Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Huw Edwards

873 replies

Aquarius1234 · 31/07/2024 09:50

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!!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
florenceandthemac · 31/07/2024 11:34

DysonSphere · 31/07/2024 11:28

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.

Show quote history

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

Am I reading this right, sorry? You don't think he should be prosecuted? For actively seeking indecent images of children?

westisbest1982 · 31/07/2024 11:34

Chris Langham was jailed for downloading and possessing images of child abuse, but for some reason I just can't see H.E going to prison.

itsywitsy · 31/07/2024 11:35

One of the most trusted faces on the BBC - he told me that the Queen had passed - I cannot comprehend what a messed up lowlife he is 😡

Naunet · 31/07/2024 11:35

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 10:51

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.

Edited

Gee, if only WhatsApp had a block function.

Lacdulancelot · 31/07/2024 11:36

He’ll be using his unearned money to pay his barrister.
My bet is he gets sent to a mental health unit for 6 months, gets put on a register and carries on living his life supported by his dw.

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:36

He should have reported these images to the police and done the right thing.
He didn't
His a vile human being and I hope there is someone looking out for the victims of these crimes , but there probably isn't. That is the saddest part of all this.
We live in a sick fucked up world.

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:37

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

Isn't it?

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:37

His wife is divorcing him ( daily mail today)
I hope she takes him to the cleaners

DreamyCyanFinch · 31/07/2024 11:37

crumblingschools · 31/07/2024 10:22

At least he had the decency to plead guilty.

I don't think this man can be refered to as descent.He 's probably been advised to do so.

Devonbabs · 31/07/2024 11:38

I do wonder if Huw was the “national treasure” we were always told about. In which case the BBC needs to do an(other) investigation to find out who knew what

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 11:38

florenceandthemac · 31/07/2024 11:34

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

Am I reading this right, sorry? You don't think he should be prosecuted? For actively seeking indecent images of children?

Show quote history

He didn't actively seek indecent images of children. Quite the opposite. Although he did like them as young as legally allowed, he didn't seek out children.

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:39

It's like me robbing a bank with a sawn off shotgun, but stopping mid-heist to loudly announce "oh I wouldn't want to do anything illegal " before I continue the robbery. It's a feeble attempt to cover himself.

RedToothBrush · 31/07/2024 11:39

LostTheMarble · 31/07/2024 09:55

We should avoid speculation as it will get the thread deleted.

Show quote history

He's just pled guilty.

Its now irrelevant. He will simply be sentenced now.

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:39

Probably been advised by his lawyers to plead guilty in order to get a lesser sentence I suppose. Not that I know much about it, but it's bound to be in his favour :(

Lilysgoneshopping · 31/07/2024 11:39

florenceandthemac · 31/07/2024 11:34

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

Am I reading this right, sorry? You don't think he should be prosecuted? For actively seeking indecent images of children?

Show quote history

Is that you Huw?

BIossomtoes · 31/07/2024 11:39

Lacdulancelot · 31/07/2024 11:36

He’ll be using his unearned money to pay his barrister.
My bet is he gets sent to a mental health unit for 6 months, gets put on a register and carries on living his life supported by his dw.

He’s separated from his wife. I think he’ll get a suspended sentence. His real punishment is that he’s lost his marriage, his reputation and his career. Basically everything that matters to him.

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:39

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:37

His wife is divorcing him ( daily mail today)
I hope she takes him to the cleaners

I wonder when she found out the whole truth. Poor woman.

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 11:40

Devonbabs · 31/07/2024 11:38

I do wonder if Huw was the “national treasure” we were always told about. In which case the BBC needs to do an(other) investigation to find out who knew what

Isn't this long rumoured to be David Jason?

halava · 31/07/2024 11:41

I wonder if the "provider" of the images has also been arrested and charged and named as an adult?

I can see H. E. being given a nominal sentence. One for early plea. Two for being of exceptionally "good" character well known from BBC and professional in his role and part of the Establishment and Three, he did not solicit illegal images and no more were sent. We shall see.

Again it's the provider I'm curious about. Surely he is more than guilty also.

Kitkat1523 · 31/07/2024 11:41

Aquarius1234 · 31/07/2024 09:58

What if it was for 2/ 3 years. You don't mind that it's 3 million.

Show quote history

Doesn’t matter what you think…doesn’t matter what he earns it’s procedure….would be the same where I work ( nhs) ….just don’t get the same salary …but that’s irrelevant

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:41

If he really cared about his reputation, he would have put a stop to all this. He obviously felt he could get away with it. Same old story

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:43

the80sweregreat · 31/07/2024 11:39

Probably been advised by his lawyers to plead guilty in order to get a lesser sentence I suppose. Not that I know much about it, but it's bound to be in his favour :(

Yes you're right.

He didn't have much defence. The images were on his phone.

Mrsdyna · 31/07/2024 11:43

The sick child porn images showed youngsters aged between seven and 14, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.

WTAF! There's something deeply worrying about the BBC.

Doggymummar · 31/07/2024 11:44

Aquarius1234 · 31/07/2024 10:11

Loads of tiny companies could not afford to pay in full. That's life. Esp if your a trades person working for someone.

Well that have to, it's the law. Encourages them to investigate quicker don't you think? I was suspended for six months under going investigation was found not to be to blame and reinstated. It's only right you are paid till there is an outcome.

RayonSunrise · 31/07/2024 11:44

I've worked in this area and feel like I've seen an awful lot of these sorts of cases. Images of child sexual abuse are a growing problem. It used to be (pre-internet) that people had to really look for them, and it took effort and networking with other pedophiles to even find the images. Now it's possible to find things online - sometimes even posted by children themselves because they've been convinced to by a "boyfriend or girlfriend", or by an adult groomer or sexstortionist.

I have been pretty open to the evidence on this and it does sound like Edwards was sent the illegal images rather than requested them, and even if he deleted them the "fingerprint" of them would remain on his device and be picked up by digital forensics. His crime does sound like it comes down to non-disclosure. He should have donned in his "friend," but I am guessing the sexual thrill he was getting from exchanging porn with him was too hard to resist. (And he may not have realised receiving illegal materials counts as "making," with disclosing them to the police his only real mitigation - and then they would check he's not deliberately gone looking/soliciting the materials, which would land him right back in it again.)

He's been monumentally stupid and selfish but is nothing like Saville.

Swipe left for the next trending thread