NPR

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:27 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:23 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:19 pm She's quite good looking so what's the shtick about not sleeping with her?

Misogynist bullshit as per - every man thinks every woman would be gagging for it, from them ... "every man" being people like Fox in this case.

Just a weird line to take but I don't know the background in terms of beef between them. Utterly stupid whatever the reason but he is a bit thick Lozza. His 'just saying' bits are often stupid beyond belief. He will crash and burn Richard Ayoade with him as well

Why Richard Ayoade?

I'm the shitest at keeping up with celebs doings and sayings

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:38 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:29 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:27 pm
Just a weird line to take but I don't know the background in terms of beef between them. Utterly stupid whatever the reason but he is a bit thick Lozza. His 'just saying' bits are often stupid beyond belief. He will crash and burn Richard Ayoade with him as well

Why Richard Ayoade?

I'm the shitest at keeping up with celebs doings and sayings

He is married to Lozzas sister and is currently getting caught up in the trans debate. I thought what the fuck is he doing but then saw who he was married to and went 'oh'. I think it's close to your heart if my very poor memory is correct? Anyway Lozza is about as thick as they come to be fair.
See now what irked him. She was debating male suicide with some lad on the telly and she came across as a dick. Sort of dismissed it as a major concern.

I didn't really look into the debate, tbh, I read that she apologised for seemingly trivialising male suicide - edit I've just looked up what she said, she could have been more receptive to the idea that there are particular issues and pressures that affect men, just as there are particular issues that affect women, and all points in between, if they are polar opposites (I'm being as inclusive as I can).

I don't think what she said warranted the response a 14 year old should be ashamed of.

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:38 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:29 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:27 pm
Just a weird line to take but I don't know the background in terms of beef between them. Utterly stupid whatever the reason but he is a bit thick Lozza. His 'just saying' bits are often stupid beyond belief. He will crash and burn Richard Ayoade with him as well

Why Richard Ayoade?

I'm the shitest at keeping up with celebs doings and sayings

He is married to Lozzas sister and is currently getting caught up in the trans debate. I thought what the fuck is he doing but then saw who he was married to and went 'oh'. I think it's close to your heart if my very poor memory is correct? Anyway Lozza is about as thick as they come to be fair.
See now what irked him. She was debating male suicide with some lad on the telly and she came across as a dick. Sort of dismissed it as a major concern.

I watch PolJOE on Youtube so see quite a bit of Ava. That clip of her debating with the male comedian about the need for a Men's minister is definitely not her finest hour, but that Fox thinks the best rebuttal to it is "talking like that makes her unfuckable" speaks volumes about his grubby character.

The furore around Ayoada seems to be that he's called Graham Linehan's memoir 'How I Made and Lost a Comedy Career' brilliant in a review. That makes him a full on transphobe now apparently. Unfortunately for him, just googling Ayoade's name and trans turns up The Telegraph already publishing in full support which certainly doesn't bode well. When the wrong people on the right start trying to smarm up to you it brings in their equivalents from the progressives and whether you want one or not there's a shitshow.

I don't suppose a UK Court would consider fining this bell end $83,000,000 ? ... pretty please, just to shut him up once & for fucking all !

Laurence Fox loses High Court libel case over social media row

Laurence Fox has lost a High Court libel case with two people he called paedophiles on social media.

The actor-turned-politician was sued by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal.

In an exchange on X, formerly Twitter, about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month, Mr Fox referred to the two as "paedophiles".

High Court judge Mrs Justice Collins Rice said Mr Fox's labelling was "harmful, defamatory and baseless".
....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68132377

Too amusing to not post.

https://x.com/m_rotchburns/status/17703 ... 83986?s=46

LOL, that X post lasted long

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:48 pm I don't suppose a UK Court would consider fining this bell end $83,000,000 ? ... pretty please, just to shut him up once & for fucking all !

Laurence Fox loses High Court libel case over social media row

Laurence Fox has lost a High Court libel case with two people he called paedophiles on social media.

The actor-turned-politician was sued by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal.

In an exchange on X, formerly Twitter, about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month, Mr Fox referred to the two as "paedophiles".

High Court judge Mrs Justice Collins Rice said Mr Fox's labelling was "harmful, defamatory and baseless".
....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68132377

Not quite the $83m you were hoping for, but Fox will have to pay £180,000 for his "gross, groundless and indefensible" slurs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248

Lobby wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:50 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:48 pm I don't suppose a UK Court would consider fining this bell end $83,000,000 ? ... pretty please, just to shut him up once & for fucking all !

Laurence Fox loses High Court libel case over social media row

Laurence Fox has lost a High Court libel case with two people he called paedophiles on social media.

The actor-turned-politician was sued by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal.

In an exchange on X, formerly Twitter, about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month, Mr Fox referred to the two as "paedophiles".

High Court judge Mrs Justice Collins Rice said Mr Fox's labelling was "harmful, defamatory and baseless".
....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68132377

Not quite the $83m you were hoping for, but Fox will have to pay £180,000 for his "gross, groundless and indefensible" slurs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248

I assume that Judges comments mean he's also going to award costs too, as these will dwarf the judgement

fishfoodie wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:43 pm

Lobby wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:50 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:48 pm I don't suppose a UK Court would consider fining this bell end $83,000,000 ? ... pretty please, just to shut him up once & for fucking all !



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68132377

Not quite the $83m you were hoping for, but Fox will have to pay £180,000 for his "gross, groundless and indefensible" slurs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248

I assume that Judges comments mean he's also going to award costs too, as these will dwarf the judgement

The Judge is a 'she', but yes, let's hope that the loudmouthed cretin has costs awarded against him as well.

So will Edwards end up in jail?

Former BBC newsreader Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children, the Metropolitan Police has said.
Police have said his alleged offences took place between December 2020 and April 2022 and relate to images shared in a WhatsApp chat.
The former newsreader was arrested on 8 November 2023 and charged on Wednesday 26 June.
He will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday 31 July.

Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
If found guilty, he could receive a sentence of up to six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edward ... 3186935

SaintK wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 3:13 pm So will Edwards end up in jail?

Former BBC newsreader Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children, the Metropolitan Police has said.
Police have said his alleged offences took place between December 2020 and April 2022 and relate to images shared in a WhatsApp chat.
The former newsreader was arrested on 8 November 2023 and charged on Wednesday 26 June.
He will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday 31 July.

Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
If found guilty, he could receive a sentence of up to six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edward ... 3186935

He's pleaded guilty. Apparently he was sent the images on WhatsApp by someone else.

Having category A images on his phone is pretty serious. He may avoid jail, but he'll have to sign the sex-offenders register.

BBC wanting some of their money back from the pedo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bb ... r-AA1owd5D

Calculon wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:43 pm BBC wanting some of their money back from the pedo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bb ... r-AA1owd5D

Not sure where I stand on this bit in particular - why the date of arrest is the significant date. I'd have thought the more important dates were date of offence and date of conviction, and in terms of him losing all privileges shouldn't it as a general rule be from the date of conviction?

It feels the Beeb has passed the buck by paying his salary and then saying he shouldn't have accepted them paying his salary if he knew he was guilty.

Anyway, I'll not cry any tears for him, but as a principle it just seems a bit of a populist rather than a considered move by the beeb.

inactionman wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:58 pm

Calculon wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:43 pm BBC wanting some of their money back from the pedo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bb ... r-AA1owd5D

Not sure where I stand on this bit in particular - why the date of arrest is the significant date. I'd have thought the more important dates were date of offence and date of conviction, and in terms of him losing all privileges shouldn't it as a general rule be from the date of conviction?

It feels the Beeb has passed the buck by paying his salary and then saying he shouldn't have accepted them paying his salary if he knew he was guilty.

Anyway, I'll not cry any tears for him, but as a principle it just seems a bit of a populist rather than a considered move by the beeb.

Yeah, if you were accused of something you denied, you’d be a bit pissed if your work stopped your wages before it went to court.

You can see however that the bbc would have a case for seeking money back for reputational damage.

inactionman wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:58 pm

Calculon wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 1:43 pm BBC wanting some of their money back from the pedo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bb ... r-AA1owd5D

Not sure where I stand on this bit in particular - why the date of arrest is the significant date. I'd have thought the more important dates were date of offence and date of conviction, and in terms of him losing all privileges shouldn't it as a general rule be from the date of conviction?

It feels the Beeb has passed the buck by paying his salary and then saying he shouldn't have accepted them paying his salary if he knew he was guilty.

Anyway, I'll not cry any tears for him, but as a principle it just seems a bit of a populist rather than a considered move by the beeb.

It's definitely the Beeb wanting to be seen to do something in order to mollify those who complain about literally everything they do (as if that group could ever be satisfied).

Not hanging about with this one!

Jermaine Jenas, who presented The One Show and appeared on Match of the Day for the BBC, has been sacked by the corporation following complaints about workplace conduct.
The former footballer, 41, has been taken off air from both primetime shows.
BBC News understands his contract was terminated earlier this week, because of alleged issues relating to workplace behaviour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy76pdz5152o

Ah, but he's a mixed race former footballer who didn't go to a private school, so the Mail / Telegraph / Farage etc aren't going to scream about innocent until proven guilty, unfair treatment etc.

Biffer wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 4:59 pm Ah, but he's a mixed race former footballer who didn't go to a private school, so the Mail / Telegraph / Farage etc aren't going to scream about innocent until proven guilty, unfair treatment etc.

I doubt they'll let anything like that stop them attacking the Beeb; it's like a dog chasing a car.

Constantly amazed that these guys are so entitled that even though they see people getting pulled up for this shit almost daily they don’t think it applies to them

Edit: I’m quite sad about this one, I thought he came across as a good lad and was very good at what he did

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9enw5xp2qo

How come celebrities always claim they are having therapy when they've cocked up? Straight from the "tearful apology" playbook.

Shite pundit and so stupid to think he wouldn't be called out

Big D wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2024 8:43 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9enw5xp2qo

How come celebrities always claim they are having therapy when they've cocked up? Straight from the "tearful apology" playbook.

Shite pundit and so stupid to think he wouldn't be called out

Because the PR pondscum that advise them know damn well that any Judge or Magistrate this gets before in the short term, will let them complete their, "therapy /de-tox / whatever", before the Police get to question them under oath, & that gives them time to learn their lines !

He might like to jerk off to videos of children being raped but Huw's not all bad. He's offering his services to chartities free of charge

The former BBC journalist, 63, has advertised his services on LinkedIn claiming he will work for not-for-profit groups. He is due to be sentenced on Monday after pleading guilty to charges in July

On his LinkedIn page he offers help in the areas of interview preparation, public speaking and political consulting. He says: “After four decades of top-level experience in journalism, media, politics and communications I’m available for no charge to charities and not-for-profit organisations.”
He also has an image of himself interviewing ex-US President Barack Obama and has listed his areas of expertise including “public speaking, public relations and interview preparation”.

Calculon wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:58 am He might like to jerk off to videos of children being raped but Huw's not all bad. He's offering his services to chartities free of charge

While its certainly true that the person sending pornographic images to Huw Edwards was a paedophile, I'm not sure that Edwards is. When the other person started sending child porn to Edwards, Edwards asked him not to send him any underage images. When he continued to do so and told Edwards he could share more illegal material with him, Edwards told him not to send him any illegal images. After that, they only shared normal (legal) porn images. According to his barrister, Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else".

Clearly he did receive illegal images on WhatsApp, and has pleaded guilty to that, and I expect most people in that situation would have immediately stopped contacting someone who sends them messages like that and would have reported them to the police, but from that it doesn't seem that Edwards was particularly interested in receiving pictures of child porn.

Presumably he kept those category A pictures and the video of children as young as 7 years old being sexually abused/penetrated/ raped on his phone that the police discovered? And who knows what other pictures he's been sent over the years and deleted before his arrest.

But I'll freely admit I've not followed the case that closely and I've always been prejudiced against the guy. Thought he came across as a smug establishment creep and when everyone was fawning over his coverage of QE2's death it made me dislike him even more. So wasn't surprised when it was discovered he was paying a 17 year old boy thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photos of himself. Rather disappointed in those defending him, but I suppose that defense was as much to do with culture war bollocks and the fact that is was scum such as the Daily Mail leading the attack on him. Anyways, I hope the creep gets some jail time when he is sentence on Monday.

Calculon wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2024 11:34 am Presumably he kept those category A pictures and the video of children as young as 7 years old being sexually abused/penetrated/ raped on his phone that the police discovered? And who knows what other pictures he's been sent over the years and deleted before his arrest.

But I'll freely admit I've not followed the case that closely and I've always been prejudiced against the guy. Thought he came across as a smug establishment creep and when everyone was fawning over his coverage of QE2's death it made me dislike him even more. So wasn't surprised when it was discovered he was paying a 17 year old boy thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photos of himself. Rather disappointed in those defending him, but I suppose that defense was as much to do with culture war bollocks and the fact that is was scum such as the Daily Mail leading the attack on him. Anyways, I hope the creep gets some jail time when he is sentence on Monday.

Edwards' barrister said in Court that Edwards didn't keep any of the images, and the police themselves stated that they only began their investigation into Edwards after a phone they had seized as part of an unrelated investigation revealed his participation in a WhatsApp conversation.

Its seem likely from this that there were no images on Edwards' phone itself (or only evidence of deleted images), but there was enough evidence on the other person's phone to prove that illegal images had been sent to him.

As the paedophile who sent him the images only received a suspended sentence, it seems unlikely that Edwards will be sent to prison. Either way, his career is over and everyone will know that he has a conviction for possession of child porn.

And just to be clear, I'm not defending him. He's been convicted of a serious offence, and his general behaviour has been pretty despicable. I was just surprised that when reading reports of the actual case against him it wasn't quite as bad as it seemed at first glance. He's certainly not another Savile or Rolf Harris.

fair enough, and i meant those that didn't see any thing wrong with the 17 year old boy incident. don't think anyone has defended the pedo photos

6 months suspended sentence!!!!
How long did those climate change prosters get?

SaintK wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:31 pm 6 months suspended sentence!!!!
How long did those climate change prosters get?

Flipping disgusting

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:51 pm Isn't Moore a barrister by training?

Wrong bar. Nails.

I can accept his sexual preference migh be towards teens rather than pre-pubescent children, but he's still a total creep

Edwards, 63, pleaded guilty in July to three charges of making indecent images of children, relating to 41 illegal images he was sent via WhatsApp - including two pornographic videos of a child aged between seven and nine-years-old.

Seven of the illegal images were of the most serious category, prosecutor Ian Hope said, and both of those videos were marked as "read" on WhatsApp. In response to the second video, Edwards asked the man sending them: "Any more?"

Claire Brinton of the Crown Prosecution Service said in a statement: "Accessing indecent images of children perpetuates the sexual exploitation of them, which has deep, long-lasting trauma for these victims."

He also met the guy sending him the pictures, and paid him 1.5K pounds for the images.