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 thought it said the images were in WhatsApp only, not saved.

Oh my god 'The sick child porn images showed youngsters aged between seven and 14,' this is worse than i thought.

I don’t blame the BBC. Sounds like Huw Edwards didn’t tell them the full details and I don’t think they would have had any right to demand details/ sack him on the spot whilst the criminal investigation was underway. I’m sure they would have taken advice and followed it- and I’m sure no one in the BBC was chomping at the bit to pay him.

It’s often more damaging/ expensive not to follow the law- remember when Sharon Shoesmith- director of children’s services at Haringey when Baby P died- was sacked on TV by Ed Balls with no apparent dismissal process followed- she later won a payout of over 200k for unfair dismissal- paid for by the taxpayer. Good for the headlines at the time but bad for the taxpayer long term.

That’s my speculation, but want to be careful until hearing the real verdict.

What do you think asking for "young looking" means? He's just doing this codified thing of pretending that pornified children can be played by adult performers. It's nonsense.

You only have to imagine how this conversation started.

June was last month.

I'm not happy with the idea that MH difficulties are a mitigating factor as outlined by the judge.

Yes. That’s correct.
However if those charges are accurate then an employee knows they’re wrong.
So whilst it may be legal the immorality is shocking.

Given he appears to have plead guilty, even if he was technically entitled to the payment, in my opinion morally he ought to have declined. It's a further example of his lack of eithics.

*"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*

This. He’s obviously asked for/is interested in pictures of young men/boys. he was trying to skirt as close to staying within legal limits as possible.

He didn’t comment in horror that a moving image was of a 7-9 year old. He just responded to a query and said not to send something illegal. So it’s not the image(s) that were worrying him- where surely most people would be shocked and distressed, it was the risk of being caught out.

Cross post @Lacdulancelot!

Have not read tft but he has had a 44k increase in the time he has been on 'gardening leave'

And one of the pieces concerning a child ages 7-9 was moving image (video) so the age would have been totally inescapable, but he didn't delete it & block this guy. He carried on chatting to him for two more years.

I didn't know he had asked for that when I wrote that?

The sun: The court heard in February 2021, the man asked whether those featured in the images he was sending were too young, in response to which Edwards told him not to send anything illegal, the court heard.

That means the man who sent the pictures was well aware that some of the pictures included underage children. He wasn't concerned about it, only if H.E. was concerned about it. Do you think H.E. was the only person this man was supplying with such specialised pictures?

H.E. continued receiving pictures from this person until August 2021. That was very poor judgement. H.E., then, was unconcerned about the sexual abuse of children...only that he not transgress the law. But this, in line with the debacle surrounding the 17 year old, shows he likes to get as close to within legal age as possible for sexual stimulation. And keeping contact with such a notorious person is low.

Children suffer incredibly in the making of such sick images.

I don't know if it's100% fair to H.E. that he is prosecuted but it was high folly deserving of something.

Nevertheless it's a sad end to an illustrious career. I take no pleasure in such a large fall from grace for anyone.

This is just conjecture. The licence fee pays for new content, we don’t actually know if it pays wages. I’m sure we could all be bbc news readers right? They do actually write their own news reports and have to work all kinds of hours when special events are happening. We don’t know the half of what they do so it’s silly to keep saying that they earn too much and we pay their wages. That’s life - some people earn big money and others earn next to nothing. No point getting steamed up about it😊

I'm glad it's obvious to you too @cathyandclaire

I think HE had semi "national treasure" status and people don't want to believe it.

Imagine what you and I do if we were sent video of a primary aged child being sexual abuse. His reaction was entirely different.

So he was sent images, said don't said anything illegal and carried on engaging with the person who sent that stuff? And his only concern appears to be about getting in to trouble for having illegal images? He's vile.

Highly unlikely. A very much former friend was recently convicted of having 1600 images, including of toddlers, that he was actively soliciting over decades. He got a suspended sentence. So I’d be astonished if Edwards gets more than a slapped wrist.

I didn't know he had asked for that when I wrote that?

Fair enough. I thought everyone was reading coverage. Guardian is covering it well.

that's absolutely disgusting. I feel sick. What a disgusting vile 'man'.

I think it was H.E's defence lawyer who said that. He also said Edwards was of "exceptional character".

It's unusual to get a custodial sentence for possession of images, even category A ones which means they depicted sexual activity. 'Child' in legal terms means anyone under 18 so we've no idea of the ages, afaik. Younger children is deemed to make the offence more serious so we may be able to tell from the sentence. From the conversation as reported by the BBC, I suspect teens.

I find it really worrying how mainstream pornography seems to be getting both more and more violent and focus on younger and younger looking people, even if some of them are 18 and just look younger. It's fetishising teenagers and while that isn't strictly speaking paedophilia as paedophilia refers to pre-pubertal children, it's still promoting sexual abuse of under-18s.

That's the get out clause for everything nowadays. Having MH issued doesn't excuse what he's done . I remember when it came out about him paying for naked pictures of 18 year old, how vigorously he was defended by some Mn, and now here we have yet another taxpayer funded nonce facing charges

I think it was H.E's defence lawyer who said that. He also said Edwards was of "exceptional character".

His rep might have covered the same ground but the Judge made remarks about likely sentencing and as part of that he outlined mitigating factors including the MH problems and the early plea.