Normal Island

[Bromptonaut]

Yes, and everyone seems to be forgetting the other estimated eight complainants ranging from mucky behaviour on the internet to workplace bullying.

Do we know that for certain?

The S*n removed that allegation/suggestion and the vendor of the pictures says they were 18.

Bullying at work is for the employer to investigate and deal with. Other 'mucky behaviour' is, so far as I can tell, stories that may or may not stand individually...

 

[Pale Rider]

Do we know that for certain?

@BoldonLad lad asked if victim one was a teenager.

On any account, he was.

The main point of the post was to reference the other complainants, which seem to be largely forgotten on here.

 

[Bromptonaut]

@BoldonLad lad asked if victim one was a teenager.

On any account, he was.

The main point of the post was to reference the other complainants, which seem to be largely forgotten on here.

We all know they were under 20 and thus in their teens.

The tricky bit law wise is if they were under 18 as that way an offence is committed.

Bit weird to me that a 16yo can have full consensual sex but 'mucky pictures' of the same person get you time inside.

 

[Pale Rider]

Presumably @BoldonLad wasn't certain which is why he asked the question

I agree the age limit for the mucky offence pic is odd.

 

[BoldonLad]

Presumably @BoldonLad wasn't certain which is why he asked the question

I agree the age limit for the mucky offence pic is odd.

I knew the original story said he was 17, but, thought it possible that had been disputed. I also knew that the original story said the “association” had been going on for 4 years.

I don’t quite get this obsession with if an offence was committed. Influential man in late 50s swapping photographs with teenage youth is not a good look. Certainly, not an individual I would wish to have in my circle of friends.

Much of Boris’ behaviour with various females, producing numerous children, was not illegal, but, it was certainly reprehensible in my view.

I am afraid I struggle to see the difference, other that one went to Eton and is a Tory, the other is a cuddly news reader.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I don’t quite get this obsession with if an offence was committed. Influential man in late 50s swapping photographs with teenage youth is not a good look. Certainly, not an individual I would wish to have in my circle of friends.

Innocent until proven guilty, quite possibly no criminal offence commited, but why are people defending him?
£30,000 (?) spent on pictures of a teenager doesn't look good. Might be best to maintain a neutral stance until more emerges, even if the Sun is involved.

 

[matticus]

not a good look

You think? I'd say THIS is not a good look:

But I don't care. Has the guy done anything wrong? That's the question. My problem is that "not a good look" is too much about what others might think. I hate the phrase.

It's like: " well *I* don't have a problem with those people, but think of our house prices ..."

Where does it end? I believe in tolerance as the default view.

 

[BoldonLad]

You think? I'd say THIS is not a good look:
View attachment 4279

But I don't care. Has the guy done anything wrong? That's the question. My problem is that "not a good look" is too much about what others might think. I hate the phrase.

It's like: " well *I* don't have a problem with those people, but think of our house prices ..."

Where does it end? I believe in tolerance as the default view.

Excellent. So, you never make critical comments about Boris and his dalliances, good on you.

 

[Pale Rider]

Excellent. So, you never make critical comments about Boris and his dalliances, good on you.

Quite, he may as well have said: "I am tolerant of everyone, except of people I don't like."

 

[BoldonLad]

Innocent until proven guilty, quite possibly no criminal offence commited, but why are people defending him?
£30,000 (?) spent on pictures of a teenager doesn't look good. Might be best to maintain a neutral stance until more emerges, even if the Sun is involved.

I don’t think people, on here, are defending him, they are attacking the Sun, Edwards is simply getting the benefit of being able to slide out the limelight.

 

[multitool]

I don’t think people, on here, are defending him, they are attacking the Sun, Edwards is simply getting the benefit of being able to slide out the limelight.

Exactly this.

 

[Pale Rider]

Exactly this.

People on here are defending him because they are blinded by their prejudice of The Sun.

Among all the bile, hatred, and 40+ year of front pages, the view appears to be The Sun should not have done the story.

Thus they think Edwards has dome nothing worthy of exposing, which is support.

All this conveniently ignores the eight or so complainants who have since come forward, and, of course, the interest of victim one's parents who were getting nowhere with their complaint against the BBC until The Sun came along.

You wouldn't expect posters on here to be dismissive of victims, but clearly hatred of The Sun trumps their interests.

Which is about the best example of muddled thinking you will come across.

 

[multitool]

People on here are defending him because they are blinded by their prejudice of The Sun.

Among all the bile, hatred, and 40+ year of front pages, the view appears to be The Sun should not have done the story.

Thus they think Edwards has dome nothing worthy of exposing, which is support.

"dome"

I'm quite surprised a man of your calibre cannot spell a simple word like 'done'.

But, apart from pathetic speeling pedantry, let's get back to Edward's pederasty.

Your post above is a non sequitur. Thinking that The Sun should not have published the story does not entail thinking that Edwards acted correctly.

 

[Pale Rider]

"dome"

I'm quite surprised a man of your calibre cannot spell a simple word like 'done'.

But, apart from pathetic speeling pedantry, let's get back to Edward's pederasty.

Your post above is a non sequitur. Thinking that The Sun should not have published the story does not entail thinking that Edwards acted correctly.

Dome has come as a relief.

Having made a couple of spelling bodge up posts critical of others, I just knew I was going to make one sooner or later.

No more Sword of Damocles hanging over me.

Happy days.

 

[matticus]

Excellent. So, you never make critical comments about Boris and his dalliances, good on you.

Well thankyou - high praise indeed!

To clarify: whatever I think about BoJo's romantic home life, I would never use it to justify kicking the bloke out of office. As it happens we now have plenty of other ammunition. But if anyone really wants to accuse me of double-standards here, you can trawl through all my posts about Boris during his rise to power:

Before he actually had the chance to f*ck up the country, Boris was inundated with Leftie criticism of his character. In fact, hairstyle critique often outnumbered every other political issue of the time; I was always dismissive of this nonsense,
- partly cos I felt we shouldn't judge any politician by frippery like his hairstyle and personal/romantic life, and
- partly cos being broadly a leftie, I thought it made lefties look bloody stupid.

Any further questions? Or can I get back to Test Match Special now?