Hugh Edwards

I like this thread i think most of us all agree he needs the full force of the law, any mental illness excuses thrown out. I bet you though he ends up with some suspended sentence and a huge fine instead.
 
crystal ball said:
Be careful what you wish for
Click to expand...
they gave that paedo a £40,000 pay rise after he was suspended - they're just squandering our money on themselves
and he is far from the first - Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Hu Edwards....

I would be happy to see the lefty biased bbc kicked into touch tomorrow - good riddance to them

and then there's that linekar, £million+ a year for that irritating wokey waste of space
 
Vinty said:
No surprise that another Paedophile in the BBC has been exposed.

This is an organisation that has a pornographic sculpture above the front door at its HQ.

The bloke who carved the statue wrote in his Diary about raping his daughters, he also sexually abused the family pets as well apparently.

www.bbc.co.uk

Man damages BBC headquarters statue with hammer

There has been a campaign to remove the controversial statue which adorns Broadcasting House.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I did not know that....(from the link) At a time when statues across the country are being reassessed, there'll be those who believe that if it's legal to tear down a monument to a prominent slaver, as happened in Bristol, it is also time to do the same to an artwork by a man who committed horrific sexual crimes. If that's the case though, where does it end?

Good q. Where does it end? Do you look at art differently when the artist has a questionable history?

The statue represents Prospero and Ariel; charecters from 'The Tempest' and (according to Wiki) Ariel is bound to serve the magician Prospero, who rescued him from the tree in which he was imprisoned by Sycorax, the witch who previously inhabited the island. Prospero greets disobedience with a reminder that he saved Ariel from Sycorax's spells, and with promises to grant Ariel his freedom. Ariel is Prospero's eyes and ears throughout the play, using his magical abilities to cause the tempest in Act One which gives the play its name, and to foil other characters' plots to bring down their master.

In light of the sculptors depravity the work takes on a different aspect but to interpret the statue with fresh eyes risks taking away the artists original intent, risking a Puritan response to every artwork in the country.
 
Munroast said:
they gave that paedo a £40,000 pay rise after he was suspended - they're just squandering our money on themselves
and he is far from the first - Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Hu Edwards....

I would be happy to see the lefty biased bbc kicked into touch tomorrow - good riddance to them

and then there's that linekar, £million+ a year for that irritating wokey waste of space
Click to expand...
You must have many examples of bias
 
They must be some sort of peado radar they encircle themselves with the same sort of people
 
gas112 said:
They must be some sort of peado radar they encircle themselves with the same sort of people
Click to expand...
Yep

1722499439574.png
 
The licence fee is totally optional. It's very easy to live without BBC IPlayer or live TV.

I haven't had a TV license for 3 years. I think across various properties and locations I have about 8 or 9 TVs.

Edwards pleaded guilty and as far as I can tell he hasn't argued any mitigation other than his good character (i.e. no previous convictions). Unfortunately for him, commenting on the pictures nailed him.

Its a funny law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/1

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

- opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003]
- downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003]
- storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
- accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008]
- receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group live-streaming images of children

The breadth of what constitutes “making”, included simply having it saved in your downloads or attachments folder.

If someone sends you something unsolicited, delete it without any comment and certainly never, reply back saying that looks like illegal kiddie porn please don't send any more. Certainly, you don't want to carry one messaging the person for another year.
 
motorbiking said:
Its a funny law
Click to expand...
motorbiking said:
The breadth of what constitutes “making”, included simply having it saved in your downloads or attachments folder
Click to expand...
I've wondered this - on the surface, this seems a pretty scary law; you only have to be sent an unsolicited picture and you are then in possession of it (and can be accused of 'making' it).

But in reality, the risk of being falsely accused, is probably very low - would anyone in their right mind (questionable I know), post an image to this thread for example, where the risk of being caught would be extremely high?

So is the law really then about being guilty by association?
If you are receiving images from a certain source, you will more than likely be aware of what those images may contain.
 
I think I understand your question..

Let's say I posted a link to a web page which had a link as follows:

Cute Puppy
<a href="/images/nastykiddieporn.jpg" download>
Click to expand...

You click the link and yes - you are guilty of "making" (sec 1) but you may have a defence (sec 4b).

However, if you post "stop posting disgusting kiddie porn", you are unfortunately relieved of your defence.

Since the link has the download attribute, its dumped a copy on your computer "making" and since you commented on it we know you viewed it.
Simply the act of viewing on a screen is making.

FYI - it really is a cute puppy.
 
motorbiking said:
I think I understand your question..

Let's say I posted a link to a web page which had a link as follows:

Cute Puppy


You click the link and yes - you are guilty of "making" (sec 1) but you may have a defence (sec 4b).

However, if you post "stop posting disgusting kiddie porn", you are unfortunately relieved of your defence.

Since the link has the download attribute, its dumped a copy on your computer "making" and since you commented on it we know you viewed it.
Simply the act of viewing on a screen is making.

FYI - it really is a cute puppy.
Click to expand...

That's a disgustingly.......................................Cute Puppy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top