are now in the UK, is the result of political pressure directed at the CPS - and goodness knows the shower that got booted out were not fit for that purpose, either.
In other juristictions I would not be at all surprised if - never mind being criminalised - he has not done enough to be sacked.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 14:14:38 GMT
... Edwards was wrong to engage in image sharing with this person. ... So how does that work then? The moment you join a WhatsApp group/individual conversation you are potentially image sharing. I am opening myself up to image sharing simply by browsing threads on TheatreBoard. The only way to avoid it is by going offline permanently. you should read the Telegraph extract in my first post. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2024 14:18:11 GMT
No, I am pretty sure being found in possession of child sexual abuse imagery will get you sacked everywhere. Even if you were sent it unsolicited.
Everyone should be aware - the type of people who are happy to WhatsApp you bundles of porn are not the kind of people you want to be receiving bundles of porn from. Because there’s no need to send covertly via WhatsApp porn that could be purchased legally online.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 1, 2024 14:20:07 GMT
He has pleaded guilty. The arcane language of the specific charge is a distraction from the central fact that he engaged in a private WhatsApp conversation with Alex Williams and continued to do so over many months.
The police believe he committed a crime. The CPS believe he committed a crime. His legal team seem to have supported his decision to plead guilty.
He is now a rightly convicted criminal.
As is Alex Williams.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 14:25:33 GMT
No, I am pretty sure being found in possession of child sexual abuse imagery will get you sacked everywhere. Even if you were sent it unsolicited. But you don't know that. What we have is an extreme interpretation of 'making' and 'possession'. I would be surprised if Parliament intended this. Imo, other juristictions will not agree. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 14:27:02 GMT
He has pleaded guilty. The arcane language of the specific charge is a distraction from the central fact that he engaged in a private WhatsApp conversation with Alex Williams and continued to do so over many months. The police believe he committed a crime. The CPS believe he committed a crime. His legal team seem to have supported his decision to plead guilty. He is now a rightly convicted criminal. As is Alex Williams. He had no choice but to plead guilty as he is guilty of the law in question. Pleading non-guilty would have aggravated the sentence. It doesn't alter the fact that no evidence has yet emerged that he has done anything criminal he could reasonably be held responsible for. The legislation and the way it is being applied is seriously flawed. |
|
4,204 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 1, 2024 14:41:27 GMT
He has pleaded guilty. The arcane language of the specific charge is a distraction from the central fact that he engaged in a private WhatsApp conversation with Alex Williams and continued to do so over many months. The police believe he committed a crime. The CPS believe he committed a crime. His legal team seem to have supported his decision to plead guilty. He is now a rightly convicted criminal. As is Alex Williams. Sorry, have I missed something? Who's Alex Williams? |
|
1,098 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by blamerobots on Aug 1, 2024 14:48:20 GMT
Alex Williams is the person he was talking to who sent him the images.
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 14:50:52 GMT
He has pleaded guilty. The arcane language of the specific charge is a distraction from the central fact that he engaged in a private WhatsApp conversation with Alex Williams and continued to do so over many months. The police believe he committed a crime. The CPS believe he committed a crime. His legal team seem to have supported his decision to plead guilty. He is now a rightly convicted criminal. As is Alex Williams. Sorry, have I missed something? Who's Alex Williams? The person who sent Edwards illegal porn when specifically asked not to send anything "underage", pictures that were, it is alleged, immediately deleted and could not be found by police on Edwards' devices. |
|
5,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 1, 2024 15:01:16 GMT
It's not unreasonable to ask tough questions of the BBC which they must address, after all they're the organisation that hid Jimmy Saville in plain sight for his whole career. The most dissolute and perfidious individual ever. At least Huw Edwards is alive to face justice.
Saville's victims got nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Aug 1, 2024 15:08:35 GMT
It's not unreasonable to ask tough questions of the BBC which they must address, after all they're the organisation that hid Jimmy Saville in plain sight for his whole career. The most dissolute and perfidious individual ever. At least Huw Edwards is alive to face justice. Saville's victims got nothing. True, but then you could ask that of any company on the planet. Does every boss know what is going on in the private life of every employee? People are hired in good faith. Yes there are sometimes background checks, but there are no guarantees. Edwards has seemingly been absent from our screens since these stories initially came to light hasn't he? The BBC most likely did everything they legally had to, there's just a significant amount of people in the media with an axe to grind who are busy circling like vultures under the guise of "holding the BBC accountable". |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 15:13:20 GMT
It's not unreasonable to ask tough questions of the BBC which they must address, after all they're the organisation that hid Jimmy Saville in plain sight for his whole career. The most dissolute and perfidious individual ever. At least Huw Edwards is alive to face justice. Saville's victims got nothing. What exactly is it that Edwards has done that you think deserves justice? Have you read the facts of the case? And what on earth merits comparison with Savile? |
|
4,983 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Aug 1, 2024 17:46:17 GMT
The Strictly scandal and now this. The legal department at the BBC must be in overdrive! It is my understanding that in jail they have their own 'laws' when it cone to inmates convicted of anything to do with children- especially when it comes to a sexual offence. I dread to think of what they'll do to him if he's sent down. Sex offenders are often placed in V.P. the vulnerable persons wing along with people diagnosed with learning disabilites and mental health conditions etc although this is not a certain |
|
5,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 1, 2024 22:40:59 GMT
It's not unreasonable to ask tough questions of the BBC which they must address, after all they're the organisation that hid Jimmy Saville in plain sight for his whole career. The most dissolute and perfidious individual ever. At least Huw Edwards is alive to face justice. Saville's victims got nothing. What exactly is it that Edwards has done that you think deserves justice? Have you read the facts of the case? And what on earth merits comparison with Savile? Yes you are right. One now is a convicted pedophile by his own admission, unfortunately the other one wasn’t, then again if they’re members of certain private members’ clubs……….……. The Strictly scandal and now this. The legal department at the BBC must be in overdrive! It is my understanding that in jail they have their own 'laws' when it cone to inmates convicted of anything to do with children- especially when it comes to a sexual offence. I dread to think of what they'll do to him if he's sent down. Sex offenders are often placed in V.P. the vulnerable persons wing along with people diagnosed with learning disabilites and mental health conditions etc although this is not a certain Also bent police officers. |
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on Aug 2, 2024 10:17:21 GMT
What exactly is it that Edwards has done that you think deserves justice? Have you read the facts of the case? And what on earth merits comparison with Savile? Yes you are right. One now is a convicted pedophile by his own admission, unfortunately the other one wasn’t, then again if they’re members of certain private members’ clubs……….……. Sex offenders are often placed in V.P. the vulnerable persons wing along with people diagnosed with learning disabilites and mental health conditions etc although this is not a certain Also bent police officers. He'll not get a prison sentence. |
|
4,204 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 2, 2024 10:28:12 GMT
Yes you are right. One now is a convicted pedophile by his own admission, unfortunately the other one wasn’t, then again if they’re members of certain private members’ clubs……….……. Also bent police officers. He'll not get a prison sentence. Really? |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 2, 2024 10:33:12 GMT
Not a chance he will get anything tougher than a suspended sentence. More likely some sort of community service plus a number of years on the relevant registers.
And possibly restrictions on phone/internet use
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 2, 2024 11:05:27 GMT
Yes, it’ll be suspended, with restrictions.
Of course he’ll also never work again. It’s not like he can move and disappear into the general population, start over in a new career.
Much cheaper for the state than having to keep him safe in prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 2, 2024 11:15:01 GMT
He will still get 300k a year from his BBC pension.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 2, 2024 11:16:47 GMT
I read that they are looking into ways to claw that back.
Though to be honest I feel a bit ambivalent about that idea.
Outrage aside, I don’t think it’s a good idea for employers to be able to retrospectively remove pension entitlement that people have planned to live on at the end of their career.
Driving people into poverty does not help them avoid future offending - all the evidence is that financial precarity is a risk factor, as is poor mental health and a lack of social networks.
I know people don’t like hearing this, but the research really does show that people who are not paedophiles - not actually sexually attracted to children - can end up committing these kind of offences in the midst of mental health crises. Helping and supporting offenders can be the best way of preventing reoffending that hurts more children.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 2, 2024 11:18:46 GMT
There is no obvious legal mechanism to do that.
He paid into it and so is entitled to the benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 2, 2024 11:45:45 GMT
Government has already "clawed back" half his £200K wages in income tax and NI contribs. They'll have a chuck of that pension, as well. He's still 3 years away from missing out on the winter fuel allowance 
I'd delete Whatsapp if I were him. And start wearing a hat.
|
|
