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 would be surprised if Huw is going to jail."

I would agree with this. I just read that the he due to be sentenced at the Magistrates Court on 16th Sept.

The important part about being sentenced at the Magistrates Court is that you can only be sentenced to up to six months.

It seems likely that he will either get a suspended sentence or a community order (and I can just image him picking up litter in a bright orange hi-vis vest).

He will also be made subject to the notification requirements (aka the sex offenders register) for either 5 years if he gets a community order or 7 years if he gets a suspended sentence.

It is likely that he will also be made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) for either 5 or 7 years. This order may include things like allowing police to view any of his devices at any time and not deleting any internet history etc.

It's in the news that the man accused of sending HE the images is currently under investigation by a different police force, not the Met but another force

The 1 o’clock news reporters seemed more focus on assuring the public that they are asking their bosses why Edwards was still on the payroll despite being suspended and then arrested. Which is quite irrelevant considering the great points some have made here about the legalities of pay even when suspended.

Classic!

Savile's in the past.

How would any employer know about an employee's wrongdoing in their personal time unless it was brought to their attention in some way?

Not the way it works...!

@Lampslights I don’t think he will get a significant jail sentence given the arguments put forward.
I think he will get some form of jail time as the outcry would be too much otherwise, but I also think the judge will highlight the difference between him, someone who received illegal images on his phone unasked for and didn’t report it, and the sender who is distributing and possibly creating this content.

And I do think a difference should be made - if you have these proclivities and the only thing that keeps you from creating it is the prospect of going to jail, but you get the same sentence for ‘just’ consuming it, it creates an environment where people go all in because the punishment is the same.

To be clear - no one should be consuming this content and the punishment should be as harsh as possible but the people creating it are the source of the problem and need to be dealt with more much more severely. I hope whoever was sharing these images with HE is charged and the key thrown away.

Yeh you are right. The very fact that he has pleaded guilty so quickly would indicate that the evidence is so overwhelming, and that he wanted to avoid a trial because the depths of his horrific acts would come out in more detail. That's why I was confused.. because why not use his mitigation statement as a defence.. it's like that very statement is trying to make him appear innocent even though he has pleaded guilty.

Yes, I said, "caught".

My understanding is that the parents of the vulnerable unwell teen he was messaging tried to bring it to the attention of the BBC but they didn't want to know

It's a shame as it's part of a predatory abuse pattern and so maybe if they had looked into it then it might all have come to light sooner

He would have been sacked now too had he not resigned, same as a teacher would be.

Obviously.

I was making a comment on how the BBC have handled this whole case

The BBC once again turned a blind eye. The BBC have since changed their policies in light of this scandal

Why say Savile is in the past? Have you any idea how lingering the damage from childhood abuse lasts?

This is why there’s a problem when people can be so dismissive when they’re rightly being questioned.

The victims were between seven and fourteen. Dear gods. Seven years old. SEVEN.

The damage done to victims of such appalling abuse is always deep-rooted and long-lasting. I so hope those children are now receiving some form of protection and help, and don't even like to think too deeply about what they might have or might still be going through at the hands of these monsters.

I also have no small amount of sympathy left for Edwards' wife. Married all that time and five children, only in the dotage of their lives to discover something of this gravity. Her whole married life, the life they built for themselves and the husband she thought she knew, were lies. Poor woman.

Thank you so much for this, I read a very early stage report on the vase this morning and couldn’t quite fathom what was atually going on. Thank you.

If someone sent you images of children being raped wouldn't you, at the very least, stop all contact with that person?

Some of the images were Category A so penetration, sadism or bestiality would have been involved.

'I also have no small amount of sympathy left for Edwards' wife. Married all that time and five children, only in the dotage of their lives to discover something of this gravity. Her whole married life, the life they built for themselves and the husband she thought she knew, were lies'

How do these men keep their secrets though. How do they manage to have a full active sexual relationship with their spouse when they are gay and now we find out are perverts looking at child abuse images?

a colleague and I said the same thing today - I’ve never been sent any unsolicited images of CSA on WhatsApp, even though my work phone number is publicly available. It’s not a coincidence. It’s clear as day to me that he did invite these images, likely implicitly.

Also, I’d block and report to the police immediately. Plus need counselling myself for whatever was sent to me.

What I gather is that a random male contacted him via social media and they started to engage in conversation with the male sensing Huw porn, legal porn.

Given that he's in the public eye and a married man, that's incredibly stupid of him as it could have been a trap.

Then the man sends him photos and films of underage children being abused and all Huw can say is don't send me anything illegal. Not a thought dow the children or reporting to the police.

Then they carry on with their WhatsApp messaging.

He clearly was more worried about getting into trouble than he was for the children's welfare.

What a despicable man.

The parents of the drug addict Huw had been giving money to since that young man was 17 went to the BBC for help so the organisation knew something. You have to wonder why on earth nobody at the BBC thought 'Oh shit!' when informed their flagship news presenter, their royal funeral and coronation man, was paying a teenage drug addict for sexual favours. Did they really never imagine it would come out one day? There were online rumours about this for a few years before the media got hold of the story last year. People knew something,

I really do think that the government needs to abolish the BBC TV Licence immediately or at least call a referendum on whether it should continue to exist.

It makes me feel sick to think that my hard earned money is being used to pay for the abuse of women (SCD) and also being used to fund the sexual imagery of children and to exploit teenagers (HE case). It is sickening and disgusting!

I'm fucking sick to death of people who think mental health is a 'card' you can play in the courts or if you're in trouble/underperforming at work.

Another version, 'Playing the Race Card' has been found discriminatory. And so should derogatory references to Mental Health.

But that's what I'm getting at. The media are reporting it differently to what you're describing:

'Edwards told him not to send any illegal images'

'Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.'

So I was asking whether you had seen different information posted elsewhere.

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-set-to-appear-in-court-after-being-charged-with-making-indecent-images-of-children-13187776

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

Of course she Is not being sympathetic, she is just reporting FACTS, something that seems to have been missed or glossed over in some of these posts. The CRIME that he committed was not reporting the person who sent the illegal images, that is what he will be punished for. He specifically requested, multiple times, that he did not want to be sent anything illegal. He deleted the images straight away.

Please try and read facts.