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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
medianewbie · 31/07/2024 11:44

There is no such thing as 'child porn': it is 'images of child abuse'. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it. Language matters as children cannot consent.

I have advised my teenagers that if anyone sends them bad images they should immediately contact the Police.
Morally, reporting so the Police have more chance of catching abusers is the correct thing to do. Plus, it would be awful to possibly end up with a criminal Record for an unsolicited image. I should say I do not think this is what happened here. Edwards has pled guilty & clearly is. He received images that he must have known were illegal over months. He had the chance to contact the Police. He chose not to.

SloaneStreetVandal · 31/07/2024 11:45

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.

Are you actually serious??? He continued swapping messages with this person until 2022, and the images remained in Edwards's whatsapp.

The only people for whom this is sad is the children.

Edwards is a fucking reptile, who wholly deserves prosecution. And more.

bombastix · 31/07/2024 11:45

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

The man is a predator who cultivated and discussed his tastes with other predators. It says so much about these sort of men that they offer the bodies of people and children up like a kind of menu. We should really think a lot more harshly on the men who enable this. It’s morally repugnant to me

florenceandthemac · 31/07/2024 11:45

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 11:38

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.

We haven't seen the full whatsapp conversations to know this.
He was engaging with somebody who was clearly a provider of these images. Had he been against receiving the images, he would have blocked or at least stopped engaging with this person. He wanted the images...

Shaketherombooga · 31/07/2024 11:47

I hope they throw the book at him. Images of child sexual abuse exist because of men like him and we need to stop making excuses for paedophiles and sexual predators.
I know countless women with MH issues and somehow none of them have been tempted into watching and sharing images of children being raped and abused.
poor MH is not an excuse.

SeeSeeRider · 31/07/2024 11:47

RedToothBrush · 31/07/2024 11:39

He's just pled guilty.

Its now irrelevant. He will simply be sentenced now.

Are you Scottish? The Americans and Scots might say 'pled' but in England we'd say 'he's just pleaded guilty'.

WickieRoy · 31/07/2024 11:48

SeeSeeRider · 31/07/2024 11:47

Are you Scottish? The Americans and Scots might say 'pled' but in England we'd say 'he's just pleaded guilty'.

So? Confused

Lilysgoneshopping · 31/07/2024 11:49

@RayonSunrise your post seems to suggest you are sympathising with a man who views images of children being abused.
Jimmy Savile he may not be, but that doesn't absolve him of any responsibility.
Child abuse is child abuse, period

florenceandthemac · 31/07/2024 11:49

SeeSeeRider · 31/07/2024 11:47

Are you Scottish? The Americans and Scots might say 'pled' but in England we'd say 'he's just pleaded guilty'.

Erm, ok. Is there a reason we need to know their nationality? 😬

Berga · 31/07/2024 11:52

Agree with PP who have stated that all his replies were calculated to cover his arse. That suggests something very cold and calculated to me. A normal person would be horrified, sickness, would report and block, but he didn't. He kept that conversation going which meant he could still access those images, because he thought very carefully about how to get out of it if he was ever caught.

He is vile and deserves what is happening to him. I'd say that whether he worked for the BBC, a investment bank, or the local chippy. Couldn't give a shit what job he does when he is a paedophile.

Sleepersausage · 31/07/2024 11:53

WickieRoy · 31/07/2024 11:48

So? Confused

😂😂

WatchOutWatchOut · 31/07/2024 11:54

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 11:38

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.

What would you do if someone sent you images and at least one video of child rape and abuse?

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:54

Berga · 31/07/2024 11:52

Agree with PP who have stated that all his replies were calculated to cover his arse. That suggests something very cold and calculated to me. A normal person would be horrified, sickness, would report and block, but he didn't. He kept that conversation going which meant he could still access those images, because he thought very carefully about how to get out of it if he was ever caught.

He is vile and deserves what is happening to him. I'd say that whether he worked for the BBC, a investment bank, or the local chippy. Couldn't give a shit what job he does when he is a paedophile.

Very well put.

I'm surprised he didn't go with the Chris Langham excuse that he was "researching". And who was the guy from The Who who got convicted and continued to whinge he was the victim?

MugPlate · 31/07/2024 11:54

Would the BBC have any culpability if it was found that he'd used work devices to store/share the images?

Qanat53 · 31/07/2024 11:55

Clearly he wasn’t actually ILL, mental or otherwise. It was a money grab strategy. Screw Huw and all his ilk.

Naunet · 31/07/2024 11:55

LondonPapa · 31/07/2024 11:38

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.

So why didn’t he report the man and block him? God some people fall over themselves go believe a nonce’s excuses.

Lilysgoneshopping · 31/07/2024 11:56

@LiterallyOnFire Pete Townsend I think

Ilovetowander · 31/07/2024 11:56

Normal employment law applies. We need to treat everyone in the same way regarding their employment that is fair.

Misthios · 31/07/2024 11:57

MulberryMoon · 31/07/2024 11:20

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

I have WhatsApp on my phone and on my laptop. If someone sends an image to the group chat, it's there for however long. Even If I don't view it, I can scroll back and look at it. That would count as "making" if the photos were illegal.

DanceMoves · 31/07/2024 11:57

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:26

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.

Exactly this. The mind boggles how there’s still H.E sympathisers on here….

Very weird….

LiterallyOnFire · 31/07/2024 11:57

Lilysgoneshopping · 31/07/2024 11:56

@LiterallyOnFire Pete Townsend I think

Yes. Him. Thanks.

Shaketherombooga · 31/07/2024 11:58

Like most paedophiles, he’s a weak,
self pitying, scumbag with little or no remorse trying to find excuses.

Would ANY of you genuinely

seek out images of child sexual abuse?
know where to find them or know people who would have them?
keep images of child sex abuse and rape in your phone if you were somehow sent them ‘accidentally’
Not immediately report any images that you saw AND the person who provided them to the police?
Not realise that images of children being raped and abused are non consensual, illegal to have or share?

Because I would do NONE of the above. Not now, not ever not for any reason. And I too have had my share of anxiety and depression over the years.
But I also have a moral compass. And an innate sense of right and wrong.

BIossomtoes · 31/07/2024 11:59

Qanat53 · 31/07/2024 11:55

Clearly he wasn’t actually ILL, mental or otherwise. It was a money grab strategy. Screw Huw and all his ilk.

He has a history of depression going back many years and more than one episode requiring residential care. What money has he “grabbed”? The BBC was contractually obliged to pay him. By all means condemn his crime but don’t make stuff up.

Radionowhere · 31/07/2024 11:59

"exceptional character"
But no moral compass or even any empathy for the children being tortured and raped for the pleasure of him and other perverts.

WatchOutWatchOut · 31/07/2024 11:59

It's not like there's a shortage of porn on the internet - it's awash with the stuff, much of it vile, so to need a contact to supply you with curated images it must be something very niche or very illegal that you're into. I'm not buying HW's "I told him to stop" defence one bit. Sick fucker.

Swipe left for the next trending thread