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!!

As much as I loath The Sun, it is the only place I found this:
"Prosecutor Ian Hope stressed Edwards had not created any of the images himself. He said the newsreader had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021. During this time, the man sent Edwards 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children. Edwards asked the man on several occasions not to send him anything illegal."

Sounds like he received the images but hadn't asked for them but he didn't flag to police so he is guilty as sin and an enabler. Such a shame.

I think I read something like "two of the images were of a child under 9". Or maybe it was aged 8.

Although of course they're estimating ages because most of this young victims are out there unidentified and without help. It's sickening.

The problem with using this case is that of course everyone hates someone like him receiving anything but that doesn’t mean you should take away rights for everyone. What would you think if you or a family member was accused of something they didn’t do, wouldn’t you be annoyed they didn’t get paid?

The BBC can and should argue that its employee being arrested and further and serious child porn charges was material to his employment contract. It should look to recover any monies paid beyond this point. Up until then he was on sick leave like any normal employee. Beyond this point he was not and should have been dismissed for clear gross misconduct. And when I say gross I mean that in every sense of the word. Category one images are terrible.

He told the sender not to send illegal images. If he had deleted them immediately, or taken them to the police, then I guess he wouldn't have been charged.

Yes they were very loud about leaking their surprise. Hmm.

He didn't just receive them, though - he downloaded them (I think that's what making images, in this context, means).

I think it is disgraceful that he took the money while the investigation went on and then to plead guilty. It says he knew he did but just keep taking the money,

Reading through the court reporting it seems he did not ‘make’ the images in a traditional sense but was sent them by someone else and he specifically asked not to be sent illegal material.

In a scenario like this where someone is sent illegal material without having asked for it, is it due process to report to the police immediately or be as culpable as the sender?

If so, in this case, presumably the sender has also been arrested and charged?

Oh come on. As if anyone is going to send anyone else nearly 400 images of child sex abuse entirely unsolicited and out of the blue.

They were paedophiles networking together for precisely for the purpose of sharing this stuff.

That makes no sense.

Sounds like he wanted lots of images. Just didn't want to be caught.
Can imagine how disgusting that chat was nearly 3/ 4 years ago!!!!
Nice 4 years of pay following.

If someone is sent unsolicited illegal material, they need to report it to the police immediately.

At least get the name right

Grim. Really really grim. Sickening. Lock him up and throw away the key.

That's how it's always worded. It's the wording of the law, but it's been repeatedly clarified what it means since these prosecutions started 20 years ago.

The idea that these images were forced on to him by a pushy pervert is ridiculous.

That and that he was BBC. It became about defending your side ie politics. BBC v attacking media etc

Ooh, you're an ITV newsreader aren't you???
What a petty statement.

Trades people aren't usually employees. If your an employee and suspended under an investigation how would it be fair to stop paying your salary until the investigation had concluded? What if you it was found you were innocent and hadn't been paid for a year? The issue is op you seem to have no basic understanding of employment law and that is what is relevant here

Is that what it means? He saved them from WhatsApp to his computer? Making images makes it sound like he took the photos himself.

ETA. I know he didn't take the photos himself.

The Times report he pleaded guilty to making those images. Three charges.

Would you care to state that without the benefit of anonymity? Another keyboard warrior…

Have you ever been in the workplace? You seem to have no idea about employment law or company employment policies

@Scirocco thanks, I have to admit total naivety here and assumed that if it was clear images were sent as unsolicited and receiver stated they did not want to receive them, that would negate any criminal liability.

Edwards aside I wonder whether there is enough digital literacy around cases like this / I’m thinking more of kids who may be sent stuff like this and not know due process.

Which is downloading. Like making your own copy from the original. They modelled it on pre-internet law such as making copies of VHSs or stills.