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!!

When you are suspended it's standard practice to be paid

Yes, it comes across that the 'don't send me anything illegal' was for no other reason than to protect himself.

I wouldn't imagine they were bezzie mates... Most people wouldn't know where to start to look for someone who could share such images! I wonder if the sender knew who he was corresponding with.

His poor wife and family. They must be under such a cloud of shame, through no fault of their own. I hope the police are onto the lowlife who accessed the material, and that children can be rescued as a result.

I thought he had pleaded guilty.

He did plead guilty so it's just up to the judge to sentence, having seen all the reports and evidence.
In our system it's regarded as nigh on impossible to influence a judge, so there's much more we can say. If a jury was to be involved in the case if a bit guilty plea then I'd suggest MNHQ would have very keen eyes on this thread.

I don't want to derail the thread but I am just reminded that Philip Schofield, another late bloomer suffering from mental health issues, did not inform the police when a young man informed him that he had been abused by Schofield's brother from (IIRC) the age of 13. It all came out during the trial.

Surely another one who should have gone to the police? There should be some legal ramifications for not reporting this kind of thing.

The teenager's parents knew who he was corresponding with at some stage because they went up to his place of work to report Edwards and they ended up going to the Sun because nothing was done and he was still able to read the news.

If a public figure of this much standing isn't given a stiff sentence for something this notorious, it's pretty much a greenlight to everyone else involved in such gruesomeness. 'Oh no worries, I won't get caught, but even if I do I'll not really do any Jail time'

Sod the poor innocent and wretched children involved.

No, he didn’t delete the images (41 of them). He viewed them and was charged and pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children.

@CantDealwithChristmas

Thank you. It makes a lot of sense once I think about it like that. For example, if someone gave me a kilo bag of cocaine that I hadn't asked for, I should (and obvs would) just call the police about it. Not stash it away in my garage and ask the person to just try not to bring me any more.

I think this is a really helpful analogy and kind of sums it up.

He is 100% guilty, as per his plea, but not of some of the things people have suggested here

its so tiresome innocent until proven guilty

complaints were made to the BBC about HE and was initially ignored, the BBC has since admitted fault and changed their policies. There was a police investigation. Category A images were found on his phone - these are images of children being sexually abused and we have since learned some images are of children under the age of 10

there is nothing innocent about this behaviour, he may have very good legal representation as he can afford to that will likely get him the least punishment I hope it is prison more likely if custodial a secure unit

He has used his mh issues to manipulate and disguise who he really is and that is a man who will deceive and manipulate anyone. A man who has no issue with the sharing of such cruel and violent images (who wouldn't go to the police)

There will be more to his story there always is

I agree.

I'm wondering if the man that sent Edwards this stuff wasn't the same young man that was being paid for explicit pictures of himself. That would explain why he didn't contact the police.

Does anyone know if it has been established who the sender was?

I wonder does H.E. have Grandchildren?

This sort of thing affects all that. Grandchildren can't visit Granddad neither can child nieces, nephews or cousins.

The entire family is torn apart.

I'd hazard a big guess that the young man sending the vile pics is the same one who sent pics of himself , money exchanged hands and it was a lot of money too.
It is only speculation on my part though and from what I've read online / mumsnet but maybe more to come out regarding all of it and might be others involved too. Who knows?
The teens parents certainly knew about it , how did they find out?

Indeed, suggesting Saville is ‘in the past’ when his victims are still alive and no doubt suffering, is so disgustingly dismissive of what they went through.

Complaints were made to the BBC about HE and was initially ignored, the BBC has since admitted fault and changed their policies

In other words "lessons will be learned" which is exactly what they tried to claim over Savile, so why on earth would anyone trust them to get it right when this inevitably happens again?

@Charlize43 I’ve just seen a tweet that said the sender was 21.

If that’s the case, something has gone very very wrong in that young man’s life a lot earlier than meeting HE. To be so blasé about that kind of content as a young person is almost beyond comprehension.

But I do think it’s a case in point about the impact porn has on people who access it online from a young age. Extreme acts become the norm. There’s also a large element of derealisation that comes from being exposed to it as it’s ’just’ people on a screen. Not real.

Nice light relief, I'm not being sarky! Any dogs (or animals) tbh. Sometimes, I really dislike humans.

Are you privy to information that is not in the public domain? If not then you have a vivid imagination and are spreading incorrect information on here.

where does it say that they were discussing the images? Not in court documents or news reports.

I am not defending him but there are a lot of lies on here. We stick to facts.

You're being ridiculous. The BBC suspended him. At the time they did not have sufficient grounds to sack him as he hadn't been found guilty of any crime. If he had subsequently been found not guilty he could have sued them.

Contract law is not the same as moral outrage.

It's like footballers that start playing badly when they want to leave a club. You can't just sack them as they have a contract. We may not like it, and I don't but I think the BBC would have been in breach of contract if they had stopped paying him.

Obviously he should have resigned. But someone who lacks sufficient morals not to seek out photos of child abuse is unlikely to do the right thing.

If you want to criticise others regarding facts, you might want to get your own correct first 🙄

Hmmm. You make a fair point.

Poodles are ranked higher than Labradors for intelligence. Labradors however are highly compliant and love to please.

I would suggest that poodles should read the news and Labradors can be in charge of light entertainment.

@Lilysgoneshopping I propose that cats should be involved with the intelligence services, MI5 maybe.

Border Collies for the Government front bench.

King to be replaced by a corgi.

Free doggy treats and tax rebates on park walks for all.

It's crazy when you think they're paid significantly more than the PM! I find this all saddening, not for his sake, definitely for the victims and also that yet again, someone has got away with a hideous secret whilst purporting to be a good person. I'm sorry for his family too.

Surely his mental health issues came about during the coming to light of him paying a teenager for photos, and the subsequent furore?! It cannot be used as mitigation for what has happened here. Frankly though, I don't give a shiny shit about his wellbeing.

It does not say this anywhere, Lampslights has been making up lies all over this thread. The next post says - I hope he gets a lengthy prison sentence - if she had the facts she would know that a prison sentence is not appropriate for the crime.

It’s just shit stirring. He made a massive mistake in not reporting the first unsolicited image to the police, there is his crime, his life has been ruined so he has paid a price. He could well be a sleazeball with bad intentions but we will never know.

I wonder if he sought out people who would send him this stuff so there would be an element of deniability? Paedophiles are very devious.