Well there you go. I hope the people that defended this pedophile are ashamed

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgr49q591go.amp

 

Just read up a bit sheesh, surprised people were defending him. But then again there are a substantial amount of people who still defend Michael Jackson

Well there you go. I hope the people that defended this pedophile are ashamed

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgr49q591go.amp

 

What? You mean that people defended someone when there was no police investigation or evidence of illegality at the time? Awful people, need hanging. Of course, now that there have been charges brought against him, those morons are completely unable to change their positions on this and therefore must still be defending him to the hilt!

 

They should have thought about it at the time! And now you’re the only virtuous one here who can live completely without shame.

 

Seriously though, the fact this is your first take at the news is very telling. I mean, I’m sad that someone like Huw has been involved in this kind of thing, I’m not wishing shame on anyone looking on the Brightside or giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

 

But I’m also pretty sure you’re the person who defended Lucy Letby so I’m not sure I can handle your hypocrisy.

Just read up a bit sheesh, surprised people were defending him.

No one knew about this at the time.

People didn't know about this. This is news AS OF TODAY. I'm surprised though, even with the stuff that came before. He was the man who announced the death of the Queen :o

That media cycle last year was despicable, invasive and prejudiced AND as it turns out, Edwards has probably committed some awful crimes. Both things can be true.

That media cycle last year was despicable, invasive and prejudiced AND as it turns out, Edwards has probably committed some awful crimes. Both things can be true.

 

True! But I wonder if the sun etc knew about these other allegations, but couldn't go with them for whatever reason, and so focused on the story from last year?

No one knew about this at the time.

 

Didn’t they? It was pretty apparent the kind of guy he was. The allegations weren’t small and it’s rare a newspaper would be that bold in this day and age without a good reason. A common thing with predators is multiple allegations from different people. Once you had junior staffers at the BBC saying he was inappropriate etc etc combined with the other person/ main allegations it was clear it was a pattern. This guy was bad news. When someone of his age clearly likes young boys it’s hardly a shock of the century this is the outcome.

 

Power dynamics are always a good indication of someone’s character so even if this didn’t come out today the fact he was clearly using his status or money to gain certain things over vulnerable people was enough to say you shouldn’t really be defending or feel sorry for this guy but hey, there we go

 

 

Didn’t they? It was pretty apparent the kind of guy he was. The allegations weren’t small and it’s rare a newspaper would be that bold in this day and age without a good reason. A common thing with predators is multiple allegations from different people. Once you had junior staffers at the BBC saying he was inappropriate etc etc combined with the other person/ main allegations it was clear it was a pattern. This guy was bad news. When someone of his age clearly likes young boys it’s hardly a shock of the century this is the outcome.

 

Power dynamics are always a good indication of someone’s character so even if this didn’t come out today the fact he was clearly using his status or money to gain certain things over vulnerable people was enough to say you shouldn’t really be defending or feel sorry for this guy but hey, there we go

I don't think speculating without having the facts necessarily helps anyone.

 

Unless I'm reading things wrongly, what has come out today seems to be separate to what was reported on last year.

Didn’t they? It was pretty apparent the kind of guy he was. The allegations weren’t small and it’s rare a newspaper would be that bold in this day and age without a good reason. A common thing with predators is multiple allegations from different people. Once you had junior staffers at the BBC saying he was inappropriate etc etc combined with the other person/ main allegations it was clear it was a pattern. This guy was bad news. When someone of his age clearly likes young boys it’s hardly a shock of the century this is the outcome.

 

Power dynamics are always a good indication of someone’s character so even if this didn’t come out today the fact he was clearly using his status or money to gain certain things over vulnerable people was enough to say you shouldn’t really be defending or feel sorry for this guy but hey, there we go

 

It was the fecking Sun and it was dreadful what they did. The Sun will do anything to sell papers. I think Iz put it brilliantly above. And not defending the guy or anything, but we also have no idea if these charges relate to the same person or completely different people. The stuff is deliberately vague

Doesn't look good but I'll wait until a conviction before claiming he's guilty.

He’s plead guilty and the BBC has more details on what the charges are.

 

So firstly it has nothing to do with the news that came out previously, and I’m comfortable standing by what I said previously. The police investigated and noted no illegality took place

 

 

Secondly, it appears that he received these images (didn’t create them) in the context of an image sharing chat on WhatsApp and had actually written in the chat (according to the defence) multiple times he didn’t want illegal content. Regardless, he has continued to participate in this chat beyond the first incidence and he should receive the requisite punishment for his actions. Stupid way to end what was a great career with some stupid decisions that will be what people remember him for

The "not just good character, but exceptional character" is such an odd defence from his barrister, even if you disregard the crimes.

Where exactly did he meet this individual who was sending all this stuff. He’s a highly paid well educated top news presenter and he comes across emotionless and like he has no common sense whatsoever. If ever there was a guy who needs a lot of therapy it is that man but probably too late for him now. You could probably have some looking at it from a sympathetic angle but then he didn’t report the images or the person sending them. He didn’t cut communication. So in a just world he would be made an example of and given at least a year in jail but I’m guessing money talks and he will never spend a day behind bars

Where exactly did he meet this individual who was sending all this stuff. He’s a highly paid well educated top news presenter and he comes across emotionless and like he has no common sense whatsoever. If ever there was a guy who needs a lot of therapy it is that man but probably too late for him now. You could probably have some looking at it from a sympathetic angle but then he didn’t report the images or the person sending them. He didn’t cut communication. So in a just world he would be made an example of and given at least a year in jail but I’m guessing money talks and he will never spend a day behind bars

 

I’d be absolutely shocked if he serves a day in jail. He shouldn’t be made an example of because of his profile, but even reading what he’s admitted he’s done, I’ve seen far, far, far worse and they’ve not been sent to jail. Community service way more likely, plus admitting guilt means a lesser sentence in itself.

He’s plead guilty and the BBC has more details on what the charges are.

 

So firstly it has nothing to do with the news that came out previously, and I’m comfortable standing by what I said previously. The police investigated and noted no illegality took place

Secondly, it appears that he received these images (didn’t create them) in the context of an image sharing chat on WhatsApp and had actually written in the chat (according to the defence) multiple times he didn’t want illegal content. Regardless, he has continued to participate in this chat beyond the first incidence and he should receive the requisite punishment for his actions. Stupid way to end what was a great career with some stupid decisions that will be what people remember him for

 

He clearly has a pattern of targeting young boys. Why was he in that group chat in the first place?

He clearly has a pattern of targeting young boys. Why was he in that group chat in the first place?

 

And where did Silas deny this pattern? It’s still a separate issue to what came out last year even if it is along the same lines. What Huw has been doing is not right and by pleading guilty he has shown that he acknowledges this even if he did seek to keep his activities legal.

 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get out of people here tbh. No one here is defending Huw Edwards in light of what has come out but for some reason you’re quite desperate to be seen as some glorious pedophile hunter and paint the rest of us a pedophile apologists when that’s clearly not the case.

From the sounds of the BBC News report it wasn’t a group chat, but a chat with a single person. The question tho should be asked is how he came to know the other person as they are a convicted kiddie fiddler, and if he knew that why did he enter into this chat with him.

 

There is no suggestion in the media that this is a pattern, or that the media received was even requested. Caution when using actionable language is never a bad thing

And where did Silas deny this pattern? It’s still a separate issue to what came out last year even if it is along the same lines. What Huw has been doing is not right and by pleading guilty he has shown that he acknowledges this even if he did seek to keep his activities legal.

 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get out of people here tbh. No one here is defending Huw Edwards in light of what has come out but for some reason you’re quite desperate to be seen as some glorious pedophile hunter and paint the rest of us a pedophile apologists when that’s clearly not the case.

 

Because people seem to keep emphasising that this is completely separate from the issues reported last year, which resulted in his leaving the BBC. It’s clearly not a coincidence and it is evidence of a pattern. Just because he wasn’t convicted of anything last year, it’s still definitely worthy of taking into consideration that he was chatting up teenage boys. I think it’s also quite naive to think he received these images against his will, no matter what his defence team says. Unless he blocked the man immediately and reported the images, then there is no defence.

Because people seem to keep emphasising that this is completely separate from the issues reported last year, which resulted in his leaving the BBC. It’s clearly not a coincidence and it is evidence of a pattern. Just because he wasn’t convicted of anything last year, it’s still definitely worthy of taking into consideration that he was chatting up teenage boys. I think it’s also quite naive to think he received these images against his will, no matter what his defence team says. Unless he blocked the man immediately and reported the images, then there is no defence.

 

I’m not even sure why I’m responding given you don’t read anything here anyway but people have only said it’s separate because of your early attacks telling people to be ashamed of themselves and accusing them of defending pedophiles when all they actually did was voice a view based on the evidence at the time. The current news was not public back then. This is legally a separate issue because it is not directly linked to last year’s story. Of course, there is an indirect link and it is clear that Huw Edwards has some unhealthy issues.

 

What I object to is you taking some sort of moral high ground over other posters. People posted based on the information available at the time and do not need to be condemned by you just because the story happened to unfold the way you’d already said it would. I mean, still going off actual information rather than speculation, it hasn’t panned out quite the way you wanted but well done on the win I guess.

 

Still waiting for Phillip Schofield to be arrested based on your inflammatory comments about him last year. Still time, I guess.

 

I also noticed you haven’t responded about the fact that you believe a convicted child killer to be completely innocent because the evidence is so flimsy and yet was calling someone else a pedophile last year when at the time there was no investigation going on.

I’m not even sure why I’m responding given you don’t read anything here anyway but people have only said it’s separate because of your early attacks telling people to be ashamed of themselves and accusing them of defending pedophiles when all they actually did was voice a view based on the evidence at the time. The current news was not public back then. This is legally a separate issue because it is not directly linked to last year’s story. Of course, there is an indirect link and it is clear that Huw Edwards has some unhealthy issues.

 

What I object to is you taking some sort of moral high ground over other posters. People posted based on the information available at the time and do not need to be condemned by you just because the story happened to unfold the way you’d already said it would. I mean, still going off actual information rather than speculation, it hasn’t panned out quite the way you wanted but well done on the win I guess.

 

Still waiting for Phillip Schofield to be arrested based on your inflammatory comments about him last year. Still time, I guess.

 

I also noticed you haven’t responded about the fact that you believe a convicted child killer to be completely innocent because the evidence is so flimsy and yet was calling someone else a pedophile last year when at the time there was no investigation going on.

 

Why do you have a problem with my “inflammatory comments” about an (alleged) child groomer? Plenty of abusers aren’t convicted for their crimes.

 

What does my questioning Lucy Letby’s conviction have to do with this exactly? So because I think one person may have been wrongfully convicted I’m not allowed to believe in anyone else’s guilt?