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!!

Yes, I read about a woman once, who was sent nude photos by a teenager on Instagram, where photos dissappear after 48 hours, and she ended up on the sex offenders register.

Prove it? Because that sounds like BS to me. Unless she was actually guilty in some way, encouraged the photos, knew the child in question etc

Link to the story in the press please.

Exactly this! As someone with MH issues I’m fed up of MH being excused for disgusting criminal behaviour.

It's unlikely he will be jailed for it. Will more likely be put into the SO register and monitored. Unfortunately that is the standard sentence for this crime. It's so prevalent, the prisons don't have the capacity to jail everyone who view images. The sheer number of people who are caught on a monthly basis is staggering.

“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 understand and agree with your reasoning but there’s a hell of a lot of non-consensual sex/sex acts that happen in porn. You’re giving porn a free pass here by presuming non-consent lives in the domain of minors and that porn equals adults consenting.
Porn is part of the language around non-consent because so many people in that industry are exploited and haven’t consented to the acts they’re taking part in. Taking part is not akin to consent.
Porn is not automatic consent. Adults don’t always consent. Let me just say that not for one hot minute am I minimising child sexual abuse (I spent 12 months fighting to get my daughter’s abuser convicted and did). Language does matter.
But I hate when porn is separated from abuse and minimised because so much abuse and exploitation happens in that industry and so many abusers weaponise their use of porn and use it on victims in reality (my daughter’s experience. She was 11 when she disclosed).

I’m touchy about this because my daughter’s abuser said in court about his porn use, “I don’t see anything wrong with watching sex acts between consenting professional adults.” To which my response was, “But consent doesn’t matter to you when you mimic those sex acts on a child in real life.”

Well he did tell him not to send anything illegal and after that no underage images were sent.

'Making'is broad - can mean downloading, forwarding, copying

Exactly. He's pretending he was after the "barely legal" stuff. But as you say, that's mainstream and freely available.

This has really made me furious.

Now he’s been found guilty he should repay all the money he was given whilst suspended or donate it to the NSPCC.

Its sort of depressing really. When you think he was the voice of the establishment for years. Good old Uncle Huw. Awful.

If only there was a mechanism on smartphones to block unwanted communication.
Oh, hang on..........

I don't know if it's the same case but there was something with similar facts involving a relatively senior female Police Officer and something sent by a family member.

Yes.

Last year it was reported that he paid thousands to a teenager ,,presumably for these images? The parents went to the bbc to confront him , but he was still allowed to present the news.

I can’t see anyone on here making excuses for HE. At all.

What I can see is people making a distinction between HE actively requesting / making images of CSA and being sent them as part of a conversation with someone who clearly has access to a countless images and videos. This person is far more dangerous to children as they will be in contact with many more people.

The police have been very clear they found nothing on HE’s devices to suggest an interest in children. The only content of that nature linked to him was sent to him by someone else and he said he didn’t want to receive anything illegal.

He clearly has an interest in young looking people which is an issue in itself and quite a common trend even in mainstream porn. That needs to be tackled.

The fact that he didn’t report this content and man immediately and stop all contact is where is he guilty by law should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Morally he is guilty of a lot more but we don’t charge people under moral law for a reason.

What I don’t think is helpful is turning this into an anti BBC rant - that’s like saying any company is responsible for the private behaviour of their employees, and wanting to dismiss employment law because it’s someone famous or wealthy.
No one has to watch the BBC. There are still ways to watch tv without the license. If you choose to pay it you can’t demand they spend it how you see fit:

@SerenityNowInsanityLater. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I've not had experience of the adult pornography industry but it is quite obvious that many of those involved will be coerced. I have had experience of Counselling young adult survivors of CSA & working to support adult females in the sex industry in drop in clinics (what I found was almost all were survivors of CSA).
I am so glad you fought for your Dd. My Mother did not fight for me. I hope she is recovering & will lead a full & happy life. I'm glad HE has been exposed & pleaded guilty. All those who sexually abuse any others for gratification, or produce or view it, are guilty too imo.

...

It’s a different case. The story you’re thinking of is this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7726995/amp/Police-officer-child-abuse-video-phone-given-200-hours-community-service.html

Well if you knew there were issues 20 years ago, you should have whistleblown!!

Apart from that, it's standard practice that when someone is suspended pending investigation, they remain on full pay. Investigations take time too - sometimes longer than in this case.

Doesn't matter what size the company is. Tradies are often self-employed anyway.

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

And if you're innocent, a single mother, with dependents - is that fair?

Perhaps there is scope for a case by case basis on pay while suspended but we don't currently have that in place

I've no doubt his mental health was affected. Such a well-respected man caught out in such disgusting behaviour??

I wasn't defending her in any way!
Yes, she did know the child, she was a teacher from what I remember, and maybe it was Snapchat not Instagram.
I cannot find the story though, sorry.

of course he should not have been on full pay but once again the BBC turned a blind eye to one of their most popular tv presenters

The BBC fulfilled its obligations to an employee. No questions to answer!