There are undoubtedly victims of this paedophiles behaviour.
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
The BBC have asked for 200k back. There is another one on BBC catchup that is worth a watch, it is called Huw Edwards-Fall from Grace, it recaps the story from the beginning, but only last 18 minutes. The BBC are just sh1t at management.
The only time they were likely to get some of their money back was before Sentencing.
Now? There is no clear legal basis for that money. They might get it-but it would be for tactical (rather than legal) reasons.
In any event, people who earn big salaries have big outgoings. And when the money stops, the bills don't. And, as you pointed out earlier, the Divorce.
There are lots of times people talk about suing, or appealing these sorts of things.
But they are more often reacting to external pressures than actually intending to try and sue. And that case looks both extremely iffy and a money pit to me.
There are undoubtedly victims of this paedophiles behaviour.
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
I think that people are only disputing whether or not he should have been paid from the point that he was charged. The BBC have asked for it back.
There are undoubtedly victims of this paedophiles behaviour.
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
I think that people are only disputing whether or not he should have been paid from the point that he was charged. The BBC have asked for it back.
You are right. People with feck all understanding of the legal system have an alternative reality.
There are undoubtedly victims of this paedophiles behaviour.
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
I think that people are only disputing whether or not he should have been paid from the point that he was charged. The BBC have asked for it back.
You are right. People with feck all understanding of the legal system have an alternative reality.
There are undoubtedly victims of this paedophiles behaviour.
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
The guy was apparently included in the Suns dossier. Edwards was asking him for sexual images when was underage. The other guy whose parents got involved were complaining because Edwards wouldnt stop sending him money, which he spent on drugs.
‘WRONG MESSAGE’ ‘It’s ludicrous,’ fury over Huw Edwards as experts slam ‘two tier justice’ & ask why he dodged jail for ‘heinous crime’
Gamble added: "Less than 20 per cent of individuals who are convicted of this type of offence actually receive a custodial sentence. And that's part of the problem, because we don't create an active deterrent.
KEMI Badenoch has blasted Huw Edwards dodging jail as “two tier” justice - and called for an urgent overhaul of sentencing rules.
She said: "I think the sentence is a joke because not only was he not blocking but he was actively seeking it [indecent photos] by asking. He was offered ‘do you want young photos?’ if he and he said yes.
"I think the mitigation put forward on his behalf was a joke as well. I have never done a paedophile case where they haven't raised mental health as an issue and so for me, it’s a cop out.
"It’s a discredit to those who genuinely suffer with mental health issues and outrageous to say that just because of mental health issues it was effectively a gateway into him becoming a paedophile. I think it’s an absolute nonsense."
Brendan Clarke-Smith, a former children’s minister, added: “When such a high-profile public figure receives a non-custodial sentence for such a heinous crime, it sends out completely the wrong message to other offenders.
"Certainly, the public would question how this offence can avoid a jail term when others have been sent down recently for making comments on social media.”
During this time, the paedo sent Edwards 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children - including two videos of a boy as young as seven.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard he paid between £1,000 and £1,500 for the images, which he described as "amazing".
It follows widespread uproar over Edwards' £200,000 salary, after the BBC's director general said "discussions are under way" about the possibility of claiming back the money, which the star is yet to return despite being asked.
Paedo's pattern of behaviour
By Scarlet HowesNIGHT after night he sternly delivered the most important news to the nation, with his authoritative style winning countless awards.But away from his famous desk, as we have discovered, Huw Edwards was a manipulative paedophile who used the same pattern of behaviour time and time again to feed his relentless desires.Some 437 days since the Sun's bombshell front page - Edwards today appeared in court to learn his fate, his once glittering career in ruins.Our exclusive that he paid a youngster thousands of pounds for sexual pictures made headlines around the globe and set into motion a series of events which plunged the BBC into crisis.And Edwards - at the time the BBC's highest earning newsreader - never again appeared on our screens.Today, a court heard Edwards paid a younger convicted paedophile £1,500 for child sex images and videos of children which he described as "amazing".The case centred on messages between sex offender Alex Williams, who was a teen when they struck up a relationship, and 63-year-old Edwards.We must be clear, the facts of that case are unrelated to our original story.But there are some alarming similarities in his exchanges with both young people - and a pattern of deeply disturbing behaviour.He made contact with both on social media, messaged them on WhatsApp, harassed them for pictures, and then gave them money.There were kisses involved and Christmas presents given.Chillingly, he even bought both of them, who are decades younger, a pair of trainers.And all in exchange for sexual pictures.Cash was used as leverage to the men, one homeless, the other a student, who could only dream of earning his top salary.What The Sun uncovered was a pattern of behaviour and had we not done so Edwards' could well have remained undetected.
Forgive me if I prefer the findings of a Criminal Judge in a Criminal Court having heard all the evidence. As opposed to the 1-sided sensationalism of the Press.
I read that article some time ago. If I remember rightly, there is a suggestion that that lad, while he was underage, was asked to send pictures when he was no longer underage.
The other one. Let's have a reality check here. Someone demands money for some iffy pictures. Gets his price. The parents complain when the 2nd instalment arrives. Do you think there is a chance, just a chance, that someone in their late teens contacting famous people to sell d1ck pics, might, just might, have some deep-seated drug problems before the 2nd instalment?
PS. the BBC asking for money. What other choice do they have? If they don't say they are going to do this, they get slaughtered.
But saying you are going to sue is free. Rare that anyone can sue you for that. Whereas actually issuing proceedings is another matter entirely
Comments
The trouble is, we have a media who fail to differentiate between lawful and unlawful behaviour.
The bloke in that video was no "victim". Just someone after money.
He was not part of the Court case. Just the person who started the ball rolling.
As he says in that clip, he contacted lots of celebrities offering to sell pictures of himself. Not part of the Court case-"teenager" includes lots of people perfectly entitled to sell pictures of themselves. Took "tens of £thousands" from Mr Edwards, which does beg the question of why he was homeless.
Not a victim-those were the young kids with someone pimping them out. The ones that actually were the subjects in the Charges.
Finally, this nonsense about why Edwards was not suspended without pay. I have suspended hundreds (if not thousands) of people with pay. And not 1 without pay.
Mainly because I didn't fancy being slaughtered in an Employment Tribunal. You (legally) have to have Trust and Confidence in an Employee at that stage.
There is another one on BBC catchup that is worth a watch, it is called Huw Edwards-Fall from Grace, it recaps the story from the beginning, but only last 18 minutes.
The BBC are just sh1t at management.
Now? There is no clear legal basis for that money. They might get it-but it would be for tactical (rather than legal) reasons.
In any event, people who earn big salaries have big outgoings. And when the money stops, the bills don't. And, as you pointed out earlier, the Divorce.
There are lots of times people talk about suing, or appealing these sorts of things.
But they are more often reacting to external pressures than actually intending to try and sue. And that case looks both extremely iffy and a money pit to me.
The BBC have asked for it back.
Edwards was asking him for sexual images when was underage.
The other guy whose parents got involved were complaining because Edwards wouldnt stop sending him money, which he spent on drugs.
Gamble added: "Less than 20 per cent of individuals who are convicted of this type of offence actually receive a custodial sentence. And that's part of the problem, because we don't create an active deterrent.
KEMI Badenoch has blasted Huw Edwards dodging jail as “two tier” justice - and called for an urgent overhaul of sentencing rules.
She said: "I think the sentence is a joke because not only was he not blocking but he was actively seeking it [indecent photos] by asking. He was offered ‘do you want young photos?’ if he and he said yes.
"I think the mitigation put forward on his behalf was a joke as well. I have never done a paedophile case where they haven't raised mental health as an issue and so for me, it’s a cop out.
"It’s a discredit to those who genuinely suffer with mental health issues and outrageous to say that just because of mental health issues it was effectively a gateway into him becoming a paedophile. I think it’s an absolute nonsense."
Brendan Clarke-Smith, a former children’s minister, added: “When such a high-profile public figure receives a non-custodial sentence for such a heinous crime, it sends out completely the wrong message to other offenders.
"Certainly, the public would question how this offence can avoid a jail term when others have been sent down recently for making comments on social media.”
During this time, the paedo sent Edwards 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children - including two videos of a boy as young as seven.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard he paid between £1,000 and £1,500 for the images, which he described as "amazing".
It follows widespread uproar over Edwards' £200,000 salary, after the BBC's director general said "discussions are under way" about the possibility of claiming back the money, which the star is yet to return despite being asked.
Paedo's pattern of behaviour
By Scarlet HowesNIGHT after night he sternly delivered the most important news to the nation, with his authoritative style winning countless awards.But away from his famous desk, as we have discovered, Huw Edwards was a manipulative paedophile who used the same pattern of behaviour time and time again to feed his relentless desires.Some 437 days since the Sun's bombshell front page - Edwards today appeared in court to learn his fate, his once glittering career in ruins.Our exclusive that he paid a youngster thousands of pounds for sexual pictures made headlines around the globe and set into motion a series of events which plunged the BBC into crisis.And Edwards - at the time the BBC's highest earning newsreader - never again appeared on our screens.Today, a court heard Edwards paid a younger convicted paedophile £1,500 for child sex images and videos of children which he described as "amazing".The case centred on messages between sex offender Alex Williams, who was a teen when they struck up a relationship, and 63-year-old Edwards.We must be clear, the facts of that case are unrelated to our original story.But there are some alarming similarities in his exchanges with both young people - and a pattern of deeply disturbing behaviour.He made contact with both on social media, messaged them on WhatsApp, harassed them for pictures, and then gave them money.There were kisses involved and Christmas presents given.Chillingly, he even bought both of them, who are decades younger, a pair of trainers.And all in exchange for sexual pictures.Cash was used as leverage to the men, one homeless, the other a student, who could only dream of earning his top salary.What The Sun uncovered was a pattern of behaviour and had we not done so Edwards' could well have remained undetected.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30479610/fury-huw-edwards-experts-two-tier-justice-escape-jail/
Huw Edwards was snapped at a station as he waited for the young lad
The Sun revealed her son had spent Edwards’ money on drugs as his life spiralled out of control.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30473838/huw-edwards-ruined-my-son-life-jail/
I read that article some time ago. If I remember rightly, there is a suggestion that that lad, while he was underage, was asked to send pictures when he was no longer underage.
The other one. Let's have a reality check here. Someone demands money for some iffy pictures. Gets his price. The parents complain when the 2nd instalment arrives. Do you think there is a chance, just a chance, that someone in their late teens contacting famous people to sell d1ck pics, might, just might, have some deep-seated drug problems before the 2nd instalment?
PS. the BBC asking for money. What other choice do they have? If they don't say they are going to do this, they get slaughtered.
But saying you are going to sue is free. Rare that anyone can sue you for that. Whereas actually issuing proceedings is another matter entirely
But once a peado always a peado it'll never leave his head
I hope he suffers immensely for the rest of his miserable life
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/huw-edwards-attorney-general-under-pressure-to-appeal-against-lenient-sentence-for-ex-bbc-presenter/ar-AA1qI3jn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=12272e71640a4689a9b2271838874946&ei=147#fullscreen