Huw Edwards Sentencing

[JoyousPinkPeer]

Will Huw get a worse/lighter sentencing today because of his fame?

YABU ... Worse sentence
YANBU ... Lighter setence

Presumably seven years is what’s decreed by the sentencing guidelines.

You're out of order

Assessing self esteem is important as it's a significant factor in predicting risk of future offending - lots of research to support that- so that more children aren't harmed in future

He knew exactly what he was doing. Vile, odious man. Hopefully he will never be on tv again. Those poor children. My heart breaks for them. The guest on radio 4 news last night gave the most sickening statistic of just how bad the problem is. I wanted to pull the car over and cry as she spoke.

Why? If you are convicted of a crime you can and do lose a massive chunk of any benefits accrued from your tax payers funded role. Military and police lose some of their pensions if convicted. Carrick lost 65%. Do the same to sex offender Huw.

Look back a few posts to see what happened with Sharon Shoesmith. Edwards’ pension isn’t tax payer funded and BBC employees aren’t public servants.

I saw the Shoesmith post, she however wasn't a convicted sex offender so of course it is an irrelevant comparison.

So, sorry bear with me, if we pay for the BBC through licence fees and the BBC pay towards this odious sex offender's pension how is his pension not partially tax payer funded? Happy to be corrected, genuinely puzzled.

The license fee isn’t a tax, any more than paying Netflix is. There’s no compulsion to have a television licence and increasing numbers of people are opting out because they don’t watch BBC programmes.

The Shoesmith comparison is relevant because it shows what happens when you fuck with people’s employment rights.

I brought up Shoesmith as an example of political grandstanding by Ed Balls to placate the masses

is a theory that it can possibly lead to less offending supported by some studies

is absolutely not proven it’s not something that can be and for all these studies you will find many that will report differently

and do you not think that offenders are not aware of this playing the sob story of being abused, being depressed, feeling apart from society even less educated offenders will use this reasoning

of course once they are caught or fear they will be their mh suffers, depression from what they have done or that they have been caught

no offending again will come down to not wanting to offend, not because they are no longer struggling with their mh or it is being managed through medication and therapy/psychological support

HE will have been far more aware given his profession of the long term suffering of victims but he didn’t care and he carefully covered his tracks

plenty of professionals make it their work to change sex offenders many have failed

is a theory that it can possibly lead to less offending supported by some studies

Yes and I wonder if those studies were done by men.

I didn't say it is a tax. You said his pension isn't taxpayer funded. We pay for the BBC through our licence fees, the bbc pay toward his pension therefore the public do indeed pay towards his pension.

Any BBC contributions should be withheld.

The Shoesmith comparison isn't relevant as she wasn't a convicted criminal so of course correct disciplinary measures should have been followed first.

Do you think Carrick's rights were 'fucked with' when that sex offender's pension was partially withheld?

It is quite staggering. 'Not at home at the bbc' boo hoo. I bet the pay made up for it. Lots of colleagues said he had a massive ego and was hard to work with so he managed his feeling of inferiority very well.

He just seems so slimy and lacking in any self awareness. He should've just said yes guilty as charged instead of indeed prattling on about Cardiff uni and his bossy dad.

Here's what the BBC says about it's funding

''We are grateful to the wide range of funders, including national governments, the UN and other international organisations, foundations, corporate partners and private individuals who support us''. 11 Jun 2024

Will have to agree to disagree about Shoesmith - in the long run it cost more and wouldn't like to see the bbc waste more money on expensive court cases just for the optics

It is quite a strange thing who decides that these BBC top presenters are worthy of their position and therefore pay.
I never liked Edwards. Who ever didn't think Savile was a crazed creep likewise Rolf Harris - could never stand him.
So many are just pompous like Charlie Stayt but they are there on the screen. Other channels are no better Phillip Schofield - never liked him not even when he was in the broom cupboard, Richard Madelyn always perving round young female guests yet he's still on. Don't get it myself but I haven't had a TV for 10 years so I don't have to watch them.
But who does decide?

The Shoesmith comparison isn't relevant as she wasn't a convicted criminal so of course correct disciplinary measures should have been followed first.

Edwards wasn’t a convicted criminal until yesterday - six months after he left the BBC - so of course correct disciplinary measures should have been followed.

Good question.

I guess they go by viewing figures.

It is internally nepotistic also. Where you see one set of presenters for one programme go on to host another 10 programmes. It can be overkill on seeing the same presenters all the time. I really don't need to see Breakfast presenters also hosting evening programmes. Or radio presenters on TV.

It's like once the foot is in the door, there's some unwritten rule that you then stay there permanently, unless you either switch channels or die.

No one else gets a look in. This helps cement the God status of some of these presenters and makes it harder to remove them, and easier for bad behaviour not to be found out. There's literally no competition at the top.

Yes but he is now, that is what we are discussing. His partially taxpayer funded pension should be partially withheld. As often happens with occupational benefits once people are convicted sex offenders.

'It is quite a strange thing who decides that these BBC top presenters are worthy of their position and therefore pay.'

Indeed. He read the news and narrated royal events with a solemn face. It really didn't justify his ego or his status.

Give me Clive Myrie anyday.

But he wasn’t when he was employed by the BBC. He’s entitled to his pension which is based on the time he was employed by the Beeb and to which he contributed. Given that he can employ the most expensive lawyers they’d be mad to try to and take it away.

I hope he has to spend his entire pension on round the clock security but still lives in fear for the rest of his life.

What is these men’s thinking process? That these images already exist so they may as well partake?

Do they not see the chain of events that link to that specific, hideous moment of abuse?

Let's hope so.

I wonder what on earth he was thinking going on about Cardiff uni via an English uni. It is an absolutely absurd comment coming from such an allegedly intelligent man.

'He’s entitled to his pension which is based on the time he was employed by the Beeb and to which he contributed.'

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not think he is entitled to the BBC/tax payer funded contributions to his pension.

I'll ask again do you think that the sex offending PC Carrick was entitled to all of his pension or do you agree that 65% being withheld was the correct thing to do?

Where you see one set of presenters for one programme go on to host another 10 programmes. It can be overkill on seeing the same presenters all the time. I really don't need to see Breakfast presenters also hosting evening programmes. Or radio presenters on TV.

This is because TV is evil and TV producers are too scared to try anything new.
Basically, making television programmes is very very expensive and a new venture is very risky.

For this reason, the producers get very very jumpy about testing out someone new. They prefer to stick with the tried and tested.

If you see any pitch document for a new tv programme that requires a presenter, under 'Talent' you will see the same old names bandied about again and again - women Tess Daly, Claudia Winkleman, Fiona Bruce depening on the genre.

That said, TV presenting - even just reading out crap about films - is harder than it looks

Totally off the point of this thread but watch this if you want a laugh and to see that not everyone can even read to a TV acceptable standard:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/spencer-matthews-apologises-wooden-performance-14014153