IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
I think it is now acceptable to comment on this as he has pleaded guilty and details have been published but it appears that he had little to do with these images and even requested that they do not get sent to him. Also that he did not further distribute or keep them. It appears he has given up trying to defend himself and understands that once the media has decided something there is no longer any point in fighting. Times have changed and the only thing that now matters to media (especially social) and the slaves of the media (politicians, police, the legal system) is a good story. Since he didn't commit any crime in the previous scandal, they could get him by phrasing this and exaggerating it. Hopefully a decent judge will dare to apply a slap on the wrist for this minor mistake and won't bow to pressure to declare it appalling and give him years in prison. The public will howl with hatred and urge the judge be castrated and the BBC gets his past salary returned. Sickening how nasty a tiny but loud section of our species has become but, as part of the media for 60 years, I share the blame.
Something quite disturbing was said on Talk TV by well known lawyer Mark Stephens this morning when he asserted that if you receive a photo on whatsapp or email completely unsolicited that involves underage children in a sexual manner then just by opening it and viewing it you yourself have committed a criminal offence, even if you don't know the person and have never asked for any such material and don't want it. How can that possibly be right? Nobody can be responsible for what others send us without our permission, and until you open something how can you know what it is.
If this is genuinely true, and who am I to argue with a lawyer who should know, you can see the trouble here can't you. All it would take is some malicious individual to gain a well know person's email or number and fire off material to instantly criminalise them.
JK2006 wrote: I think it is now acceptable to comment on this as he has pleaded guilty and details have been published but it appears that he had little to do with these images and even requested that they do not get sent to him. Also that he did not further distribute or keep them. It appears he has given up trying to defend himself and understands that once the media has decided something there is no longer any point in fighting. Times have changed and the only thing that now matters to media (especially social) and the slaves of the media (politicians, police, the legal system) is a good story. Since he didn't commit any crime in the previous scandal, they could get him by phrasing this and exaggerating it. Hopefully a decent judge will dare to apply a slap on the wrist for this minor mistake and won't bow to pressure to declare it appalling and give him years in prison. The public will howl with hatred and urge the judge be castrated and the BBC gets his past salary returned. Sickening how nasty a tiny but loud section of our species has become but, as part of the media for 60 years, I share the blame.
You dont ask for people to please not send you photos of seven year old children being raped.
You call the police as soon as the first one is sent.
Making indecent images makes it sound a lot worse than was possibly the case.
I’m not defending him but making a mistake in a moment of stupidity then regretting it is human nature. I honestly think the press are intent on driving someone famous to suicide, just to get the ratings
It sounds from the reports as if he hadn't solicited any illegal images and then made it clear when he received them that he didn't want to be sent anything of that kind. But why he'd been in contact with a convicted paedophile is unclear. As a journalist, he could surely have checked whether the person he was in contact with had a criminal record. Maybe his judgement was clouded by mental illness - unless that came later.
As for the criticism of the BBC, surely it's the sign of a good employer that they didn't just fire him when he was arrested.
On a lighter note, I noticed in the clips of him leaving court there was music in the background that sounded like an Irish jig. I wondered if that was from the "dancing priest", who I seem to remember prancing around in a dangerously short kilt in front of the courthouse at the time of the Rolf Harris trial. And after a more thorough search, it seems that my suspicions were correct, as the defrocked but kilted priest can be seen hopping up and down carrying a placard towards the end (e.g. at 1:37:21) of the video below.
The BBC are being attacked now for not sacking Hugh Edwards when they knew he had been arrested for child porn. They respond that they would of course have sacked him if he had been charged.
I'm sorry the BBC should only have sacked him if found guilty, not just charged.
It dismays me how careless people are now with due process and innocence until proven guilty.
If this man Edwards does not receive a custodial sentence then can you imagine the outcry when people will compare him to those jailed for simple licence non payment.
Knowing this country nowadays this outcome would never surprise me. I hope I'm wrong.
Simon wrote: If this man Edwards does not receive a custodial sentence then can you imagine the outcry when people will compare him to those jailed for simple licence non payment.
Knowing this country nowadays this outcome would never surprise me. I hope I'm wrong.
He has probably been into illegal porn for decades but the law finally caught up with him.
Forums 
