Ex-BBC host gets suspended sentence for indecent images
(www.dw.com)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 17 Sep 2024 02:12
https://lemmy.world/post/19853735
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 17 Sep 2024 02:12
https://lemmy.world/post/19853735
Huw Edwards, ex-host of the broadcaster’s flagship news program, had pleaded guilty to receiving indecent images of children. There was an outcry over Edwards continuing to receive salary payments following his arrest.
#world
threaded - newest
DW News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for DW News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Germany
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.dw.com/en/ex-bbc-host-gets-suspended-sentence-for-indecent-images/a-70229058
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
I know that sentence seems absurdly light but it’s important to remember that in England, there’s a lot of precedent for rich perverts being treated differently. It’s a major part of their history, second only to paying those perverts rent with eels.
It’s my understanding that it’s actually a pretty typical sentence. He’s obviously sick in the head but has been judged as little risk to children.
It took me a second to understand that. I thought that you meant that the thing with the eels was a pretty typical sentence in English
x.com/BarristerSecret/status/1835673864614887851
Saved people a click to X.
Huw Edwards may - or may not - be many things but rich is not one of them. He was a television news anchor on the BBC. A bang-average Premier League footballer could easily out earn him.
He makes less than the average footballer in the highest league in the UK? I don’t think that’s surprising to anyone.
Exactly. He may well be rich relative to a poor person but in the scheme of overall wealth hoarding he’s not even a blip on the radar. The reason he got the sentence he got is nothing to do with his assets. It would be glib to suggest otherwise.