My hypothesis for the disturbances in Sunderland is that they involved a charabanc outing by members of a Cornish bowls club. I expect there will be murmurs of agreement on here.

Let me correct our current resident authority on everything.

Judges issue judgements, sometimes called court orders, whatever type of case is before them.

In civil cases the judgement will decide the level of compensation after a claim has been proven, or dismissed. In criminal cases either a jury will determine guilt or innocence and the judge accept it or they will do so themselves. The judge will then determine the sentence and issue the judgement of the Court. It is the final written summary of the conclusions reached.

The case of Edwards is being heard in a Magistrates Court but in front of a District Judge. There is not a jury involved, nor would there be for any case when a guilty plea has been entered.

We will know what the judgement is in October.

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.

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.

What we need to clarify all this, is input from someone who has experienced it.

Of course, it's a crime. To which he has pleaded guilty.

Being mentally ill is not a crime.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (03 Aug 2024 4.44pm)