To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

@BigFatLiar

If your friend sends you a picture of her kids having fun in the bath you could also be convicted. If you have pictures of your children could also be dodgy, depends on the police's view at the time.

Your children sending pics to each other could be am issue. Some boy sends your daughter a dick pic, she's commited an offence simply by receiving it.

It's a bit of a minefield.

Bit less of a minefield in his case though mate, considering the category A images of children under 9 that he received, didn't report (and continued to engage with the sender to receive pornography) were of them being raped. Don't you think?

How ridiculous to even vaguely compare this situation to a picture of kids in the bath. Unbelievable.

Definition below for anyone who doesn't know what a category a image is:

"Category A is the most severe, and includes images that contain penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with animals or sadism."

This wasn’t done to condemn his actions. It’s an attempt of the bbc to distance themselves from Edwards to save their own face. Not sure why everyone believes that this was done for moral reasons.

More tellingly he did not at any time report Williams to the police, which would have provided a very good defence.

Of course he will be saying now he asked them not to send the images!

FFS stop with the peadophile apologiser/sympathiser nonsense littering this thread. You literally can't have a reasonable debate on this topic on here.

@BigFatLiar @Ponkpinkpink15
It is a crime to receive images- but there is a potential defence if you receive unsolicited images and delete them quickly.

Huw Edwards pleaded guilty and did not attempt to use this defence, why was that? He also didn't block Alex Williams and continued to chat to a man that he knew possessed and supplied images of CSA. This is not an innocent victim receiv

It's just virtue signalling from the BBC. If they really cared about child protection they wouldn't have given him a £40k pay rise, whilst he was suspended.
As far as I'm concerned enough is enough, the BBC needs scrapping. How they have the gall to collect for children in need is astonishing.

I notice that too, constantly, I doubt too many of them are 'mothers'. You go on any thread and it is littered with the sympathisers, and if you consider what our forum is mostly all about, then that is why they are. Some even try to convince us that it is okay to stay with these types of men etc etc. It is sickening.

I agree with removing him from this show. If nothing else may stop him getting repeat fees, as I doubt he will be in prison for the rest of his life.

Removing him from everything and everywhere is precisely what needs to be done. As a society we are indicating that men like this can not continue to make money once convicted of this kind of depravity.

I am glad to see plaques being removed, his face removed from everywhere in honour of his child victims that have to live day in and day out with the terrible horrific crimes inflicted on them.

Who on earth has voted YANBU?!

Those that sexually abuse children and circulate the content and harm can expect to feel the full wrath of society.

Oh come on @BigFatLiar the images Edwards is reported to have received are Category A. You can Google it. Awful. We're not talking pics of kids splashing in a bath sent to grandma.

And unsolicited dick pics aren't ok either in case you wonder where I stand on that.

Scarey that a high percentage agree with you. Paedophile sympathisers live amongst us it seems. Even on MN, a platform for mothers.

I can see why its being done. The problem is that consistency is always going to be a problem. Wasn't there also an actor in Rab C Nesbitt who was convicted? I don't know what the answer is really. There is also the issue of DVD's and downloads, its going to be impossible to wipe the web.

Edwards pleaded 'Guilty'.

I found a bag of ''Class A'' drugs on the street a few years ago.

I initially thought someone had dropped a bag of crystals {Minerals} as it was in that type of soft material bag.
Upon opening, It was obvious it wasn't crystals.

Had Police arrested me there and then, I could have been in trouble for 'possession with intent'
However I handed them in to police who were about that day due to football so there were actually police about.

Normal , non paedophiles don't get sent indecent pictures of children being abused in the worst ways, like the ones Edwards had- including two of the worst categories of video.

So if you were sent a picture of a young child being sexually abused you wouldn't report the sender to the police immediately? You are happy for children to be securely abused?

And I think that he did it in a very offhand way. Not professional at all.

It makes no difference. Media output forms part of our history, whether fictional or factual.

I don't see the correlation. The recovery of H.E.'s salary will depend on his contract, whether there's any kind of claw back clause in case of him 'bringing the BBC into disrepute' or similar. If there's no such contractual provision, it can't be taken back unless he gives it back of his own free will.

The government can stop a benefit at any time as long as they have the parliamentary mandate to do so, which they did for Winter Fuel Allowance.

Yes, why didn't he report and block the paedophile sending him the underage images?

If only there was a mechanism on smartphones to block unwanted communication.
Oh.....hang on

Dr who is not a historical documentary being censored, for gods sake.

A conundrum: pensioners will get the Winter Fuel Allowance wiped out but there seems to be doubt about whether or not Huw Edwards will be asked to repay the salary he received, somewhere upwards of £400,000.
Hmmmmmm...

The person who sent him the images received a 12 month suspended sentence.*

It would be strange if Edwards were to be sent to prison when this guy wasn't.

*which I find surprising

Why are you defending a paedophile?

People make up cover stories all the time to help protect themselves if they were to be caught down the line.

''Don't send me any underage children'' could even be a code for ''this is what I want''

It's meaningless as a defence.
If he was appalled by what he'd been sent , he should have reported it.

He was sent the images by a known paedophile.

How did the known criminal get Edward's private email?

Paedophile on a kids show isn't a good look. Scrub him out.