Your money funding depravity

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Your money funding depravity

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 8.48am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Go into any prison and the percentage of inmates wth mental health issues is astonishingly high. Extenuating circumstances didn't help them. It may not here either. It may not even be a factor. Far too early to know. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 8.48am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Go into any prison and the percentage of inmates wth mental health issues is astonishingly high. Extenuating circumstances didn't help them.

It may not here either. It may not even be a factor. Far too early to know.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.03am
Originally posted by The Dolphin You are actually sick. It is alleged that a number of these images are of the worst kind and yet you think it is was fine for him to be employed and seen on our screens? This alleged issue may not have been known about at the time but stuff was going on and he should have been sacked for even choosing to pay for pictures of young men while being paid by us to do so. I absolutely cannot believe you defending him - unreal! I am not defending him. I am defending the system. One in which one word you used is key. It is alleged he did these things. Unless and until his guilt is proven he is entitled to prepare and present a defence. He is innocent until proven guilty. I make no comment on a defence I haven’t heard nor, I suspect, even exists yet. Should the BBC have sacked him when on sick leave? Whilst it might satisfy the hounds baying for blood I would not expect their lawyers to have allowed it. Risking a Tribunal claim and all the costs that involves plus the bad publicity would probably have been even more expensive. If defending our system of justice means I am sick then there are an awful lot of people who must be too. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.03am

Originally posted by The Dolphin

You are actually sick.
It is alleged that a number of these images are of the worst kind and yet you think it is was fine for him to be employed and seen on our screens?
This alleged issue may not have been known about at the time but stuff was going on and he should have been sacked for even choosing to pay for pictures of young men while being paid by us to do so.
I absolutely cannot believe you defending him - unreal!

I am not defending him.

I am defending the system. One in which one word you used is key. It is alleged he did these things. Unless and until his guilt is proven he is entitled to prepare and present a defence. He is innocent until proven guilty.

I make no comment on a defence I haven’t heard nor, I suspect, even exists yet.

Should the BBC have sacked him when on sick leave? Whilst it might satisfy the hounds baying for blood I would not expect their lawyers to have allowed it. Risking a Tribunal claim and all the costs that involves plus the bad publicity would probably have been even more expensive.

If defending our system of justice means I am sick then there are an awful lot of people who must be too.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 30 Jul 24 9.08am
It is very instructive to contrast the Wisbechian stance taken on Huw Edwards with that taken with Tommy Robinson and Donald Trump.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

30 Jul 24 9.08am

It is very instructive to contrast the Wisbechian stance taken on Huw Edwards with that taken with Tommy Robinson and Donald Trump.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.12am
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly I think it was the sick man who was trying to penalise youngsters, was it not ? Poor Ian Huntley. It wasn't like he did anything bad during his working hours, was it. Other than the odd bit of child murder in his spare time, he was a damn fine caretaker, and deserving of his wages Edited by Forest Hillbilly (30 Jul 2024 7.51am) I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Many criminals manage to completely conceal their criminal activities. Until they get caught. Unless the school was aware that Huntley was up to no good, and I think there is more caution now than there was then, what could they have done? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.12am

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

I think it was the sick man who was trying to penalise youngsters, was it not ?
Poor Ian Huntley. It wasn't like he did anything bad during his working hours, was it. Other than the odd bit of child murder in his spare time, he was a damn fine caretaker, and deserving of his wages

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (30 Jul 2024 7.51am)

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Many criminals manage to completely conceal their criminal activities. Until they get caught.

Unless the school was aware that Huntley was up to no good, and I think there is more caution now than there was then, what could they have done?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 30 Jul 24 9.17am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am not defending him. I am defending the system. One in which one word you used is key. It is alleged he did these things. Unless and until his guilt is proven he is entitled to prepare and present a defence. He is innocent until proven guilty. I make no comment on a defence I haven’t heard nor, I suspect, even exists yet. Should the BBC have sacked him when on sick leave? Whilst it might satisfy the hounds baying for blood I would not expect their lawyers to have allowed it. Risking a Tribunal claim and all the costs that involves plus the bad publicity would probably have been even more expensive. If defending our system of justice means I am sick then there are an awful lot of people who must be too. Throwing a sickie when facing disciplinary action is common in the workforce. Employers are still entitled to sack you as long as they can show any tribunal they took reasonable steps to engage with that person and of course that the evidence supports the dismissal. For instance: Employer: We need you at attend a hearing on Tuesday Employee: I have a cold. Employer: Okay then how about Friday Employee: I am stressed and can't come into the office Employer: Okay how about a zoom meeting from home or a phone call. Employee: I don't feel up to it. Employer: Okay can you give me a time and a place when you could attend Employee: Err no sorry not at the moment. Employer: Okay these are serious allegations we will detail them in a letter to you and send you a questionnaire. If you like you can have a Union Rep or lawyer represent you. Employee: yeah I don't do letters and don't want someone helping me. Employer: We need you to answer these allegations how can you make with happen with your co-operation. Employee: I don't know Employer: We really want you to co-operate with us but if you are unable to engage we will still go ahead with the hearing. I am afraid we will also have to susupend you salary. And so on. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 30 Jul 24 9.17am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am not defending him.

I make no comment on a defence I haven’t heard nor, I suspect, even exists yet.

If defending our system of justice means I am sick then there are an awful lot of people who must be too.

Throwing a sickie when facing disciplinary action is common in the workforce. Employers are still entitled to sack you as long as they can show any tribunal they took reasonable steps to engage with that person and of course that the evidence supports the dismissal.

For instance:

Employer: We need you at attend a hearing on Tuesday
Employee: I have a cold.
Employer: Okay then how about Friday
Employee: I am stressed and can't come into the office
Employer: Okay how about a zoom meeting from home or a phone call.
Employee: I don't feel up to it.
Employer: Okay can you give me a time and a place when you could attend
Employee: Err no sorry not at the moment.
Employer: Okay these are serious allegations we will detail them in a letter to you and send you a questionnaire. If you like you can have a Union Rep or lawyer represent you.
Employee: yeah I don't do letters and don't want someone helping me.
Employer: We need you to answer these allegations how can you make with happen with your co-operation.
Employee: I don't know
Employer: We really want you to co-operate with us but if you are unable to engage we will still go ahead with the hearing. I am afraid we will also have to susupend you salary.

And so on.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.22am
Originally posted by georgenorman It is very instructive to contrast the Wisbechian stance taken on Huw Edwards with that taken with Tommy Robinson and Donald Trump. Y-L and Trump have both been found guilty. The former many times for a variety of offences, some involving violence. The latter is avoiding having several other charges tested in court and criticising the system and the judiciary. Edwards has been charged and now due process will determine guilt or innocence. That’s not yet here. He is not commenting or delaying. Those who see any kind of equivalence between these two situations are the ones being instructive. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.22am

Originally posted by georgenorman

It is very instructive to contrast the Wisbechian stance taken on Huw Edwards with that taken with Tommy Robinson and Donald Trump.

Y-L and Trump have both been found guilty. The former many times for a variety of offences, some involving violence. The latter is avoiding having several other charges tested in court and criticising the system and the judiciary.

Edwards has been charged and now due process will determine guilt or innocence. That’s not yet here. He is not commenting or delaying.

Those who see any kind of equivalence between these two situations are the ones being instructive.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.31am
Originally posted by Badger11 Throwing a sickie when facing disciplinary action is common in the workforce. Employers are still entitled to sack you as long as they can show any tribunal they took reasonable steps to engage with that person and of course that the evidence supports the dismissal. For instance: Employer: We need you at attend a hearing on Tuesday Employee: I have a cold. Employer: Okay then how about Friday Employee: I am stressed and can't come into the office Employer: Okay how about a zoom meeting from home or a phone call. Employee: I don't feel up to it. Employer: Okay can you give me a time and a place when you could attend Employee: Err no sorry not at the moment. Employer: Okay these are serious allegations we will detail them in a letter to you and send you a questionnaire. If you like you can have a Union Rep or lawyer represent you. Employee: yeah I don't do letters and don't want someone helping me. Employer: We need you to answer these allegations how can you make with happen with your co-operation. Employee: I don't know Employer: We really want you to co-operate with us but if you are unable to engage we will still go ahead with the hearing. I am afraid we will also have to susupend you salary. And so on. “Throwing a sickie” to try to delay things is one thing. Dismissing someone whilst under the care of specialist doctors and against the advice of your lawyers would be another, quite different, thing. We don’t know what happened at the BBC in this case other than that he was suspended on full pay, which is not so unusual when circumstances demand it and tends to happen with the more senior employees where the cost implications are higher. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jul 24 9.31am

Originally posted by Badger11

For instance:

And so on.

“Throwing a sickie” to try to delay things is one thing.

Dismissing someone whilst under the care of specialist doctors and against the advice of your lawyers would be another, quite different, thing.

We don’t know what happened at the BBC in this case other than that he was suspended on full pay, which is not so unusual when circumstances demand it and tends to happen with the more senior employees where the cost implications are higher.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 30 Jul 24 10.03am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Y-L and Trump have both been found guilty. The former many times for a variety of offences, some involving violence. The latter is avoiding having several other charges tested in court and criticising the system and the judiciary. Edwards has been charged and now due process will determine guilt or innocence. That’s not yet here. He is not commenting or delaying. Those who see any kind of equivalence between these two situations are the ones being instructive. Your stance was exactly the same before their trials as it is now before any further trials.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

30 Jul 24 10.03am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Edwards has been charged and now due process will determine guilt or innocence. That’s not yet here. He is not commenting or delaying.

Those who see any kind of equivalence between these two situations are the ones being instructive.

Your stance was exactly the same before their trials as it is now before any further trials.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 30 Jul 24 11.56am
Originally posted by georgenorman Your stance was exactly the same before their trials as it is now before any further trials. Bingo Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 30 Jul 24 11.56am

Originally posted by georgenorman

Your stance was exactly the same before their trials as it is now before any further trials.

Bingo

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 30 Jul 24 6.04pm
After the Schofield debacle, where 'people at work knew' about his friendship with the young lad, it should ring alarm bells about who knew what Huw was up to. They must have known something about his Wassap chats, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think. That's why all his colleagues phones and emails should be checked, before accounts and photos get deleted and stuff falls into a river. Not saying his colleagues might be nonces, but we don't want a repeat of Savile where everyone knew but didn't say anything. There might be messages on colleagues phones, saying something along the lines of,..."Did you see what Huw's been up to again ?" Edited by Forest Hillbilly (30 Jul 2024 6.10pm) I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 30 Jul 24 6.04pm

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

After the Schofield debacle, where 'people at work knew' about his friendship with the young lad, it should ring alarm bells about who knew what Huw was up to. They must have known something about his Wassap chats, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think.

That's why all his colleagues phones and emails should be checked, before accounts and photos get deleted and stuff falls into a river.
Not saying his colleagues might be nonces, but we don't want a repeat of Savile where everyone knew but didn't say anything.
There might be messages on colleagues phones, saying something along the lines of,..."Did you see what Huw's been up to again ?"

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (30 Jul 2024 6.10pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 31 Jul 24 10.32am
So, Huw knew ? I bet there's others out there now being tracked via wassap groups. Or hopefully. "Huw Edwards, once the BBC's most senior news presenter, has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children. He admitted the offences at a brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Wednesday. The former newsreader was arrested last November and charged last month. The charges relate to 41 images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat between 2020 and 2022." (BBC website 31.7.24) I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 31 Jul 24 10.32am

So, Huw knew ?

I bet there's others out there now being tracked via wassap groups. Or hopefully.

"Huw Edwards, once the BBC's most senior news presenter, has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.

He admitted the offences at a brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Wednesday.

The former newsreader was arrested last November and charged last month.

The charges relate to 41 images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat between 2020 and 2022." (BBC website 31.7.24)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 31 Jul 24 10.33am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Firstly he has only been charged so far. The case has not been heard, so no defence or explanation given. It’s best we await the conclusion of that before making assumptions. More importantly Edwards was paid for presenting the news. Usually very well. That’s what our money funded. I would think his colleagues at the BBC, and their management, are as shocked and distressed at the news as anyone. Probably more so as it taints them too. He has pleaded guilty to the charges. Six of the images were of the most serious category.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

31 Jul 24 10.33am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Firstly he has only been charged so far. The case has not been heard, so no defence or explanation given. It’s best we await the conclusion of that before making assumptions.

More importantly Edwards was paid for presenting the news. Usually very well. That’s what our money funded. I would think his colleagues at the BBC, and their management, are as shocked and distressed at the news as anyone. Probably more so as it taints them too.

He has pleaded guilty to the charges. Six of the images were of the most serious category.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Your money funding depravity

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors