Huw Edwards

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 16/07/2023 at 09:06, Tamesaint said:

Never mind. It gives another stick to the Murdoch organisation and the Conservative party so they can bash the BBC. 

Looks like the Sun was right now doesn’t it? 

[Lighthouse]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Looks like the Sun was right now doesn’t it? 

No, the Sun are quite happy to drag any person or event through half a mile of raw sewage if it’ll make a decent headline for a couple of weeks. Nothing they have printed was done so out of any sense of moral decency, the fact that it overlapped with Edwards being a wrong-un on this occasion is purely coincidental.

[Fan The Flames]

I believe that Edwards was charged with, and pleased guilty to, offenses that had nothing to do with the complaint to the BBC.

[AlexLaw76]

On 30/07/2024 at 13:05, Lord Duckhunter said:

He’s not the only. 
 

 

Rallyboy, thoughts?

[hypochondriac]

5 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

I believe that Edwards was charged with, and pleased guilty to, offenses that had nothing to do with the complaint to the BBC.

I don't think the two things were entirely unrelated were they. 

[AlexLaw76]

He is lucky that he did not commit a more sinister crime, like re tweeting, or sharing a Facebook post.

[AlexLaw76]

On 12/07/2023 at 22:54, rallyboy said:

Oh well, it kept Boris, his phone, his contempt of court, and his daughter, all out of the news for a while, and that was the aim.

I wonder what next important story will replace this when Huwgate dies down - Starmer tortures puppies? Illegals are pushing up our mortgage costs?

#deadcat

You never did share your thoughts on making this a trivial issue

Edited 17 September, 2024 by AlexLaw76

[trousers]

On 12/07/2023 at 22:54, rallyboy said:

Starmer tortures puppies

Source?

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You never did share your thoughts on making this a trivial issue

As unpleasant as it is, it is hardly the crime of the century is it?

Be honest, if it wasn’t for who it was, you know as well as I do that it wouldn’t have attracted any mainstream media attention at all.

It only became a big story because of who his is. The matter itself was dealt with in the magistrates court and is, therefore, relatively trivial. 

Should it have been reported on? Of course. With all that is going on in the world, should so much main air time and so many front pages have been devoted to this particular news item is debatable.

On a brighter note, it is good to see you finally expand your interest in crimes of a sexual nature beyond groups of men with brown skin.
 

And before Double Standards Duckie kicks off, this is no defence of paedophilia.
 

 

 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by sadoldgit
Typo

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

As unpleasant as it is, it is hardly the crime of the century is it?

relatively trivial. 

 

 

 

 

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

As unpleasant as it is, it is hardly the crime of the century is it?

What a completely awful, awful thing to say.

This is not a victimless crime.  In order for Edwards and his mate to be able to share these picture, young children were subjected to despicable acts of rape and sexual abuse.  Edwards acts are complicit in enabling those acts.  Describing his actions as "trivial" is really quite horrendous.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

What a completely awful, awful thing to say.

This is not a victimless crime.  In order for Edwards and his mate to be able to share these picture, young children were subjected to despicable acts of rape and sexual abuse.  Edwards acts are complicit in enabling those acts.  Describing his actions as "trivial" is really quite horrendous.

#relativelytrivial

 

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

As unpleasant as it is, it is hardly the crime of the century is it?

Be honest, if it wasn’t for who it was, you know as well as I do that it wouldn’t have attracted any mainstream media attention at all.

It only became a big story because of who his is. The matter itself was dealt with in the magistrates court and is, therefore, relatively trivial. 

Should it have been reported on? Of course. With all that is going on in the world, should so much main air time and so many front pages have been devoted to this particular news item is debatable.

On a brighter note, it is good to see you finally expand your interest in crimes of a sexual nature beyond groups of men with brown skin.
 

And before Double Standards Duckie kicks off, this is no defence of paedophilia.
 

 

 

Are you fucking serious? Remember people this is someone who apparently worked for the cps! Extraordinary. 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

37 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

What a completely awful, awful thing to say.

This is not a victimless crime.  In order for Edwards and his mate to be able to share these picture, young children were subjected to despicable acts of rape and sexual abuse.  Edwards acts are complicit in enabling those acts.  Describing his actions as "trivial" is really quite horrendous.

And every time images of that nature are viewed, those children are effectively abused again. Let's remember here that some of these images and videos are category A which is full rape of boys and one of the boys was 7. If there wasn't demand for this from people like Huw then these images and videos wouldn't be being made so these people are the cause of the abuse. I'll be honest I haven't been shocked by much on here but describing soliciting child rape pics and videos as trivial is probably the worst thing I've ever seen on this forum. 

This isn't even about previous posts or the history of a poster on this forum. If I were you soggy I'd seriously consider editing or possibly deleting your post. Shame on you. 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by hypochondriac

[Guided Missile]

My small contribution to this topic, back in the day. Trivial? No, these children are affected for the rest of their lives, apart from those that committed suicide. 

Delete the post and apologise, FFS.

[sadoldgit]

No one is saying it is a trivial matter, hence the word “relatively” - as in not a murder or a rape and therefore was dealt with in a magistrates court and not a Crown court. Do you understand the difference? There are some 5000 cases like this brought to court each year. Shocking isn’t it that the media only show any interest when a celebrity is involved.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No one is saying it is a trivial matter, hence the word “relatively” - as in not a murder or a rape and therefore was dealt with in a magistrates court and not a Crown court. Do you understand the difference? There are some 5000 cases like this brought to court each year. Shocking isn’t it that the media only show any interest when a celebrity is involved.

The fact there are a lot of them doesn't make it less of an awful crime. "hardly the crime of the century" is you downplaying the crime of soliciting child rape media which I genuinely never thought I'd see on here - even from you. There's something seriously wrong with you. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Is it the crime of the century then? Does what Edwards has done compare to murdering or raping someone? You don’t get a six month suspended sentence for the crime of the century.

You are in no position to preach. You take the moral high ground when it comes to drink driving but then think that trying to prevent people from speeding through a small village is stopping them from “having fun,” in your own words.

You need to get some perspective Duckie.

[hypochondriac]

Unbelievable. 

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Is it the crime of the century then? Does what Edwards has done compare to murdering or raping someone?

Soliciting images of children being raped does exactly compare to committing the act.

[AlexLaw76]

So, according to our esteemed far left contributor, images of 7 year olds being penetrated is just a it trivial?!

[Weston Super Saint]

50 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No one is saying it is a trivial matter, hence the word “relatively” - as in not a murder or a rape and therefore was dealt with in a magistrates court and not a Crown court. Do you understand the difference? There are some 5000 cases like this brought to court each year. Shocking isn’t it that the media only show any interest when a celebrity is involved.

Yeah great point.

Those that planned the bombing of the twin towers were way, way less guilty than those that actually committed the act. 

After all, just planning it is relatively less of a crime than flying a plane into the towers eh?

Jesus, you're a moron.  Good job you only looked after the pencils and printer ribbon at the CPS and they didn't let you anywhere near the grown up jobs.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

So, according to our esteemed far left contributor, images of 7 year olds being penetrated is just a it trivial?!

Creating a market for and thus having a part to play in the rape of a seven year old is not "the crime of the century" and "relatively trivial." Jesus Christ. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

50 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You need to get some perspective Duckie.

 

The mask has well and truly slipped today. You’re some piece of work. 

[sadoldgit]

To put the word “trivial” into better context of its use in this thread, we were talking about how much broadcasting time and column inches  has been devoted to a BBC newsreader being in possession of 41 illegal images of children against other news items and whether this particular news item warranted as much attention as it has been given against other stories? As serious as the offences were, did the time devoted to the story warrant other news items being pushed further down the news agendas?

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

To put the word “trivial” into better context of its use in this thread, we were talking about how much broadcasting time and column inches  has been devoted to a BBC newsreader being in possession of 41 illegal images of children against other news items and whether this particular news item warranted as much attention as it has been given against other stories? As serious as the offences were, did the time devoted to the story warrant other news items being pushed further down the news agendas?

Not that I’m supporting anything you’ve said but for the sake of not digging a deeper hole, the word you’re looking for is ‘disproportionate’ not ‘trivial’.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

 Does what Edwards has done compare to murdering or raping someone?

Yes.

If you pay someone to provide videos of children being raped, then morally you are no better than the actual rapist.

Fucking hell Soggy. How do you even need that pointing out to you?

Edited 17 September, 2024 by Sheaf Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

To put the word “trivial” into better context of its use in this thread, we were talking about how much broadcasting time and column inches  has been devoted to a BBC newsreader being in possession of 41 illegal images of children against other news items and whether this particular news item warranted as much attention as it has been given against other stories? As serious as the offences were, did the time devoted to the story warrant other news items being pushed further down the news agendas?

Sure. That's literally the same definition of "trivial" that the OED has. Amazing coincidence.

[Turkish]

Jesus Wept. I actually could not believe what i was reading on this thread. Absolutely disgusting particularly coming from someone who prides himself on his virtuousness. 

[CB Fry]

Just imagine this thread if it was Ched Evans in the dock.

[whelk]

Was SOG thinking hey I’m not getting enough attention/abuse?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

Was SOG thinking hey I’m not getting enough attention/abuse?

I hope that's the case. The alternative is that he's serious and that's a lot more depressing/concerning. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

So, according to our esteemed far left contributor, images of 7 year olds being penetrated is just a it trivial?!

Merely "unpleasant". Fucking hell hasn't this "man" had children of his own? 

[sadoldgit]

24 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yes.

If you pay someone to provide videos of children being raped, then morally you are no better than the actual rapist.

Fucking hell Soggy. How do you even need that pointing out to you?

I didn’t know what the pictures were of other than than the categories they fell in and yes, that is dreadful, but in legal terms being in possession of pictures of sexual assault is not as an serious offence as committing the offence. 
To be clear, I am not condoning what Edwards did, but there are degrees of seriousness in sexual offences and as abhorrent as all sex offences are, they wouldn’t have let him walk free for these offences  if they felt that he was a threat to society.

The point remains though, did his offences warrant the constant day after day main headline coverage that they received at the time? 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by sadoldgit
Typo

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Another day where I'm happy to have SOG on ignore. Just from the responses, there's simply no issue, no matter the impact, that doesn't end up like this.

I recently watched a long seminar from a leading international investigator into human trafficking and exploitation. Story after story of the organised crushing of innocence, liberty, spirit and life. Facilitated by groups with massive resources, corrupting the governance and societies of where they operate. And their operations are widespread.

It's utterly harrowing. You feel a bit of you die inside as you're told about some of the typologies used by these people to get the attention and payment from the likes of Edwards. Just hearing about it causes that.

SOG is focusing on Edwards specific offence. However, the phrasing is appalling. The flippant tone of the post, equally so. Not helped by the follow ups, where you just fail to understand the reaction.

There's also a stunning lack of awareness in the impact and complexity of dealing with these people. Even if you just supplied the staples for the grown ups in law enforcement, you should have a much clearer view on just how close to crimes of the century these networks are.

The more coverage and awareness to highlight, and help stop this, is just fine by me.

Never too late to return to that post, consider the points raised and provide a revised version.

[sadoldgit]

A question to GM.

Out of curiosity, given your feelings about the offences carried out by Edwards, how do you feel about Trump’s conviction of a more serious sexual offence?

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t know what the pictures were of other than than the categories they fell in and yes, that is dreadful, but in legal terms being in possession of pictures of sexual assault is not as an serious offence as committing the offence. 
To be clear, I am not condoning what Edwards did, but there are degrees of seriousness in sexual offences and as abhorrent as all sex offences are, they wouldn’t have let him walk free for these offences  if they felt that he was a threat to society.

The point remains though, did his offences warrant the constant day after day main headline coverage that they received at the time? 

If by your own admission you knew the photos and videos were category A then you knew it was penetrative sex and you were also aware they were of children. How could you not have known? 

What you've just posted above is entirely different from downplaying the offences which is clearly and unambiguously what you did. You won't apologise though, you'll just ignore the virtual universal condemnation on here and then cry that you're being unjustly persecuted the next time someone objects to what you say. 

Maybe it was a mistake and you didn't mean to write what you did but now would be the time to own up to that, apologise and hopefully we can all forget that you've downplayed the crime of solicitation of child rape. 

[egg]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

And every time images of that nature are viewed, those children are effectively abused again. Let's remember here that some of these images and videos are category A which is full rape of boys and one of the boys was 7. If there wasn't demand for this from people like Huw then these images and videos wouldn't be being made so these people are the cause of the abuse. I'll be honest I haven't been shocked by much on here but describing soliciting child rape pics and videos as trivial is probably the worst thing I've ever seen on this forum. 

This isn't even about previous posts or the history of a poster on this forum. If I were you soggy I'd seriously consider editing or possibly deleting your post. Shame on you. 

It's rare that you and I agree on non football matters, but I agree entirely with your posts here. SoG's post was disgraceful. Shame in him indeed, and there's no place on a forum for posts like that, and frankly, people who post them. 

[Lighthouse]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

A question to GM.

Out of curiosity, given your feelings about the offences carried out by Edwards, how do you feel about Trump’s conviction of a more serious sexual offence?

I’m not sure you’re going to deflect attention with generic GM/Trump bait on this but good luck.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

It's rare that you and I agree on non football matters, but I agree entirely with your posts here. SoG's post was disgraceful. Shame in him indeed, and there's no place on a forum for posts like that, and frankly, people who post them. 

A rare moment of agreement. Maybe having a son makes you more sensitive to matters like this but the thought of my son being coerced into sending explicit pictures or worse is just awful. I'd like to think that even someone I vehemently disagree with has simply posted without thinking and has made an error. If that's not the case though it just underlines that you really don't know people you interact with online. I can't think of any of my acquaintances or anyone I interact with that would ever try to minimise crimes committed by the likes of Edwards by comparing them to even greater atrocities. The child sex trade is pretty much the most appaling 'industry' in the world and anyone propping that up is the lowest of the low. It would be impossible to find any common ground with someone who thinks as sadoldgit is claiming to here. Like I say though I hope he has made a mistake and will say something to that effect. 

Disagreements on a football forum aside, crimes like this shouldn't be downplayed or minimised. 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

Soggy, it would have been better if said your other lie of “not read the full report as yet”, and kept your foul, disgusting 1970s attitude out of this thread / Forum

[Sheaf Saint]

27 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t know what the pictures were of other than than the categories they fell in and yes, that is dreadful, but in legal terms being in possession of pictures of sexual assault is not as an serious offence as committing the offence. 
To be clear, I am not condoning what Edwards did, but there are degrees of seriousness in sexual offences and as abhorrent as all sex offences are, they wouldn’t have let him walk free for these offences  if they felt that he was a threat to society.

The point remains though, did his offences warrant the constant day after day main headline coverage that they received at the time? 

OK so the disconnect here appears to be that you are arguing about the seriousness of offence almost pedantically in terms of the sentencing guidelines. Whereas I, and seemingly everyone else on this post, am arguing purely in terms of morality.

The reason the crime to which HE has pleaded guilty is generally punished less severely is because, at some point in time, a body of lawmakers made an arbitrary decision that it should be.

But looking along moral lines, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, barring perhaps a few closet paedophiles, who doesn't think there is a clear equivalence between raping children and paying to watch the raping of children.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

OK so the disconnect here appears to be that you are arguing about the seriousness of offence almost pedantically in terms of the sentencing guidelines. Whereas I, and seemingly everyone else on this post, am arguing purely in terms of morality.

The reason the crime to which HE has pleaded guilty is generally punished less severely is because, at some point in time, a body of lawmakers made an arbitrary decision that it should be.

But looking along moral lines, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, barring perhaps a few closet paedophiles, who doesn't think there is a clear equivalence between raping children and paying to watch the raping of children.

Even if we accept that ridiculously charitable reading of the original post, the offence of paying to watch children being raped is not a trivial one by any means and even according to the sentencing guidelines. The sentence would be 12 months in prison. Because he had mental health issues and other mitigating factors the judge reduced the sentence to six months and made it suspended. 

[AlexLaw76]

It could be…. This is all part of his elaborate “wind up” act, and we have all taken the bait?!

Edited 17 September, 2024 by AlexLaw76

[ChrisPY]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Even if we accept that ridiculously charitable reading of the original post, the offence of paying to watch children being raped is not a trivial one by any means and even according to the sentencing guidelines. The sentence would be 12 months in prison. Because he had mental health issues and other mitigating factors the judge reduced the sentence to six months and made it suspended. 

Without wanting to trivialise mental health issues, a defence of ‘I’m not right in the fucking head.’ seems like a flawed mitigating factor to these offences.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

Without wanting to trivialise mental health issues, a defence of ‘I’m not right in the fucking head.’ seems like a flawed mitigating factor to these offences.

Agreed but I'm not qualified as a judge to make those judgements. Apparently other factors were to do with how his dad treated him, living in Wales and having gone to Cardiff uni and feeling inadequate compared to everyone in the bbc who went to Oxford. 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by hypochondriac

[Turkish]

59 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It could be…. This is all part of his elaborate “wind up” act, and we have all taken the bait?!

Or perhaps just more “clumsy language”?

[Turkish]

58 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

Without wanting to trivialise mental health issues, a defence of ‘I’m not right in the fucking head.’ seems like a flawed mitigating factor to these offences.

Anyone who watches kids being raped must have some sort of mental health issue, no defence IMO

[Gloucester Saint]

15 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He is lucky that he did not commit a more sinister crime, like re tweeting, or sharing a Facebook post.

Soggy’s post today was appalling and he really should edit it, acknowledge having thought better of it and apologise. No excuses.

This one isn’t hitting those depths certainly, but it’s a regurgitation of the populist crap Farage came out with in Parliament. Inciting extreme violence against other races and nationalities has been a near-automatic imprisonable offence for many, many years, and not least in the context it occurred. Deservedly so. Nothing two-tier about that.

Those sentenced for that offence in the summer deserve every minute of their sentences. What if some of the Holiday Inn staff had been killed by one of those fires set? 

No if, no buts, no whataboutery. Edwards is vile but that’s no excuse to downplay violent, highly dangerous and extremist behaviour.

Looking at the Edwards case in its own context, as it legally should be, FWIW I listened to what William Hague said on Times Radio, about the sentence being reasonable, and he makes some good points, but I still think Edwards is very fortunate to avoid a custodial sentence. He is still nationally disgraced though and the rest of his days will be totally overshadowed by what he did.

 

Edited 17 September, 2024 by Gloucester Saint
Offence, not fence

[Weston Super Saint]

One question for Soggy. Would you be happy to have Huw back on the news next week, reporting on child rape and grooming gangs.

After all, what he did was trivial right?