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!!

his life has been ruined so he has paid a price

Wow. HIS life has been ruined?! Unbelievable.

It's the victims I feel sorry for. These images are children who should be protected, it's beyond awful what's going on yet people get away with it. Those poor kids don't stand a chance.

Iloveyoubut
I’m confused by this too.

You can’t always control what you receive but you can control what you do about it. He should have gone straight to the police and reported a crime and followed their advice.

I'm working my way through and not at the end of the thread, but it's an offence to have them in your possession. So imagine you receive an illegal image - you delete AND report and that's fine. Forensics would probably be able to ascertain how often the image was viewed etc, so receiving sonething by accident doesn't really stand up.

He could well be a sleazeball with bad intentions but we will never know.

We know that he paid a young vulnerable man ( 18 according to HE, younger according to his parents) for sexual images/cam work online. We know that he engaged with a long whatsapp chat with someone who provided multiple images that skirted and crossed the line of illegality. During that chat he only refused illegal images when prompted by the provider NOT in response to videos of a 7-9 year old. No blocking, no horror at images of the abuse of a young child.

We know he’s a sleazeball with bad intentions and a sex offender.

He could well be a sleazeball with bad intentions but we will never know.

Eeeesh, I think this is understating it massively. He's a predator and cinvicted nonce.

I also think 'mistake' is downplaying it, I'm nearly as old as HE and made a number of very big mistakes in my life but funnily enogh none of them involved horrific illegal acts being committed on children.

People who deal in these kinds of images don't send them out on spec. Of course they don't, because the recipient could report them.

The sender must have been confident enough in HE's 'tastes' to know that either he would want those images or b, at leats he wouldn't report the sender to the police.

Once the sender has been fully investigated and hopefully is in court, I suspect there'll be a great deal more coming out about HE.

@Over40Overdating It may be the same young man who was a drug addicted and who HE was paying to supply him with sexually explicit photographs...

I wonder how far back this goes.

Cant just suddenly in the last few years gone down a dark path?
Although he did have a whole image change a couple of years ago- lost weight, new haircut. I’m guessing this is the time he started texting young vulnerable people

@Charlize43 makes horrible sense.

Don't be ridiculous. I am not being dismissive. I was not talking about the victims obviously! That is not at all what I meant. I was referring to the BBC's management of its staff!

I think while utterly heinous, HE doesn't begin to compare with Savile anyway. And I also think HE should have informed the BBC when he was charged!

Him simply having the images in his device is an offence whether he wanted them or not.

Him going to the police would have triggered an investigation regardless because the offence was still made out, whether he wanted the images or not. He would have an a defence (if he had of been innocent) but he would still have had to be investigated and suspended from work...

I believe he is guilty 100 percent but I can understand why an innocent person would be concerned about reporting it.

Also, the images will still show up on the phone through a forensic download, even if they had been deleted so they will be found regardless if they were manually deleted or not.

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, I did wonder

It doesn't make what he did any less heinous but I couldn't understand the definition.

I hope they also get the bloke who sent them to him

They did suspend him? Though I don't know how long that was after the allegation.

Interesting to read the previous threads now he's pleaded guilty to producing images of child sexual abuse:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4847711-huw-edwards-named-as-bbc-presenter

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4850264-huw-edwards-and-backlash-defending-grim-behaviour

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4900102-when-is-the-bbc-going-to-square-up-to-huw-edwards

I do remember upwards of 30 k being mentioned as the amount that changed hands for the images of the teen involved online and somehow his parents found out what was going on and tried to stop it. Sounds like an only fans type of set up , but not sure.
Edwards resigned last month I think ? So he knew this was coming of course and bowed out fast. The bbc did suspend him eventually, but only because it was leaked online about him and pictures of him and everything else, but he was still being paid by them up to his resignation whilst they looked into it all and he had gone into a mental health hospital of some kind. His wife got him out of that mess by issuing a statement on his behalf to leave him alone , basically.
The bbc didn't know he was going to be charged for these other images etc , but who knows if that's true ?

I've already covered that off. Of course I wasn't referring to the victims, only to the situation!

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.

I'm not entirely sure which way you mean that @Bromptotoo but if you mean people shouldn't use the phrase "playing the MH card" to describe the act of pleading MH conditions in mitigation of criminal conduct, I think it's the opposite.

Surely what stigmatises MH conditions is the idea that they make you more likely to commit sex offences or violent offences or whatever.

Most MH conditions don't make it more likely that you'll commit a crime, so what's the relevance?

If I had depression and I heard that Huw E's sentence was going to be slightly lighter than it would have been on account of his depression, I think I'd feel smeared TBH. Or at least insulted. Depressed people are not at risk of irresistible urges to view abuse images.

Well it's true. He has ruined his own life and that of his family, as well as all of the victims.

The other man was a Welsh convicted paedophile of 25 ( BBC reporting it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o ) so that age does not seem to fit with the teenager who sold explicit images for £35,000.

Yes I think so too. God save us all from entitled middle aged men with a perversion.

Convicted SO's are always so flipping arrogant. It's scary.

The other man has been convicted and only received a 12 month suspended prison sentence. This really is a fucked up world.

This is why people went crazy over Just Stop Oil getting 5 years. Not because they didn't deserve that long, but because more harmful offences seemingly get a much light sentences

It seems from reports that the police only found about Huw Edward’s involvement from looking at the other man’s (Alex Williams, 25) phone and saw HE’s number. So he covered things up on his phone (or they never investigated fully). It does make you wonder what else may have been missed.

The answer is to make sentences for any SO tougher.

From around the time he lost weight and started posting pictures of himself at the gym there were online rumours that he was contacting very young men on social media and asking for explicit photos.

There were rumours about Philip Schofield for years before all that came out, too.

Sometimes online rumours turn out to be true.