You read a post by you know who and you think he must have peaked with his absurdity - but he goes on to post something even more bonkers. After Edwards pleaded guilty, I posted that the former would be soon be posting that Edward's mental health affected his plea and that all sorts of other nonsense had to be taken into account. I didn't seriously think he would, but then, lo and behold, he does exactly that! The cup that keeps on giving.

When he has known mental health issues that have resulted in him having in hospital treatment it is hardly possible to just ignore them in any rational, balanced and objective discussion of the matter.

Of course there are those who don’t want to discuss things rationally and objectively so a balanced conclusion can be arrived at. They just trot out their prejudices.

Cups full of prejudices constantly overflow. A bit like the sewers of Paris after a thunderstorm they dump sh*t everywhere.

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.

They treat paedophillia in hospital do they? It's not a crime - it's a mental health issue? That's what you seem to be saying.
I was under the impression it was still illegal despite the BBC doing it best to make it fashionable.

Red and Blue Army!

Didn’t take long to tar thinkers far right with an opinion that isn’t yours. My case is proved that you agree with starmer.

He's a paedophile which is a crime. The BBC neglected their duty of care to his victims, their own employees, plus the taxpayer when they not only failed to investigate properly (or did but covered up the findings), continued to pay him and failed to take any complaints against him seriously.
They say it's a complicated legal issue - which it is not.
Huw Edward's contract - like every BBC contract - has a reasonable behaviour clause, and a clause to not bring the BBC into disrepute. All they need to do is look at the date that Edwards committed his first offence - which will be available in court proceedings. From that date his contract can be terminated in retrospect. By having images of children being penetrated - which is what this c*** has - he knowingly brought the BBC into disrepute. No solicitor is going to defend Edwards on that.
He needs to reimburse all monies, expenses and contributions made since then.

Red and Blue Army!

I’ll ignore the pearls of wisdom from our amateur psychology expert. They are as well balanced as Laurel and Hardy on a seesaw.

Strangely I now discover that a number of my bowling colleagues, all perfectly sensible fellows, are actually insane. Who would have known that and even more astonishingly been able to diagnose it from Hong Kong!

For when I raised the Charlie Hebdo hypothesis with them as a possible explanation for the daft tableau at the opening ceremony there were murmurs of agreement. Not likely, but possible. Seems we are all off our rockers. Or maybe someone else is. There’s a new thought!

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.