ChaoticMusings

Magica · Go Outside

RE: The BBC...Lessons have been learned??

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Vita wrote:
It's a funny old world.

I think the majority of people stop if they think someone is in danger of killing themselves, there is no doubt it happens, stress becomes too much, and they feel life isn't worth living.

Whether that's the case here...who knows?

I do know, it makes for a good defence, when people get caught out, they plead mental illness, sex addiction, kleptomania, when in fact they are just good old fashioned arseholes.

jackthelad · Musing at the Chaos

In this upside down world there's a rush to pour out sympathy for the perpetrator while ignoring the victims and the people think they are enlightened.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

jackthelad wrote:
In this upside down world there's a rush to pour out sympathy for the perpetrator while ignoring the victims and the people think they are enlightened.

True that.

I hope the kid who is now, according to his mum, a crack/coke addict is getting as much help, cosseted in a private hospital, as the predator is.

Magica · Go Outside

Stick him in a hospital, private ofcourse, say it's depression pour on the sympathy.

Shame on him shame on them all.

Where's the sympathy for the teen and parents?

Digger · Admin

Magica wrote:
Stick him in a hospital, private ofcourse, say it's depression pour on the sympathy.

Shame on him shame on them all.

Where's the sympathy for the teen and parents?

I don't really have that much sympathy if someone accepts 34K for sending pics.

Magica · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
Magica wrote:
Stick him in a hospital, private ofcourse, say it's depression pour on the sympathy.

Shame on him shame on them all.

Where's the sympathy for the teen and parents?
I don't really have that much sympathy if someone accepts 34K for sending pics.

He was young and a druggie. That's a lot of money and he was taken advantage of by an old man who should know better, and did it before.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

The lad was 17 Edwards was 58 at the time.

Digger · Admin

Syl wrote:
The lad was 17 Edwards was 58 at the time.

At 17 I was living my life independently away from home and bringing a child into the world. I know we do stupid things when we're young, but where were his parents in that case? I have a real problem with people who seem to think 17 is a child, and yet 16 is old enough to have sex, smoke, vote etc. The world bows down to Greta Thunberg at 15 as the oracle of wisdom but a 17 years old is just a child? Please.

Edwards did wrong and should be ashamed of himself. I'm sick to death of the way we make excuses for people's bad behaviour...and that includes druggie 17 year olds. There were boys not much older than him flying spitfires in the second world war.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

IHowever....

"In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2018a)."

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

And

"The law gives extra protection to all under-18-year-olds, regardless of whether or not they are over the age of consent. It is illegal:

to take, show or distribute indecent photographs of a child under the age of 18 (this includes images shared through sexting or sharing nudes)to sexually exploit a child under the age of 18."

Digger · Admin

Syl wrote:
And

"The law gives extra protection to all under-18-year-olds, regardless of whether or not they are over the age of consent. It is illegal:

to take, show or distribute indecent photographs of a child under the age of 18 (this includes images shared through sexting or sharing nudes)to sexually exploit a child under the age of 18."

I never said it wasn't illegal. And Edwards has not been arrested. In fact, the police have said there's nothing to arrest him for. So, until there's evidence to the contrary it's actually illegal to make such assertions. Look what happened to Cliff Richard. The accusations in the media and speculation nearly drove the guy to suicide.

Edwards has had a mental breakdown over this. So...I stand by what I say regardless of the law pertaining minors. At 17 you know right from wrong, and on that fact 17 year olds get locked up if they commit a crime. The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 years old. So all this pearl clutching about how vulnerable a 'child' this 17 year old is doesn't wash with me. At that age you have to take some responsibility for how you behave and comport yourself. And if more kids did this, the world might be a better place.

Date: Jul 15 7:37 AM, 2023

Digger wrote:

And Edwards has not been arrested. In fact, the police have said there's nothing to arrest him for. So, until there's evidence to the contrary it's actually illegal to make such assertions.

What crime would you be committing?

Vita · Know It All

Syl wrote:
Vita wrote:
It's a funny old world.
I think the majority of people stop if they think someone is in danger of killing themselves, there is no doubt it happens, stress becomes too much, and they feel life isn't worth living.
Whether that's the case here...who knows?
I do know, it makes for a good defence, when people get caught out, they plead mental illness, sex addiction, kleptomania, when in fact they are just good old fashioned arseholes.

The addiction worker I had when I stopped drinking was also a psychiatrist who did reports on folk who were up at court on charges and were pleading the mental illness card.

He was always getting called away and 9 out of 10 times the person was just trying it on.

Look at Ian Huntley, he made out he was mad when there was nothing wrong with him.

Just an evil bastard.

Vita · Know It All

Magica wrote:
Vita wrote:
It's a funny old world.
BBC looks after its own as does the people who work there. Look how SOvile was protected!

There's talk there's a lot more than we know about.

Different folk I mean.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Digger wrote:
Syl wrote:
And

"The law gives extra protection to all under-18-year-olds, regardless of whether or not they are over the age of consent. It is illegal:

to take, show or distribute indecent photographs of a child under the age of 18 (this includes images shared through sexting or sharing nudes)to sexually exploit a child under the age of 18."
I never said it wasn't illegal. And Edwards has not been arrested. In fact, the police have said there's nothing to arrest him for. So, until there's evidence to the contrary it's actually illegal to make such assertions. Look what happened to Cliff Richard. The accusations in the media and speculation nearly drove the guy to suicide.
Edwards has had a mental breakdown over this. So...I stand by what I say regardless of the law pertaining minors. At 17 you know right from wrong, and on that fact 17 year olds get locked up if they commit a crime. The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 years old. So all this pearl clutching about how vulnerable a 'child' this 17 year old is doesn't wash with me. At that age you have to take some responsibility for how you behave and comport yourself. And if more kids did this, the world might be a better place.

What happened to Cliff Richards was disgusting, and the polar opposite of this case.

The BBC, after hearing allegations about Huw Edwards, did nothing, didn't even speak to him till weeks later, and then only when they knew the Sun had hold of the story.

The first false whiff of scandal they heard about Cliff, there they were, big news scoop, live on air as the South Yorkshire police raided his home.

One law for their own...one for others.

I agree at 17 you know right from wrong, ...IF you have had proper guidance, the law of the land still states that you are protected and treated as a minor in cases like this.

The law also states that a man pushing 60 is definitely not protected in cases such as these....unless of course he conveniently cites mental illness.

If this lad was over 18 when this began, he will have no case to answer ...but he is not the victim here, the young lad, and it seems others that are still coming forwards, are.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

It does beg the question, should a person's private life, as long as they have broken no laws, and sometimes even if they have, affect the way they are treated in the work place?

In the case of public figures, and there have been many, when news breaks of their wrongdoings, should they lose their lucrative positions...or if they are good at the job they do, are seen to be remorseful, or cite mental illness...should their private life not affect their work life?

Digger · Admin

Syl wrote:
Digger wrote:
Syl wrote:
And

"The law gives extra protection to all under-18-year-olds, regardless of whether or not they are over the age of consent. It is illegal:

to take, show or distribute indecent photographs of a child under the age of 18 (this includes images shared through sexting or sharing nudes)to sexually exploit a child under the age of 18."
I never said it wasn't illegal. And Edwards has not been arrested. In fact, the police have said there's nothing to arrest him for. So, until there's evidence to the contrary it's actually illegal to make such assertions. Look what happened to Cliff Richard. The accusations in the media and speculation nearly drove the guy to suicide.
Edwards has had a mental breakdown over this. So...I stand by what I say regardless of the law pertaining minors. At 17 you know right from wrong, and on that fact 17 year olds get locked up if they commit a crime. The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 years old. So all this pearl clutching about how vulnerable a 'child' this 17 year old is doesn't wash with me. At that age you have to take some responsibility for how you behave and comport yourself. And if more kids did this, the world might be a better place.

What happened to Cliff Richards was disgusting, and the polar opposite of this case.
The BBC, after hearing allegations about Huw Edwards, did nothing, didn't even speak to him till weeks later, and then only when they knew the Sun had hold of the story.
The first false whiff of scandal they heard about Cliff, there they were, big news scoop, live on air as the South Yorkshire police raided his home.
One law for their own...one for others.

I agree at 17 you know right from wrong, ...IF you have had proper guidance, the law of the land still states that you are protected and treated as a minor in cases like this.
The law also states that a man pushing 60 is definitely not protected in cases such as these....unless of course he conveniently cites mental illness.
If this lad was over 18 when this began, he will have no case to answer ...but he is not the victim here, the young lad, and it seems others that are still coming forwards, are.

I guess we'll have to see. The young man in question has denied any wrong doing. And anyone who might have been on the receiving end of any inappropriate behaviour should have come forwards when it happened. Perhaps they did. No doubt we'll find out.

There were sexual allegations made against Cliff Richard by four men. How is that any different from this case? The BBC reported on it. Got it wrong and end up forking out 1.9 million. Would that not colour how they deal with future 'allegations'? I think so. Like it or not, these type of allegations need careful handling. Names were being flung around on Twitter left right and centre. That's not right.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Obviously the BBC don't seem to have learned from their mistakes...not from the Saville era and not from the Cliff Richards saga either.

Seriously, if you ran a firm and a mother got in touch with head office, accusing one of your prized employees of sexually abusing her son for three years, starting when he was a minor, would you not speak to that employee so that you had both sides of the story?

Had they done that, this whole mess could have been sorted away from the public eye....which would have prevented innocent men being dragged into the spotlight.

Magica · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Obviously the BBC don't seem to have learned from their mistakes...not from the Saville era and not from the Cliff Richards saga either.

Seriously, if you ran a firm and a mother got in touch with head office, accusing one of your prized employees of sexually abusing her son for three years, starting when he was a minor, would you not speak to that employee so that you had both sides of the story?

Had they done that, this whole mess could have been sorted away from the public eye....which would have prevented innocent men being dragged into the spotlight.

More presenters saying they feel sorry for this predator, makes me sick!