To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

Well there is more to that story

Police don't forensically check random home computers. There was a reason they looked at that person's hard drive.

Maybe it's a two part process of removing and then checking there's been no funny stuff on set or on film.

I say it every thread that has nonces discussed, but the amount of paedophile apologjsts on this site never fail to shock me!
They are only editing his voice out of the episode not scrubbing him from history they are also removing a plaque celebrating him off Cardiff castle.

Out of interest if you were sent one picture of a boy child between 7-9 being penetrated (Cat A moving video) what would you do?

Report to the police and
Block sender
Or
Allow 39 other messages to be sent over a couple of months and
Talk about the images in the chat?

In response to the first poster. This isn't about 'problematic' or disgusting views. People can think what they like; it's the acting on it that's the issue.

He pleaded guilty. He is a convicted paedophile.

These apologists will be saying it's a 'witch hunt' next, despite the guilty plea. Just as those of a similar mindset said Andrew Windsor was never convicted therefore never did anything wrong (despite seriously incriminating himself on national TV and being an unelected diplomat whose bezzie was a convicted paedophile).

@MNHQ as per some of the threads on 'site stuff', IMO this site needs some serious disinfecting, particularly of the content of the past week.

It wasn't just one picture though was it. Why didn't he block the guy who sent the pics.
Well that's pretty clear. He wanted more of the same.
He could easily have accessed legal adult pornography but that's not what he wanted
What's with mumsnet posters suddenly trying to excuse someone who pleaded guilty to viewing child abuse?
Maybe he pleaded guilty to avoid any deeper digging into his very unsavoury behaviour

Wait, I thought he had just been an idiot in asking for legal pictures from a guy who (without prompting) sent illegal ones in the same batch. Not trying to minimize it but does that genuinely equal the definition of one?

Depends on the police.

Don't rely on deleting the image and telling the police. If they think they can convict they will.

I know of someone prosecuted for having indecent images on a pc. The pc was second hand and had been scrubbed before resale however using file recovery software the police were able to retrieve remains of files from before he bought the machine. The files weren't visible without the specialist tools. They acknowledged the files were old files, fragmented and not accessible without specialist tools but still prosecuted.

Police will prosecute if they think they can and juries will convict on flimsy evidence.

It is always difficult to be sure what people mean particularly if they use a code. I suppose one indicator would be did the other person continue to send illegal images of children, if he did yes it might have been a code, if he stopped then it probably meant don't send illegal images. I don't know if there is any evidence of which of the two happened.

He has admitted it - what more evidence do you need exactly? Do you have 40 images of kids being raped on your phone? And decide to 'keep' them?

Most people are disgusted and sickened, the fact you are not, says a lot to be honest about you.

Have you googled what cat A images are?!? They include penetrative sx, torture and rpe. I’m outraged that BBC boss thanked him for his service tbh.

BBC is proud to display Eric Gill's sculptures. Huw Edwards not being an artist probably counts against him 🤔

Grubby little man, happy not to be reminded of him, but why spend time and money NOW when there was unease about him before. Same with many TV so-called personalities, lots of hand-wringing once they get found out.

It's really bad. And the BBC wheeling out folk to run him down makes me sick. Bunch of hypocrites. And it was HE who announced the Queen had died. Will they censor that as well. Good point.

Let’s face it. We’ve accepted Enid Blyton being censored.

Oh ffs some people
There are loads of places where you can access legal naughty pictures it's 2024. Why would any adult let alone a professional male with intelligence engage in a chat with someone providing dodgy photos of kids? Hark at some of you 🤦‍♀️

There’s some very naive people on this thread.

So just because he said ‘don’t send me anything illegal’ it’s all ok, he can’t possibly be a paedophile?

Perhaps he didn’t want to get caught out, didn’t he pay a 17 year old boy to send him nude pictures? He’s obviously attracted to younger kids and a 17 year old is legally what he thinks he can get away with.

He’s perverted.

He was still in contact with that other pos for a year - he can’t have been that outraged or upset by the images. He knew what he was doing. This wasn’t just one image, there were lots. Stop making excuses for him and see him for what he is.

I will reserve judgment until the sentencing.

People are quick to say that they would go straight to the police. He was married and not ‘out’ at the time. Going to trial as a witness and saying ‘yes I befriended a dodgy guy and wanted lots of young legal gay porn, but nothing illegal’ wouldn’t have been a good look to his wife and children. He maybe just panicked.

Do we know he kept the pictures or that they were still ‘available’? Maybe he did instantly delete them.

Maybe he is a paedophile but we don’t know that yet. All we know is that he received images over WhatsApp that he ‘kept’, which might have been an automatic save to his album. That is what we know and that is what he pleaded guilty to. Beyond that no one on this thread knows any more.

It can be illegal today and legal tmrw due to a birthday but the young persons body doesn't change at midnight.
He enjoyed looking at pictures of younger people, much much younger than himself and he kept them, he didn't delete them nor report them.

He's a peodophile and he should be erased so he can't make money and he should go to jail.
If it were your child in those photos you'd not think the reaction was OTT

Do you know for sure that he spent money on videos from an underage boy? The police investigated that and no charges were brought. It's illegal to receive explicit content from a person under the age of 18. So if he received videos of a teenage boy under the age of 18 and the police were alerted (which we know they were) he would have been arrested and charged, but they said no criminal offence had taken place.
The indecent images are another issue but don't make up other offences that aren't real.

Lisa Nandy apparently is having Crisis talks with the beeb, about Huw Edwards pocketing 479,000 in payments since he was suspended WTF! The BBC seem to think they can do whatever they want. Hopefully Lisa will give them a thorough grilling!

Are you for real? Of course he was asking them not to be sent to him. It’s a nonce practice, which they think will exonerate them if anything should come to light.

He said “no don’t send me those pictures” to get that in writing and yet then kept all those 40 images of the very worst sexual abuse of children as young as nine. He kept them for months and never went to the police.

Anyone who thinks he isn’t attracted to children is so naive it’s worrying. These cunts are cunning.

There wasn’t just one picture. There were numerous ones. He clearly kept them, or the police wouldn’t have found them. Any normal person would have immediately deleted the pictures (although any ‘normal’ person wouldn’t have engaged with having any type of pornographic material sent to them in the first place), and reported them to the police. He chose to keep them. Why would that be, unless he had an interest in them?

@Ponkpinkpink15 he was in contact with a child for years sending money in exchange for photos and videos.

There are a lot of windups/weirdos on this thread.....of course he needs to be removed, he is now convicted.

Of course he is going to prison where the consequences of his actions await him.

Of course he is a paedophile.
He is going to rot in prison, thank god.

This has the same stink that paedo priests have. Some people just will not accept that someone held in high regard can be duplicitous.