Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11486953)

They payed him 250 grand after the conviction didnt they?

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy (Post 11486960)

There hasn't been a conviction yet at all, he's not even in court until mid September. Though he's submitted a guilty plea so there will be a conviction.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11486964)

Ah, yes, that would make more sense.. so they've paid him 250 grand after the guilty plea if my source is correct.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11486964)

Ah, yes, that would make more sense.. so they've paid him 250 grand after the guilty plea if my source is correct.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11487004)

he only pled guilty a couple of days ago, and i think he actually left the BBC 2 or 3 months ago, so he wasn't being paid anything from then

Originally Posted by arista (Post 11487411)

Originally Posted by Liam- (Post 11309171)

And you’re working on the assumption that he’s automatically guilty of everything he’s been ‘accused’ of

Why is the wrong thing to focus on? He’s been wrongly accused of committing sex offences, he has every right to be angry, any person would be in that scenario

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 11485588)

They included seven category A images, the most serious classification - two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.

Category A images show serious abuse including penetrative sexual activity.

He also had 12 category B pictures, which involve non-penetrative sexual activity, and 22 photographs in category C, which covers other indecent images. The category B and C pictures showed children aged between 12 to 15.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c880zykre4lo

Sick ****er, can be no excuse.

BBC also knew he'd been arrested in November after which time he received £250k in salary

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 11485687)

he wasn't and stop peddling lies it could get you in serious trouble

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...y-rape-1799935

please read that fact checked link and desist from spreading fake news and defamation on Tibb

Mods can you delete his post?

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11487452)

'

calls everyone on the forum gullible

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11487612)

what we all need to know is who is in his friendship circle. Who else is involved, because he sure won't be alone

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 11487606)

He just sexually abused her instead.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 11487621)

nope

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 11487614)

Tbf to Liam, how was he suppose to know that Huw Edwards likes 7 year olds?

Originally Posted by arista (Post 11487686)

From Early AM, Debate on Edwards on LBC


His Lawyers are going to say
he was mentally unstable etc.

One Expert said he could avoid Jail.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11487761)

He better not, its an affront to people with genuine mental health issues

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11487678)

He was very comfortable with a 60 year old man in a powerful position using a vulnerable 17 year old for his own gratification :shrug: in fact he said it wasn't true and was a plot to bring the BBC down

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11487761)

He better not, its an affront to people with genuine mental health issues

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 11488199)

1. I wouldn't compare being sexually attracted to a 17 year old as the same as being attracted to a 7 year old imo, it might be controversial to say (although I really don't think that it should be,) but being attracted to a 7 year old who obviously hasn't gone through puberty and is mentally very clearly a child, is beyond sick imo.

And 2. Liam was going with his opinion based on the information that was given at the time, like we all were tbf.