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!!

Same. Gave it up 5 years ago. It’s a sick institution. But, like you, I’d happily support the creation of high quality British TV programmes.

@MulberryMoon how do you know he didn't make the images himself?

It doesn't matter what other employers do, it matters what this employer offers and it has to be consistent and I'm sure there are a few different levels to this internally, fitness for work and investigation for conduct and who knows what else in the background.

Also, you can't judge sick leave due to mental health on the basis of whether it's self-inflicted or not. It's far too nuanced for that. Absolutely no employer should be able to make that call. If medical professionals sign someone off, they're signed off. There are any number of circumstances in the average persons life that could lead to serious mental health problems and the starting point could be their own choices/behaviour if you trace back far enough. Especially when you throw addictions into the mix that can be controversial at the best of times. I don't think addiction is at play for this particular situation but I'm using it as an example where "self inflicted" get's thrown around a lot when it comes to people being supported for mental health issues.

This is the problem when wealthy people in the public eye end up in these sorts of situations, we all think we have a view on how they should be treated because we have access to more information but, at the end of the day, this is an HR and a legal matter with due process the same as the thousands of other cases with less wealthy, invisible people that we never hear about. If anything, the amount of public scrutiny creates even more caution and slower decisions.

I'm just shocked he will only get up to 6 months sentence according to news this morning.

No simply recieving them is all it takes. Recieving them and not reporting. The BBC site specifically says
'According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.'
I actually find this quite scary as probably most especially younger people have done this. Eg is is illegal for a 17 year old girl to send a picture of her boobs to a 17 year old boy. Both are guilty. She of making and distributing the image and he of recieving it - unless of course he immediately reports her.

I was asking what is meant by "making images " A poster has confirmed it means downloading a copy of it, rather than taking the photo yourself

Dear God. Presenters have to be in the studio hours before they are broadcasting. They familiarise themselves with the news, the programne running order, prepare for any interviews, and research stuff. They don't just rock up at 5.55pm and rea can autocue. They also have to do fete openings, and other such bollocks that comes with being in the public eye.
The level of ignorance about jobs, employment and law on this this thread is astounding

It's NOT your/our money. It's taken in a tax or as a subscription if you prefer. At the point you buy the licence it ceases to be your money.

Edwards was suspended under investigation and probably subsequently on sick leave for his diagnosed mental health issues. Like the rest of us he's entitiled to be paid in accordance with his contract in either/both of those circumstances.

Thanks for clarifying

I'm struggling a bit with this one. He's been charged with making images but these images were sent by the adult male he was engaging with via WhatsApp. Huw told him to not send anything illegal and no more child images were sent after that. No other illegal images were found on any of Huws devices , only the ones sent to him on WhatsApp. I am not defending him at all but it's important to have the facts straight and comparisons to Saville are way off imo.

I think it’s interesting what’s written here about what happened:

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

Did he download them?

Seems not:

”He said Edwards, who was arrested in November last year and charged on 26 June, did not keep or send images and did not solicit images from anywhere else.
"There's no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort," he said.
"It is important also to remember for context that devices, Mr Edwards' devices, have been seized, have been searched, and there's nothing in those devices.
"It is only the images that are the subject of the charges that came via a WhatsApp chat.
"Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else, and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else."

ETA copied and pasted from the link I pasted above.

Yes I was thinking the same having just read the BBC article. So why has he pleaded guilty to the making indecent images charge? If he was making those images then the images would be found on one or more of his devices.

And what was the purpose of his correspondence with this man, do you think?

If he was sent images of child abuse without his consent, he should have reported it and the sender immediately. To do anything less is to support this obscene and inhumane "industry"

Yes I feel the same. I don't know what to make of it at all.

It doesn't seem nearly as severe as the headlines implied at first glance. Which is good, I guess.

A life ruined, for the sake of receiving WhatsApps. Although of course, nothing compared to the poor children in the images.

I don't know what I think tbh.

I wondered about this as well. Maybe it was advice?

I imagine viewing them could count as downloading, especially if they autosave.

Well yes, but OP is arguing the process is wrong. I agree! Maybe they could pay 50% when you're off for criminal investigation and then back-pay the difference if you're found not guilty? Seems more fair to me

The purpose of his correspondence with the man was clearly sexual, but exchanging dick pics or porn, for example, between consenting adults isn't illegal.

I agree his crime is not reporting.

Exactly.
Anyone who ever engages with these appalling images is part of the abuse, torture and trauma these children experience. They are small children, who live somewhere in the world and are subjected to despicable crimes.

It seems he was asking the man for porn but there's no evidence on his devices of an interest in children.

Because he is guilty - "making" doesn't mean physically taking the images. If the images saved to his phone it seems that counts as "making" under the law.

The language around this clearly needs to be changed because I know I knew none of this until a few days ago.

The Guardian says

"The court heard that Edwards had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021 who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
The bulk of these, 36, were sent during a two-month period.
"On 2 February 2021 the man asked whether what he was sending was too young, in response to which Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The indecent images that were sent included seven category A (the worst), 12 category B, and 22 category C.
"Of the category A images, the estimated ages of most of the children were between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine, the court was told.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy.
"The man told Edwards that the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal.
Edwards told him not to send any illegal images, the court was told."

That is not an innocent dupe, that is a paedophile who wants to get his rocks of to images of children but wants plausible deniability too.

He would have pleaded guilty because he IS guilty of making the images. It's hard for him to argue otherwise. If by law, 'making' includes downloading them, WhatsApp automatically saves images to your phone unless you change the settings. Hence he is guilty.