throbber Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 26 minutes ago, hk blues said: Yep, that's what he should have done but did he really want to invite scrutiny? I agree it's more than weird to be exchanging porn pics with someone so many years his junior but if he had been exchanging similar with someone his own age I'm not sure it would have been any better. For me, that age gap is less of an issue than the act of swapping such porn pics - the least of his crimes if you like. Well I certainly wouldn’t go giving him the benefit of any doubt with your first part. And yes as for second part it just points towards deeply seedy behaviour IMO. Just because stuff isn’t illegal doesn’t mean to ignore massive red flags in behaviour. f**k him anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManBearPig Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 There's plenty of porn on the internet that you can watch for free. If you are exchanging porn through WhatsApp or similar, I can only imagine that you are looking for dodgy shit that you can't find on legal sites. There's no way that he was only looking for "legal" stuff. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 5 hours ago, throbber said: He was still in possession of them after they got sent though. Also if he really wanted to be in the right side of the law he’d have reported the illegality straight away. I wonder if he deleted them but then didn't go on to empty his recycle bin? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 36 minutes ago, The DA said: I wonder if he deleted them but then didn't go on to empty his recycle bin? Or if he has numerous other devices and has 10’s of thousands of images. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peil Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 (edited) 7 hours ago, throbber said: He was still in possession of them after they got sent though. Also if he really wanted to be in the right side of the law he’d have reported the illegality straight away. I thought it was a strict liability offence with no defence permitted? Edited August 5 by Peil Spelling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 7 minutes ago, Peil said: I thought it was a strict liability offence with no defence permitted? From the coverage of the Supt Robyn Williams case it seems you might be OK if you report it immediately? She didn’t, and was convicted, although there was no evidence she’d viewed the video she was sent https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq3xw37jdqo.amp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 3 hours ago, The DA said: I wonder if he deleted them but then didn't go on to empty his recycle bin? Even if deleted the forensic recovery guys can find all sorts. Shoulda gone and dropped it in north sea accidentally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 25 minutes ago, RH33 said: Even if deleted the forensic recovery guys can find all sorts. Shoulda gone and dropped it in north sea accidentally. Could easily have numerous other burner phones or laptops that got disposed of as well. Without looking particularly hard the police have proof of him for sending money to a teenage boy for nudes and receiving child porn off a 25 year old from a separate investigation. I think the guilty plea will put the quickest end to this for Huw but I highly doubt he was only having 2 dirty chats where he was up to no good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 It was a reference to the Vardy PA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 1 hour ago, RH33 said: It was a reference to the Vardy PA. There’s been so many scandals I just can’t keep up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 12 hours ago, RH33 said: Even if deleted the forensic recovery guys can find all sorts. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 BBC asks Huw Edwards to return more than £200,000 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynjvve0gvo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Asking him to hand back his salary is madness btw. Can employers actually do that? There’s clearly nothing legal they can do so they’re just asking for money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 hour ago, throbber said: Asking him to hand back his salary is madness btw. Can employers actually do that? There’s clearly nothing legal they can do so they’re just asking for money back. What else can they do, they handed it to him all they can do is ask, he will be under no requirement to comply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 48 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: What else can they do, they handed it to him all they can do is ask, he will be under no requirement to comply. Just seems weird that they’ve done that, if they’ve got legal reasons to get money back from him because he didn’t tell the entire story then that’s reasonable but just to ask for the money back seems pretty wild. Why don’t they just ask for him to surrender his entire wealth while we’re at it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venti Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 3 hours ago, throbber said: Asking him to hand back his salary is madness btw. Can employers actually do that? There’s clearly nothing legal they can do so they’re just asking for money back. Nvm his money. Beast should be behind bars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Adam Johnson did something similar - he plead guilty at trial and was therefore allowed to play an extra year for Sunderland, he was earning £60,000 a week at the time. There was controversy about that as he said during his trial that he had told the chairwoman of Sunderland that he was guilty but she didn't take it further. Basically, there doesn't seem to be anything an employer can do, hence why they are 'asking' for the money rather than taking any concrete action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Stevens isn’t going to make that sort of money back again in his life so it would be daft to give it back as some sort of token of goodwill as if the BBC are the real victims here. Also is he supposed to give the entire sum back as I’d imagine his salary would have been fairly heavily taxed? What a carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 It's not as if returning the money is going to make people see him in a better light. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 hour ago, throbber said: Stevens isn’t going to make that sort of money back again in his life so it would be daft to give it back as some sort of token of goodwill as if the BBC are the real victims here. Also is he supposed to give the entire sum back as I’d imagine his salary would have been fairly heavily taxed? What a carry on. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.