Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[FritsSikkink]

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Definitely should have been sentenced to prison.

 

 

And for long time, these perverts create a market for abuse.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I don't know anymore about this than you and I don't particularly like the tone of your post,  Just because child prostitutes don't appear on ones radar does not mean they do not exist,   It does not even have to be child "prostitutes"  Have you ever considered the possibility that children could even be abducted for the purposes of providing victims for these perverts?

 I also have absolutely no idea were such depravity takes place but again it does not mean that it never happens.

 As an example , try thinking  of it like  an addiction to hard drugs, You and I  like most people have absolutely no idea where to  source Heroin, but put a hardened addict into any city or  large town and they will find a source  and a collection of like minded individuals within the hour.  

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted hard drugs I could find them pretty fast. The drug problem in NZ is massive and beyond the ability of the police to control. .

 

Unlike child prostitution. That is so unacceptable to so many people that any attempt to set it up would be uncovered quickly IMO.

I can't speak for other countries, but if it happens in NZ it is hidden so deep that no ordinary people would ever know.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

12 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

Why?

 

 

If you have to ask that, you are part of the problem.

[FritsSikkink]

12 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

Not good, but viewing them is better than him actually molesting children. Though of course if the pictures were of children being abused, that would be difficult to overlook.

 

 

Viewing them is not better as it creates a market for abuse.

[FritsSikkink]

11 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Banging him up would achieve nothing. It would not deter others

It might.

[Bday Prang]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That era is basically over. Given that AI is here and that everything we do on the computer is monitored, it's a simple task to program the AI to block anything the authorities deem illegal.

 

The facilities that house the computers that monitor us are huge and use massive amounts of power, as I saw on a documentary I saw. Of course that will change as tech develops- the size will reduce and the capacity will increase, though they may have to build new power stations just to run them.

New security systems etc regarding the monitoring of the  use of computers  and cyber security generally  are  continually being developed and upgraded by "experts".  Only to be beaten just as quickly by the equally expert and highly motivated hackers some of whom are barely old enough to drive a car.  They manage quite well without their computers powere  usage being supplemented by dedicated power stations.   This and your previous post display a child like naivity

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

It might.

It won't. IMO it's a mental condition, and people are as addicted to it as drug addicts are to hard drugs. No matter the laws, addicts keep using illegal drugs.

[theshu25]

Throw the animal in jail for 5 years.  Just the fact he was even invovled in that crap deserves jail time. Sick animal.

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, proton said:

Brit  Sam Melia recently got two years for putting stickers on walls etc, even though they were deemed not illegal the court decided they were inciting racial hate, this disgusting lying pedophile gets off! 

This Sam Melia?

 

”

He was found guilty of:

• Publishing or distributing material intending to stir up racial hatred.
• Encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage.”

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

New security systems etc regarding the monitoring of the  use of computers  and cyber security generally  are  continually being developed and upgraded by "experts".  Only to be beaten just as quickly by the equally expert and highly motivated hackers some of whom are barely old enough to drive a car.  They manage quite well without their computers powere  usage being supplemented by dedicated power stations.   This and your previous post display a child like naivity

Call me naive then. I'd rather be naive than see perverts and child brothels everywhere.

[Bday Prang]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted hard drugs I could find them pretty fast. The drug problem in NZ is massive and beyond the ability of the police to control. .

 

Unlike child prostitution. That is so unacceptable to so many people that any attempt to set it up would be uncovered quickly IMO.

I can't speak for other countries, but if it happens in NZ it is hidden so deep that no ordinary people would ever know.

 

 

Yeah right , if you managed to find your local crack house you would be seen immediately as a potential victim or source of funds, you would not be accepted as a customer.

Pedophiles due to the nature of their activities generally do strive to operate as  covertly as possible,  us ordinary people would indeed never know anything about it all if it wasn't for the mistakes they make and the endeavours of the police 

[NanLaew]

13 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

Not good, but viewing them is better than him actually molesting children. Though of course if the pictures were of children being abused, that would be difficult to overlook.

 

 

 

Not for chief magistrate Paul Goldspring, apparently.

 

Also, my understanding that from the moment he was arrested and charged until now, Huw Edwards hasn't spent a single minute in police detention or incarceration but rather in a "mental health facility".

 

Also note that when he was first publicly identified for these crimes, the following occurred,

 

"Minutes before the family statement was published, a separate update was issued by the Met, which has been assessing the allegations in recent days after discussions with BBC executives.

 

It said: "Detectives from the Met's Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66180799

 

The wagons were circled way back last summer and the judge has made sure that the circle remains unbroken.

 

As for this shameful defense that he didn't make them, sell them, share them but deleted them as some sort of mitigation? How about the guy who they arrested on suspicion of planning to shoot Trump? Will a defense of "Sure it's my gun, but I didn't use it" work for him?

Edited September 17 by NanLaew

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Suspended sentence? Pathetic.

 

Lucky he didn't make a stupid post on FaceBook from his own living room. That would have warranted jail. But a lefty luvvie Paedophile from the BBC? No jail for you Huw. Never mind you had images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused. .

 

Two tier Britain raising it's ugly head again. 

 

Is being a Paedophile a required qualification for working at the BBC these days? I wonder how many more there are lurking in the BBC corridors.

 

I wonder if he'll pay back the salary they paid him while suspended? Doubtful. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use (paying for sexual pictures of young children).

 

Time to defund the BBC. Long overdue in fact. Sickening. 

In what way has the British public been extorted of money?

Edited September 17 by youreavinalaff

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

In what way has the British public been extorted of money?

 

I think it's an abstruse reference to the ubiquitous but mandatory "TV license" that funds the BBC.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

I think it's an abstruse reference to the ubiquitous but mandatory "TV license" that funds the BBC.

"Mandatory"?

 

It certainly isn't "mandatory". It's a choice. 

[NanLaew]

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

"Mandatory"?

 

It certainly isn't "mandatory". It's a choice. 

 

In the United Kingdom and the British Islands, any household watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast is required by law to hold a television licence.

 

Those aged 75 or over and receive Pension Credit, blind (severely sight impaired), live in qualifying residential care and are disabled or over 60 and retired who are watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast are exempt from requiring a license.

 

Of course, if you don't have a television then you can't be watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast, so you don't need a license.

 

There's your choices.

Edited September 17 by NanLaew

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Also, my understanding that from the moment he was arrested and charged until now, Huw Edwards hasn't spent a single minute in police detention or incarceration but rather in a "mental health facility".

 

Well he's a fully paid up member of the left wing establishment so he played the mental health card, the judge lapped it up and won't spend a single day in jail.

 

The BBC has "requested" he repay the salary they paid him while in the mental health facility due to getting caught but as far as I know he isn't returning their calls. 

 

An absolutely terrible human being. Not surprised he rose to the top at the BBC, he has all the personality traits required. 

[mokwit]

Just now, JonnyF said:

he's a fully paid up member of the left wing establishment

This is the real reason, the reasons given as to why someone creating demand for child rape wasn't imprisoned are just a smokescreen.

 

I must have missed the televised sentencing*, so I am relying on reporting.

 

*or is that just for opponents of the regime?

Edited September 17 by mokwit

[mokwit]

Just now, NanLaew said:

Of course, if you don't have a television then you can't be watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast, so you don't need a license.

I think looking at BBC websites counts - have seen footage of the third party enforcers the BBC hires going through someone's browsing history.

[Digitalbanana]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Time to defund the BBC. L

Was wondering how long it would take for this to turn up again, first page of the thread but several replies down is a bit slow, aren't ya? Spending too long in the right wing echo chamber again.

[mokwit]

Just now, Digitalbanana said:

Was wondering how long it would take for this to turn up again, first page of the thread but several replies down is a bit slow, aren't ya? Spending too long in the right wing echo chamber again.

Political campaigning should not be funded by the state.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Digitalbanana said:

Was wondering how long it would take for this to turn up again, first page of the thread but several replies down is a bit slow, aren't ya? Spending too long in the right wing echo chamber again.

 

It's an out of date business model. Media has moved on. Forcing people to pay for left wing propaganda read to you by Paedophiles with a mobile phone containing images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused in their pocket is not everyone's cup of tea.

 

I'm glad you like it though. If defunded, you will still have the option to pay for it. 

[Digitalbanana]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Of course, if you don't have a television then you can't be watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast, so you don't need a license.

If you are traveling to the UK and you watch live streams on YouTube (or any other platform) using your laptop or mobile phone, you would technically need a TV license. The UK law requires a TV license for watching any live broadcast on any device, whether it's a TV, computer, mobile phone, tablet, or game console. This applies to both residents and visitors in the UK. The law is an ass comes to mind.

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

In the United Kingdom and the British Islands, any household watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast is required by law to hold a television licence.

 

Those aged 75 or over and receive Pension Credit, blind (severely sight impaired), live in qualifying residential care and are disabled or over 60 and retired who are watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast are exempt from requiring a license.

 

Of course, if you don't have a television then you can't be watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast, so you don't need a license.

 

There's your choices.

So, not mandatory. Only under certain conditions 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Well he's a fully paid up member of the left wing establishment

Do you have his membership details so that we can check this claim of your?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Digitalbanana said:

Was wondering how long it would take for this to turn up again, first page of the thread but several replies down is a bit slow, aren't ya? Spending too long in the right wing echo chamber again.

The rightwing would very much prefer the nations tv media, like most of the national newspapers, to be fully under the control of billionaires, many of whom are neither British citizens or residents of the UK.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's an out of date business model. Media has moved on. Forcing people to pay for left wing propaganda read to you by Paedophiles with a mobile phone containing images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused in their pocket is not everyone's cup of tea.

 

I'm glad you like it though. If defunded, you will still have the option to pay for it. 

A reminder, Edwards is no longer employed by the BBC.

[mokwit]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you have his membership details so that we can check this claim of your?

He was a member of the BBC.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

He was a member of the BBC.

I know that Mokwit.

 

But right wingers claiming the BBC is left wing does not make it so.

 

The Rightwing fixation on the BBC being left wing is not an opinion shared by the majority of the British Public:

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

 

 

 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Digitalbanana said:

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Of course, if you don't have a television then you can't be watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast, so you don't need a license.

If you are traveling to the UK and you watch live streams on YouTube (or any other platform) using your laptop or mobile phone, you would technically need a TV license. The UK law requires a TV license for watching any live broadcast on any device, whether it's a TV, computer, mobile phone, tablet, or game console. This applies to both residents and visitors in the UK. The law is an ass comes to mind.

 

Totally agree.