Huw Edwards

[Aquarius1234]

To think he shouldn't have been paid in full while off long term. As its more like being self employed.
But mainly cos it was 475k upwards of our TV licence money!
Another example is when a famous radio presenter s decide to go off for an extended break to film another show or something. Surely they don't get normal pay when they have extra weeks off not on air!!

I feel ever so sorry for his children.

Ehh are you suggesting I'm downplaying it and a peado sympathiser??

Again, do you not think the aspect where he has another man send him a collection of explicit materials isn’t a huge red flag to the reasons why he’s pleaded guilty? Again, if his attraction is to teen-looking men, there’s huge access to that online. Why do you think he had ‘a guy’ specifically for sexual images?

Right on the first one, you absolutely downplayed it, wrong on the second one, I gave a list of reasons, inc ignorance and super fan, and asked the question on why.

He didn't delete the images. They were found in the WhatsApp chat. He pleaded guilty to making images (which includes posession, distribution and production). There were 41 images in total.

I don't know. That's why I made the point, to gain more understanding around it.

Edwards was unlikely to report receiving these illegal images when he was obviously living this double-life, indulging in the exchange of pornographic images with a young man (who was obviously over the age of consent otherwise he’d be getting charged for that?) The children in question obviously must have looked young but he was trying to cover himself by ‘checking’ whether they were ‘legal’ or not. But he continued with his WhatsAp ‘relationship’ with this person. He obviously enjoyed the type of images he was being supplied with which must have involved torture/sadism.

The question is, who was this other person supplying these images to him? And where did this person get them? And why continue communicating with a person who obviously gets off on this stuff? And has this person been investigated and charged? Did they know they were communicating with Huw Edwards? Are we ever going to find out their identity?

Not downplaying it at all. Like I said, just trying to understand it all. Your first paragraph was actually really helpful so thanks for that.

@RickyGervaislovesdogs that’s disgusting even if you are being coy about what you mean. You either condemn sexual violence or you don’t. There’s no ‘one kind is bad, one kind is justice’.
This is the kind of thinking that perpetuates the attitude that sexual assault can be justified as a power move.

It’s not that simple. He wasn’t just reviewing images, the two men were discussing each one. It was an ongoing chat on them/ and he only asked not to be sent images of kids as young as 7.

If someone gave you an unsolicited bag of cocaine, you'd (hopefully) think "This is illegal, I need to report this to the police and get it far away from me". You probably wouldn't store it somewhere.

It's the same principle. If someone is sent illegal images of child abuse then those images need to be taken to the police. Having a stored copy is considered making images because the perpetrator is creating a new copy which is then able to be stored and shared, to further spread the abuse of the victim. If something is downloaded unintentionally (eg auto-download on a messaging app), then that needs to be reported to the police by the person who has received them, as soon as they realise what has happened.

Yeah, I think some confusion on here, some folks seem to think some random was just sending him rape images and he was just some passive receiver . That’s not remotely the case.

Jedward
Sue Pollard
Hacker the Dog from cbeebies

Was going to suggest Vicky Pollard in character, Gordon the Gopher or Mr Tumble but they’re all nearly as problematic as Huw in their own way 🙄

In all seriousness, what about all the very competent and good female middle aged newsreaders who the BBC got rid off whilst keeping Huw on the payroll (Carrie Gracie, Martine Croxall etc)…

sure, but that’s not the issue here, h3 was an active participant. It’s been reported from the court. He only said stop when the child was a 7 year old boy. The rest were between 7 and 14 and he didn’t, he was receiving then they were discussing them. And not in a please stop way.

But I wonder if he should pay any of it back now he has admitted his guilt in court?

It’s already in the news so not speculation

Where does it say this? Just wondering where the specifics of this are being reported as said different on BBC News.. but I guess BBC News would want to make it sound not quite so bad.

No it’s not speculation, the man just pleaded guilty and it’s widely reported on what the police found. And why he’s now facing a significant jail sentence.

Just Google, all major media outlets. The details of the case are everywhere.

I'm explaining why it's considered possession or making of images, in general, as someone said they were confused.

Not excusing or justifying in any way. All the evidence I've seen suggests a guilty plea is entirely accurate and he needs to face the consequences. Child abuse doesn't stop once the video is made - every shared file, every view is perpetuating it and adding to the trauma.

I’m not sure why something I posted before he pleaded guilty and when the thread matter was of a different subject to what it’s now obviously about is being quoted again this late in the day. Especially since I’ve posted several times since.

The fact that he stayed friendly with a man who sent him pictures of children being sexually abused tells you everything you need to know about Huw. He didn't report these images to the police, he didn't report the man, and he stayed in contact with him. He couldn't have been that upset if he didn't cut the sender off.

It makes you wonder about the company he kept. It also makes me wonder about all those stories of him making payments to young men. I'd assumed that he was only paying for explicit selfies and sexual favours, or that he was being blackmailed. Is it possible, though, that he was paying the person who was sending these images? Were men sending him these images in exchange for money?

I feel sorry for his children and his wife in all of this as well. I understand his wife separated from him a while back, but she was brave also when she made her statement previously outing him as the tv personality in the headlines last year.

They too are innocent people caught in the mess of his life.

Maybe be pleaded guilty to stop any further digging into his sordid little world

He is a devout christian apparantly and a regular church goer.