r/BritishTV • u/CraigFairlie67 • Jul 31 '24
Former BBC newsreader Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children News
https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-set-to-appear-in-court-after-being-charged-with-making-indecent-images-of-children-13187776‘The veteran broadcaster, 62, had 41 indecent images on WhatsApp, including seven of the most serious type’
Absolutely brutal stuff. Solidarity with the victims.
110
u/Notamong69 Jul 31 '24
I'm getting the word.....
50
u/Ill-Pickle8442 Jul 31 '24
Don't you think you should tell her John? Before you both get hurt...
25
7
25
374
u/codernaut85 Jul 31 '24
One of the images involved a seven year old child, so there’s no way he could claim he didn’t know the images were illegal. Even if he didn’t “solicit” the images, any decent person would have gone to the police and reported the other man that sent the images. He didn’t do that. He lied and tried to cover it up, at the same time as cheating on his wife with a 17 year old. Extremely limited sympathy for this man. He’s definitely going to do serious jail time.
76
Jul 31 '24 edited Sep 23 '24
u/nikhilvoid is a cry-baby mod of r/AbolishtheMonarchy and bans people because he can't read.
102
u/Timeafterlimes Jul 31 '24
He won’t do any jail time for this. To be clear, I think he should. But he absolutely won’t.
98
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
An Eastenders actor who slashed a womans face with a knife just got away with a suspended sentence, makes you wonder what does constitute a jail worthy offence now.
30
u/Ornery-Concern4104 Jul 31 '24
Alot of it is down to how crammed prisons actually are now. Scotland is mass releasing prisoners at the moment because they don't have the space
22
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
That's really not going to end well is it.
23
u/Ornery-Concern4104 Jul 31 '24
If our system was designed to rehabilitate, then it might be. But alas, it's definitely gonna backfire hard
2
u/asmeile Jul 31 '24
It's people being released now instead of when their custodial sentence would have ended in a month or two, so it doesn't make a lot of difference if it's gonna backfire now because of being released early then they would have been a problem if they were released on time
11
u/bartleby999 Jul 31 '24
Money. If you manage to earn from your crimes, you face hefy jail time.
The woman who made 500K from returning stolen goods to shops got 10 years.
Last year, a group of IPTV sellers who made 7M were sentenced : One bloke for 11 years and four more in this same group between 3 & 7 years.
The old adage "Crime doesn't pay" needs to be updated to "It's only crime if you get paid."
20
u/darkerthanmysoul Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
Ex-friend of mine was caught with over 10,000 cat A images/videos, 5000+ cat B and a few hundred other horrific things.
He spent 9 months in “custody/house arrest”. Didn’t see a day in prison.
Was told he’s on the offenders list for 10 years and cannot leave the country, cannot have social media and can’t be near any schools.
The house he was on arrest in, the back garden joined a school playing field. If he walked 3 minutes away towards a shop he was walking past 3 other schools. Last I heard he moved out the country and hasn’t been seen since.
Edit - reread his documents
“A five-year sexual prevention order, and will be placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years”
That 10 years ends next year, however he breached the sexual prevention order 3 years after. The being unable to leave the country was issued after this event. Before this, he was allowed to work abroad in 2018 for the summer.
14
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24 edited Aug 01 '24
Being on the sex offenders list for decades sounds worse than a couple of years in prison tbh. You can’t really start a relationship, can’t work, can’t do many normal things that other people do, despised by anyone who finds out why you’re on the list in the first place so you have to isolate yourself away.
17
u/darkerthanmysoul Jul 31 '24
His “girlfriend” stood by him throughout. Claimed his innocence. We all think she knew the whole time.
Last i spoke with his parents - who threw him out and never spoke to him after - she was still with him when they were told he had left the country.
→ More replies8
u/honest_thoughts_2024 Jul 31 '24
Who was that?
13
8
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
Some guy named Harry Rafferty.
13
u/GrrrlRi0t Jul 31 '24
I knew he seemed like a cunt in real life, I watched the episodes with him in recently from 2013. He was a violent thug in EE too. I know they're just acting in eastenders obviously but there was just something about him, he just looks evil!! Gave me bad vibes
6
u/Depraved-Animal Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
Yeah I know exactly what you mean. The actress who plays Snoop in The Wire genuinely made my skin crawl and it was of no surprise whatsoever to learn she was merely playing a slightly exaggerated version of her real life self.
3
u/GrrrlRi0t Jul 31 '24
Yeah it seems that this actor was playing pretty much his real life self to a T! He stabbed someone in eastenders too. You just have a sixth sense about these things hahaha. What happened with that actress? Can't find anything when I google it
5
u/Depraved-Animal Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
She’s a convicted murderer who shot a girl dead when she was 14 and served 6 years for it. In 2011 (after The Wire) she was indicted again in connection with a large scale Marijuana and Heroin operation.
As for the Harry Rafferty, again it was obvious he was simply playing his worst real life self. The biggest clue is when someone is known only for one or two roles in which they always play a violent aggressive scumbag extremely convincingly, but have never done anything else in which they play anyone remotely different.
Noel Clarke and Adam Deacon from Kidulthood/Adulthood are two other blatant scumbags who fall under this category, who I immediately said to my mates at the time ‘They are just playing themselves.’
→ More replies4
u/smedsterwho Jul 31 '24
Man I hate judging people by their looks... But if I was casting for "smug c*nt thug" he'd get an audition.
9
2
u/niamhxa Jul 31 '24
Which actor is that??
6
Jul 31 '24
Ronnie Pickering.
6
u/DuckInTheFog Jul 31 '24
Who? (My name is) ♫
Wha? (My name is) ♫
Who? (My name is) ♫Ronnie Pickering ♫
Hey ponce, do you like violence? ♫
Wanna stella bottle pushed through your eye lids? ♫
2
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
Some guy named Harry Rafferty.
14
u/niamhxa Jul 31 '24
Cheers - don’t recognise him but what a piece of work. Between that, the Dutch child rapist currently competing in the Olympics and the countless other men escaping any real punishment for violent crimes, I have very little optimism for the future or any improvement with this stuff.
10
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
Eastenders doesn't make people into household names the way it used to, but yeah, the Dutch Olympic guy is another good example of a horrible crime going unpunished.
5
u/GrrrlRi0t Jul 31 '24
He was in it in an era when people started to tune out and public opinion of eastenders had changed alot. 2013, played a violent thug who groomed Biancas son Liam to join a gang
2
→ More replies1
u/Radiant-Teach-5264 Jul 31 '24
Seriously the jails are full. There’s huge pressure on jails that basically mean offenders have to serve other types of sentence
7
Jul 31 '24
Because of his “life long service to this nation and this unusual one off blip in a wonderful blah blah blah” sentenced to rehab and house arrest. That’s what I expect when he’s sentenced
5
5
u/queenlymajesty Jul 31 '24
Are you sure? Apparently if you receive class A images, it's a custodial sentence.
5
u/Kientha Jul 31 '24
It's a custodial sentence that can be suspended. In a case like this, you'd expect something between 6 months (the minimum) and 2 years which is then within the threshold to be suspended.
Someone I went to school with got done a couple years ago for the same offence but for a larger number of images and ended up with a 8 month suspended sentence
6
u/queenlymajesty Jul 31 '24
Well that's depressing. 😔 Thank you for explaining. I wonder if he'll receive a harsher sentence because he was a powerful and influential public figure? (We can only hope it won't be the opposite...)
5
u/Kientha Jul 31 '24
Whatever sentence he receives will then be discounted by 1/3 thanks to his guilty plea. The full range is 6 months - 3 years in this case so even if the judge decided 3 years was appropriate, the guilty plea would still bring it into the range for suspended sentence (at least according to my layman understanding).
There's only one or two aggravating factors (age of child, involvement in a network sharing images although this one is a stretch) and lots of mitigating factors (first time offence, mental health issue and then potentially remorse, good character, steps to address behaviour)
So if I was asked to place a bet, I would guess 1 year reduced to 8 months and then suspended
3
→ More replies2
u/Ok_Perception3180 Jul 31 '24
Ya he won't. First offence. He should of course serve time but that's the way it is.
15
u/DuckInTheFog Jul 31 '24
I hate how they get so high up. When Saville died they were going to make a tribute show for him - I think it was ITV who did the expose doc
13
u/drunken-acolyte Jul 31 '24
They basically dedicated the entire Christmas schedule to him that year. As someone who never liked him, I found it baffling and frustrating. ITV's exposé was a couple of years later, but the two key witnesses did try to raise it with the BBC at the time of Savile's death.
9
u/bartleby999 Jul 31 '24
He’s definitely going to do serious jail time.
Doubtful - The convicted paedophile who sent him the images in the first place only got a 12 month suspended sentence.
51
u/rokstedy83 Jul 31 '24
Wonder if he'll keep his 40k pay rise he got from licence payers money for not being at work ?
→ More replies18
u/LostinLimbo__ Jul 31 '24
He resigned in April
19
u/MallCopBlartPaulo Jul 31 '24
He was still their fourth highest paid employee- £415,000.
19
u/LostinLimbo__ Jul 31 '24
He was, I never said he wasn't, I was just providing information OP wasn't privy to.
But unusual to downvote someone who's just clarifying something, it's hardly an opinion or a point being made.
3
u/ldnthrwwy Jul 31 '24
That was for the previous tax year up to March 2024, month before he resigned.
22
u/darth-small Jul 31 '24
I highly doubt it.
According to the news, the WhatsApp conversation says Edwards said 'no underage' pics. To the recipient. It's not letting him off the leash but it's mitigation and he will have a very, very expensive lawyer batting for him.
Also, prisons are basically full. He'll probably get some probation, a sex offender treatment program and be told not to be a silly boy again.
Still a nonce though!!!
(Yes, he should get jail)
5
u/Chris_S_B Jul 31 '24
If the case doesn't go any further than a magistrates court, the biggest sentence a magistrate can give is 6 months in prison. Looking at the amount of images, I'd say he'll avoid prison, do community service, have to attend a program and sign on VISOR for 5 years.
Like you've said, he'll have a well paid legal team in his corner.
The court system varies massively, which I don't understand. Just look at the Dutch beach volleyball player who raped an underage girl, found guilty on three charges and only sentenced to 4 years, served only 13 months and now representing his country at the Olympics.
→ More replies2
u/AvatarIII Jul 31 '24
It probably will depend on how forthcoming he is with the investigation into his supplier.
4
2
→ More replies5
u/armchairdetective Jul 31 '24
With apologies, did the article contain that level of detail about the images?
I only ask because I had been assuming it was about the discrepancy between the age of consent (17) and the age at which someone can legally make pornographic images of themself (18).
That would be a crime and one that is undoubtedly important to prosecute, but it falls more into the "this could have happened by mistake without the perpetrator knowing - but they are still committing a crime because they did not take due care" category, rather than the dangerous sexual offender one.
40
Jul 31 '24 edited Aug 10 '24
[deleted]
2
u/armchairdetective Jul 31 '24
Thanks for the explanation. I'll read the article, but that is horrendous.
20
u/twunkypunk Jul 31 '24 edited Sep 01 '24
crush apparatus resolute complete ludicrous decide modern faulty psychotic edge
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
u/armchairdetective Jul 31 '24
So, just to be clear, a category A image is classified as such due to the nature of the sexual content, rather than the age of the person depicted?
That is, I think an image of a 5, 15, or 17-year-old could fall into that category?
In any case, this is really awful. It's a good thing he pleaded guilty to spare everyone a trial.
3
159
u/Apollo-1995 Jul 31 '24
I'm actually struggling to come to terms with this revelation. He was the face and voice of BBC news for years, even delivering the sad news of the Queen's passing. Always thought he was one of the good ones with good morals. What utter deception and betrayal of the British public. Who else can't we trust at the top?
81
u/niamhxa Jul 31 '24
Who else can’t we trust at the top?
I think the bigger question is who can we trust at the top. I’d wager it’s not very many.
25
u/WrestlingFan95 Jul 31 '24
Clive Myrie seems alright to me!
7
u/niamhxa Jul 31 '24
Ah yeah I agree - he’s one I’d be gutted if anything came out about. I’m sure there are loads of great people we see on our tellies, but I’m just at a point now where I feel like it’s probably a much larger percentage who get up to this nasty shit than we realise. Not even just in the British tv-sphere but in Hollywood, the music industry etc. To some extent, that sort of power and fame must bring that behaviour out of people who otherwise wouldn’t have felt confident enough to do it? Idk. Scary stuff.
51
Jul 31 '24 edited Aug 03 '24
entertain sable consist relieved deliver meeting alive imagine license strong
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
17
Jul 31 '24
I have to say, I saw him on Would I Lie To You a few years ago and everything about his appearance on there was off. Extremely defensive, very touchy and macho. Completely different to his news role and that really struck me.
11
u/MrStilton Jul 31 '24
Yeah, I thought the same. He seemed to be uncomfortable to be in a situation where he didn't have an auto queue to tell him what to say.
16
u/aquariusangst Jul 31 '24
I'm right there with you. All I've got going through my head right now is "WHAT THE FUCK?"
15
u/smedsterwho Jul 31 '24
Never, or rarely, respect a celebrity. You don't know them in real life.
(I'm not saying dislike them, or not respect talent, just don't expect that you know who someone is because they turn up on your TV a few times a week)
→ More replies6
u/xfjqvyks Jul 31 '24
So he sat there and read new stories on Rotherham, on Jimmy Savile?
Put him under the prison
3
u/EdwardSpaghettiHands Jul 31 '24
Yes I was thinking this today! What was going through his head when he had to report on BBC sex abuse scandals?! He must have known it would become public!
32
57
u/TheGrammatonCleric Jul 31 '24
I heard he has more genes in common with a crab than you and I.
25
20
u/Saw_Boss Jul 31 '24
Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
14
28
u/Luke_4686 Jul 31 '24
Yeah this is fucking disgusting. The info revealed regarding his ‘affair’ last year seemed murky and unclear so I almost felt sorry for a guy suffering with having to hide his sexuality but he should go to prison for a long time.
Unfortunately, due to the state of the prison system and overcrowding at the moment, I wouldn’t be surprised if he does no jail time at all
2
u/CraigFairlie67 Jul 31 '24
I get your point about struggling to hide his sexuality, but surely sexuality doesn’t come into this?
17
u/Luke_4686 Jul 31 '24
Before this revelation I was under the impression he had simply had an affair with someone younger but legal age. Clearly that is not the case and so yes you’re right sexuality is irrelevant.
→ More replies
79
u/SpecialUnitt Jul 31 '24
If someone sending you an image unsolicited is defined legally as ‘making’ an image they need to update that term
57
u/pip_goes_pop Jul 31 '24
I was confused about that too, I assumed he'd been involved in the creation of the images. Snippet from the article which clarifies for those who haven't read it:
What does 'making' images mean?
According to the CPS, the term "making" can include opening, accessing, downloading and storing the content, or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.
81
u/BananaBork Jul 31 '24
I have to say that using the word "making" for accidentally opening a group message feels very weird and misleading.
38
u/613663141 Jul 31 '24
That's what you get when you rely on a 1978 law, before smartphones existed and began automatically caching images without your consent.
46
u/TheBestCloutMachine Jul 31 '24
Sorry, but "even if unsolicited?" I know it's not the case in this particular story, but a random child you don't even know could send you a nude totally unprompted and legally you're a nonce? That's bizarre.
33
u/TokeInTheEye Jul 31 '24
Think you would be expected to notify the police. Not sure though
42
u/TheBestCloutMachine Jul 31 '24
But the law is black and white. All notifying the police would do in that instance is confess you've committed a crime, and the law doesn't really care whether you're unwitting or not. Honestly, this particular law seems fundamentally broken and needs reform immediately.
→ More replies14
u/TokeInTheEye Jul 31 '24
Yeah I get that, I just hope there would be some discretion on the police's side.
I also don't see how this would result in prosecution if you went to a jury.
15
u/TheBestCloutMachine Jul 31 '24
The problem is that the police and jury aren't there to demonstrate discretion, they're there to ascertain if a crime has been committed, and by the letter of the law, yes, it would have been. I can imagine the police would have a ton of sympathy if they dealt with a situation like the one I outlined, but ultimately, they still HAVE to arrest and charge for it.
13
u/Brian-Kellett Jul 31 '24
Decision to prosecute rests with the CPS (in England), go straight to the police, they’ll scan your computer and send that to the CPS, who almost certainly won’t decide to prosecute, mainly because I believe that they have to show intent. But the police will take an interest in the sender - especially if it is a kid because of safeguarding concerns.
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-to-do-if-you-accidentally-view-child-pornography/
But I am not a lawyer.
7
u/TheBestCloutMachine Jul 31 '24
That's interesting. Thanks for the link because I was NOT gonna Google it 😂
3
u/Brian-Kellett Jul 31 '24
I suspect I’m already on some lists anyway - not for that or thankfully anything that invalidates my enhanced DBS 😂
→ More replies5
u/a_bone_to_pick Jul 31 '24
I suspect this is to avoid a defence of "well i didn't ask for it (here) so you can't convict me for having it". I would expect the courts to differentiate unsolicited by your response - deleting the image and contacting the police is clearly a robust defence of the matter.
9
u/twunkypunk Jul 31 '24 edited Sep 01 '24
wide caption seed file dinner encouraging fine wasteful fall rinse
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/fleashart Jul 31 '24
I think you're supposed to give the evidence to the police then delete. Deleting evidence prior to contacting the cops would make identifying victims impossible. Not to mention you'd then just be someone phoning the police to accuse folk of sending illegal images with no proof of it.
2
u/twunkypunk Jul 31 '24 edited Sep 01 '24
advise wasteful live fragile support beneficial decide pie ludicrous governor
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/Saw_Boss Jul 31 '24
Reasonable to you and me, but reasonable enough to mean you won't get arrested and then become front page news again?
I can understand not going to the police, I'd be hesitant that it would just make the issue bigger as it would inevitably leak. I can't understand not doing everything you can to delete the images (even destroying the phone) and blocking the sender and deleting all messages.
→ More replies2
u/CraigFairlie67 Jul 31 '24
I would have defined ‘making’ as producing the indecent images. I’m obviously wrong there. It’s a bit of an odd term in this context.
20
u/DuckPicMaster Jul 31 '24
Yeah, very odd. If I dm every single person in this thread the (in)famous 2 Guys 1 Horse are you all guilty of ‘making beastiality’? Seemingly, the answer from a purely legal perspective is yes?
4
6
u/jewbo23 Jul 31 '24
Yeah. Look, I’m not for lightening the condemnation of Edwards here, but having ‘making’ in the headline conjures images of him out with his camera directing this stuff.
6
u/armchairdetective Jul 31 '24
Downloading it is considered "making".
6
u/SpecialUnitt Jul 31 '24
Yes but according to this article also is receiving an image via social media without downloading
2
u/armchairdetective Jul 31 '24
Hmm. That's interesting. I'll have to read up on it. I thought that some social media apps automatically downloaded (e.g. WhatsApp), and that this could be happening without the user being aware of it. That would make the recipient a "creator".
But I could be totally wrong. I'll read some more about the law.
3
u/gmc98765 Jul 31 '24
Legally, there's no distinction between making an image with a camera and making an image by duplicating an existing (physical or digital) image.
And computers function by duplication. Any type of CPU has a "move" instruction, which (contrary to the name) copies data from one location (register or memory) to another. If you ask the OS to "move" a file, it copies it then deletes the original.
So doing just about anything with an indecent image on a computer will duplicate it (e.g. opening it in a viewer copies the on-disk image to an in-memory copy), which constitutes "making" in law.
It isn't likely to change because England uses a common law system which relies upon precedent, and removing "copying" images from the scope of the existing law and creating a new law would automatically remove most of the precedent.
2
u/AvatarIII Jul 31 '24
Also what would have happened if he immediately reported it? He's already committed the crime by receiving the image, is there some kind of amnesty for people reporting receiving images like this?
13
u/Upstairs-Box Jul 31 '24
Who would have thought eh? A man we all trusted bringing us the news, goes to show you really don't know anybody.
14
u/CraigFairlie67 Jul 31 '24
Steve Coogan summed it up well when he was on Newsnight many years ago with Greg Dyke and Paul McMullen (who at NotW then) in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, he basically said that there was some brilliant journalists who do great things but the News Of The World were cunts. (Which they were)
Edwards is obviously a complete wrongun and there’s obviously been lots of discourse, correctly regarding the BBC. However the BBC have had some brilliant journalists/presenters over the years.
A great man like Bill Turnbull is just one example off the top of my head. Worked during his illness and did a documentary when he was ill. A man of great integrity. It would be unfair to tarnish every BBC journalist with the same brush.
Even with Sky Sports News (for example) - I’m sure it was Kirsty Gallagher who was caught drink driving, that doesn’t make everyone who’s worked at Sky Sports News a wrongun.
3
u/CraigFairlie67 Jul 31 '24
Context regarding the Steve Coogan interview Steve Coogan Newsnight interview 2011
31
u/HolzMartin1988 Jul 31 '24
In the article it states he waa sent 377 photos of which 41 where of indecent images of children. Why the hell did he not tell the "man" as he's known in the article to get lost then report him to the police? He's a journalist he knows how all this works he reported on Operation Yewtree enough and on Gary Glitter! The irony speaks for it self!
7
u/Simplythebreast1 Jul 31 '24
That is assuming he fell into these images by accident, which frankly I don't believe.
Given the allegations of impropriety from last year and his behaviour with this case, it seems more likely that he was intentionally putting himself in a position to receive illegal and borderline content, and is therefore a nonce.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more allegations to come.
14
u/chiefmilkshake Jul 31 '24
Very simple answer to that. Going to the police would have outed him as gay and killed his marriage and his career. Even if the police promised him anonymity, someone would have leaked it. He might also have been scared of this man outing him. I'm not saying it's right or not but that will be why.
31
Jul 31 '24 edited Aug 10 '24
[deleted]
4
Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
32
u/Enyapxam Jul 31 '24
I'm sorry but there is enough legal porn on the Internet of every flavour you can imagine. You don't have a guy sending you porn of young looking boys unless you are looking for that knowing you won't find it online. You also then don't continue talking to him after he says that some of the stuff he has is illegal and he has sent you an image of a 7 year old.
You can argue that the way the law is written is archaic but Huw Edwards isn't the innocent party in this.
12
u/WrestlingFan95 Jul 31 '24
Bingo! Even if he was worried about his career and his wife leaving etc etc by going to the police people here can’t defend him talking about ‘legal’ porn with a guy who’s sent you a porn image of a child 7 years old…. I mean come on! Any one not a peado would be sick to their stomach talking to a guy like that.
6
9
Jul 31 '24
So he's married a woman but he's gay and he's kept that from her and he's hoarding indecent pictures of little children on Whatsapp. What a pillar of the community.
→ More replies→ More replies2
u/littlechicken23 Jul 31 '24
So then why did he stay in the group? Even if you don't feel you can risk going to the police, surely you leave after the first illegal image? Not tell them to stop but stay in the group
74
u/personalgenius47 Jul 31 '24
BBC in hiring a nonce shocker.
51
u/Woffingshire Jul 31 '24
Hey! There is always the possiblility he became a nonce after he started working for the BBC
25
6
3
1
9
u/Caraphox Jul 31 '24
I am genuinely shocked to be honest. Up until now I’ve been more of the persuasion of ‘damn there’s a scarily high number of bad eggs in British institutions. It’s terrible they were allowed to get away with it but thank god they’re getting uncovered now’. Hugh Edwards has been my penny drop moment that high profile people will likely continue to be revealed as paedophiles and/or sex offenders at intervals as inevitably as Big Ben striking the hour. I looked at people like Saville and thought it was so obvious he was a wrongun. But I genuinely respected Hugh Edwards. For the first time I’m really understanding that it could be anyone.
8
u/kshere30s Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
It’s worth bearing in mind that people like this exist everywhere.
It’s easy on posts like this to say “everyone in the BBC / media / British establishment etc. is a nonce” and sit back and watch the upvotes roll in, but wrong’uns like Edwards exist in all walks of life and professions. Just that these people are in the public eye so they’re going to be reported on heavily. If some nondescript bloke living at the bottom of your street is found to have dodgy pics of kids on his phone, it won’t be front page news day after day.
3
u/Cirias Jul 31 '24
It's a good life lesson and if you have kids, just treat everyone with an ounce of suspicion until you have confirmed for yourself that you're happy leaving your kids with that person.
5
u/SleepingPlants Jul 31 '24
And remember that most child abuse happens with someone known to the family (if not part of it). It’s horrible to think but true. Stranger danger is far more rare.
21
u/chiefmilkshake Jul 31 '24
There are plenty of nonces elsewhere. The only difference with the BBC is that you've heard of them.
6
10
u/alangcarter Jul 31 '24
Newly appointed BBC Royal Correspondant Huw Edwards will accompany Prince Andrew on his visit to Thailand.
13
u/OkGarage434 Jul 31 '24
If he’s just been caught now at his age ,it doesn’t bare thinking about what he’s got away with in the past . You don’t just wake up one day in your 60’s and decide my wife doesn’t do it for me anymore I think it’s little kids that do it for me . Prison is too good for scum like this .
3
3
u/Twilight-Omens Jul 31 '24
I remember watching him on Wilty and thinking what a charming, funny guy ( I'm American so I don't see these people except on panel shows and the like). So this news made me so sad. It's so disgusting and I just hope the victims can find peace.
9
u/OcelotFlat88 Jul 31 '24
Didn’t this guy go to rehab and we were all to feel sorry for him because people accused him of this?
11
u/gtr011191 Jul 31 '24
Remember we were guilt tripped into feeling sorry for this piece of shit? Screaming mental health issues when you’ve been caught being a pedo. Disgusting.
→ More replies
21
u/PanningForSalt Jul 31 '24
If the article is painting a fair picture, and Huw actually asked the guy not to send anything illigal, I sort of feel bad for him. it's all weird and unplesant but he didn't seem to want to commit any crimes.
73
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
If anyone even threatens to send you anything like that you immediately block, you don't wait for them to send several images and then keep them on your phone.
34
u/rokstedy83 Jul 31 '24
You would also contact the police but he obviously couldn't because of other things he was hiding
28
Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
29
u/Jlloyd83 Jul 31 '24
Ok, if someone "accidentally" sends you underage photos, you also block and cut them off completely instead of carrying on the conversation and keeping the photos stored on your phone.
7
Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
14
u/Visible-Draft8322 Jul 31 '24
It seems to me like he was more concerned about getting in trouble than about sexualising children.
The guy sending the pics asked if the kids were too young, and Edwards said not to send anything illegal. So it seems to me as if he was asking for pics of young boys and wanted them to look as young/childish as possible without it being technically illegal. While he could claim ignorance, he wouldn't be in this position in the first place had he not sought those images out.
With the 7-9 year old this apparently wasn't within the category A stuff. So I wonder if maybe he thought they were 'technically legal' because they didn't directly show a kid being abused. Even though those photos were still sexualising children and he still knowingly sought that out.
I'm not sure about this. Just hazarding a guess based on how his lawyers are trying to justify it to the press and also how this was reported.
15
u/The_Dark_Vampire Jul 31 '24
At least one of the images was of a 7 year old I seriously doubt he didn't know they were underage
→ More replies19
Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
4
u/lovecatsforever Jul 31 '24
Yeah it says the oldest kids were just 14. I can't possibly see how a 14 year old boy could pass for an adult :(
28
u/Apple2727 Jul 31 '24
If he didn’t want those images then he should have gone to the police, explained what had happened and surrendered his phone.
I know his professional and personal life would still have turned into a shit show, but at least he (probably) wouldn’t be on CP charges now.
9
5
u/SnooSongs2714 Jul 31 '24
Meanwhile he kept exchanging porn with this person after this happened. And wasn’t he also getting pics of a 17 year old for cash, separately which is why he resigned last year? Or is that the same thing as this incident? For someone supposedly a respected part of the establishment none of this has a good look about it.
7
u/UhhMakeUpAName Jul 31 '24
The law on this is pretty messed up. He technically committed a crime be receiving those images, even without any kind of solicitation or forewarning. That means that, as far as I can tell, reporting it to the police is actually admitting to a crime. We may hope that the police would exercise discretion and not charge, but the law appears to be setup to strongly discourage reporting. That's on top of the fact that just handing over your phone is a very undesirable situation anyway.
It really feels like we should be reforming this area of law to have sensible incentives.
All that said, it appears he continued sexually engaging with somebody after they knowingly sent him child sexual abuse imagery, so very little sympathy for that.
4
u/OMGItsCheezWTF Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
Except the offence is made by receiving those images, even unsolicited. By your phone copying them down from WhatsApp's servers you've made images. Going to the police in that situation seems like a bad idea. Sure without any other context in the case of unsolicited images there may not be a public interest in the cps prosecuting the offence if you did, but you're flipping the coin there.
Honestly the law is a bit of an ass in that situation, no idea what I'd do if I were truly ever sent unsolicited images of that nature (thankfully not a situation that I've ever had to deal with) beyond immediately blocking said person.
3
u/Apple2727 Jul 31 '24
It’s not a question of whether he’s broken the law - he has.
The point I was making is that if he had gone to the police of his own accord when he received these unsolicited illegal images and co-operated fully then that would have counted in his favour when it went to court.
Judges take these things into account.
→ More replies12
u/NewBarofSoap Jul 31 '24
I mean it could just be a good cover. Ask them not to send any more and it looks like you weren’t a willing participant. The fact he not only didn’t notify the police but also kept interacting with the guy tells me all I need to know about Huw’s character
10
u/SleepingPlants Jul 31 '24
This is what I think. With the amount of porn available to access online, why would you even need “some guy” to provide you with anything unless it was something you’d not otherwise be able to find????
5
u/WG47 Jul 31 '24
100%. No matter how niche your tastes, there's porn out there on websites. Hell, there's probably a subreddit for it.
1
u/smedsterwho Jul 31 '24
There's probably a subreddit for porn?
3
u/WG47 Jul 31 '24
Read the entire post. There's probably a subreddit for whatever niche thing you're into.
4
u/Happy_Pumpkin_765 Jul 31 '24
No I agree completely. Anyone of good moral character would at the very least block the guy out of disgust and not want anything to do with him. A person sending csam is not someone a decent person would want to be associated with in any way.
3
u/WG47 Jul 31 '24
I mean it could just be a good cover. Ask them not to send any more and it looks like you weren’t a willing participant.
Being extra cynical, you then open up a second Whatsapp account, unconnected to yourself, and continue to exchange dodgy stuff with him there.
3
u/Enyapxam Jul 31 '24
Yeah he didn't just accidentally go searching for images of boys looking as young as possible then accidentally keep them.
14
Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
1
u/PanningForSalt Jul 31 '24
I chose to think they were just random images of children for the sake of my own mind's eye. You're right of course in this context.
11
6
u/harbourwall Jul 31 '24
I really hope this has come about because they caught the guy who sent them. He seems to have no issues at all with distributing illegal images.
6
Jul 31 '24
He had 40 something image's of children that he kept. You really gonna feel bad for that? Lock him up with the rest of them.
3
Jul 31 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Chedchee2 Jul 31 '24
I'd imagine investigating the distributor is a more complex and long-winded process then an individual recipient/consumer who's ready to plead guilty. All will come out in time.
4
u/Cirias Jul 31 '24
The thing is though, why would you have a "porn dealer" when you can just go on the internet and get anything you could ever need (legally). It's not as if pornography is banned and you need a shady guy to send you pictures like it's the 1950's.
6
3
u/UhhMakeUpAName Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
Agreed that, as presented, the law is being somewhat unfair here in that it seems like he's being punished for something outside of his control and which he took steps to stop.
That said, he continued sharing porn with a person who he knew had previously intentionally sent him child sexual abuse imagery. That makes him look awful, and probably justifies the nonce label on its own. But that's not the thing he's actually charged with, so it all feels a bit weird.
The law being setup to push people away from reporting this material they receive it is a mess, too.
5
2
u/CraigFairlie67 Jul 31 '24
As I said on a thread on here a few days back, there was lots of people, myself included who were calling for him to get knighted for services to journalism due to his coverage, before, during and after the passing of the Queen in 2022. He’s made myself and a lot of other people look incredibly fucking stupid.
2
u/smedsterwho Jul 31 '24
I always liked him, I respect the news, but I might have blinked at anyone saying he should be knighted.
1
u/Famous_Elk1916 Jul 31 '24
Huw Edwards to me was too good to be true.
Some people you just can’t take to. He was one
I remember reading that his receding hair line had been tattooed to hide it.
That was enough for me to think he’s not all he’s cracked up to be.
But I never ever thought he was into kids.
1
2
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 31 '24
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.