Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

On phone so I won't quote, but the magistrate's comments about needing to know his state of mind and other things at the time of the offence seemed worryingly sympathetic. Don't get me wrong those things should be known, but I get the impression the normal wording is just 'to allow pre sentencing reports'. I might though be reading too much into it.
 
Why does the BBC give rise to so many child abusers?
It's no different from any other large organisation. Media, politics, sports, law, teachers, medicine, army etc

There's thousands of workers there in all sorts of jobs who aren't abusers. But because of the high profile abusers, the BBC is seen as some kind of haven for nonces.

It's the sort of finger pointing that gets innocent people harassed and fearing for their safety.
 
There was a culture in the 60s and 70s music industry which tolerated grooming and sex with teenage girls, which indirectly led to the national light entertainment monolith ending up with the likes of Savile and Peel on its payroll. Doesn’t mean that the BBC has any particular case to answer today. And there’s no link between this most recent offence and Edwards’ BBC day job.
 
It's no different from any other large organisation. Media, politics, sports, law, teachers, medicine, army etc

There's thousands of workers there in all sorts of jobs who aren't abusers. But because of the high profile abusers, the BBC is seen as some kind of haven for nonces.

It's the sort of finger pointing that gets innocent people harassed and fearing for their safety.
Indeed. I once worked with someone who, to all intents and purposes, seemed like a decent chap. A couple of years later, I saw a news article saying that he'd been jailed for noncing. It was incredibly shocking and upsetting. But it can happen in any big organisation to a similar extent. The difference with the BBC is that those names are known to the general public. Otherwise the BBC is no different to any large organisation, and Kid Eternity is being a berk once again.
 
BBC and other institutions of power disproportionately riddled with nonces is a conspiracy theory that pre dates Q bollocks.

Eg when you work for the state or a state sponsored agencies you are hooked up with noncery so that the state can then blackmail you against speaking the truth. Hence so many people in the know of conspiracies will keep their mouths shut.

Of course this lets abusers off the hook and distracts from the real issues, and as such is politically dangerous, but that's loonery.
 
Indeed. I once worked with someone who, to all intents and purposes, seemed like a decent chap. A couple of years later, I saw a news article saying that he'd been jailed for noncing. It was incredibly shocking and upsetting. But it can happen in any big organisation to a similar extent. The difference with the BBC is that those names are known to the general public. Otherwise the BBC is no different to any large organisation, and Kid Eternity is being a berk once again.
You're right of course.
At the same time where it is legitimate to criticism the BBC, as a organisation, is in the refusal to investigate matters, even at times providing (inadvertent) assistance to abusers.
Of course that is equally true of many of organisations - the Catholic Church, the CofE, the military, police, scouts etc - but all those organisations should be held accountable.
 
Post reported. Are you trying to get Urban75 sued or something?

Fucking hell. Do you actually report posts? How old are you?

It was widely publicised at the time. The CPS wouldn't have put the case forward unless they were fairly sure it had a pretty clear cut shot (there's a very high threshold). It fell through at trial as the vast majority of rape cases do after he'd been held on remand for months. Anyway. This is a derail.

Feel free to report this post.
 
Fucking hell. Do you actually report posts? How old are you?

It was widely publicised at the time. The CPS wouldn't have put the case forward unless they were fairly sure it had a pretty clear cut shot (there's a very high threshold). It fell through at trial as the vast majority of rape cases do after he'd been held on remand for months. Anyway. This is a derail.

Feel free to report this post.

If found not guilty you can't state as fact that he did it without putting editor and this site at risk.

Do you not get that? Do you need it spelling out with alphabetti spaghetti?
 
I'm just going to start banning people for a day or more if this thread fills up with obviously libellous posts.

Unless the person has actually been convicted for a sexual offence, shut the fuck up, or post up your opinions on your own Facebook account or whatever.

I've had multiple legal threats from running these boards and really don't need people gifting lawyers with an easy target.
 
Edwards was suspended in July last year. In August, he received a £40,000 pay rise. In November, the BBC was made aware that he’d been charged with possession of child sexual abuse images. He remained on the BBC payroll on full pay until he resigned in April


 
The sentencing guidelines for the offences to which Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty may be found here.

The person who sent the images to Edwards, a 25-year-old paedophile called Alex Williams, was sentenced to a suspended 12-month prison sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Courton 15 March 2024, after pleading guilty to possessing and distributing category A, B and C images as well as possessing prohibited images of children.

Yeah, the mags will be a preliminary hearing... You can enter a plea (which obvs he has done) which will dictate the course of the trial. Since he's admitted guilt there's no need to convene a full trial,

There is no trial. Edwards has pleaded guilty to all charges that he faced. There is therefore nothing to "try".

Since this is happening in Sept presumably the mags has referred it to the Crown court.

Edwards will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court again on 16 September 2024, following the preparation of probation - and possibly medical and psychiatric reports for the court to consider.
 

I wish this bit could be edited though:

When you suggest, imply or infer that some living person is a nonce/kiddy-fiddler/sexual abuser/keen indulger in illegal sexual acts/squirrel shafter it puts the site at serious risk.

It’s clearly not correct to say that the site is endangered by an act of inference; it’s implication and suggestion that’s the problem.
 
Edwards was suspended in July last year. In August, he received a £40,000 pay rise. In November, the BBC was made aware that he’d been charged with possession of child sexual abuse images. He remained on the BBC payroll on full pay until he resigned in April


Will this change? Do they have an option for suspended without pay? Or should this be gross misconduct (?) at the point the person is charged?
 
Back
Top Bottom