[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

They payed him 250 grand after the conviction didnt they?

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.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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.

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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

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

Based on his annual pay (roughly 400k I think?) I'd assume it's Ł250k since November, so since he was suspended. It'll be even more if you take the whole timeline into account... it was roughly this time a whole year ago the first allegations started coming out.

[arista]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

who would have thought a 60 year old male in a powerful position could exert power over a young addict, yet it was passed off in this thread as pretty normal stuff and the young lad was loving it really.....

[Crimson Dynamo]

still waiting why some members like liam and glen spent ages defending this paedo??

plenty stuff in this thread by you guys so can we get down to addressing it?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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

'

calls everyone on the forum gullible

[arista]

[Beso]

Bloody hell

He must have been dying on a bit of fluff to be so brazen in public


This story is wierd

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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 Ł250k in salary

12 years old?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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?

He just sexually abused her instead.

[bots]

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

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

'

calls everyone on the forum gullible

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

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

I agree with you.

Hopefully the Police will be investigating for any possibilities of a BBC grooming gang.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

He just sexually abused her instead.

nope

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

nope

If you read the article that you linked up on here, it says that he got found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll.

Edit... Okay you're being really technical about it lol, he got found "liable" of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

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

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

[arista]

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

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.

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

Yes many will be shocked
his sneaky lawyers
making use of his extra Ł200,000

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

He wouldn't be the first Celebrity to trivialize Mental Health issues unfortunately.

[arista]

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

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.

Were some of his victims really as young as 7 !!??! Wtf
grotesque .

And I agree a 17 year old is ZERO comparison to a 7 year old who hasn't even developed and still very much a child .


Edwards is a full on disgusting paedophile