Page 9 | To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

BeachParty · 2024-08-03T02:08:21+00:00

Don't get me wrong, what he did was heinous. I don't care how or why you got pics on your phone. 🤢😡. 😥 [[https://deadline.com/2024/08/doctor-who-episode-huw-edwards-removed-bbc-iplayer-1236029881 https://deadline.com/2024/08/doctor-who-episode-huw-edwards-removed-bbc-iplayer-1236029881/]] Deleting all reference from someone from fictional shows though seems a bit 😕 It's a character, it's not the real life person. If we started deleting everyone with problematic/disgusting views, would we be left with any art at all?!

fieldsofflowers · 03/08/2024 10:18

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:06

@BigFatLiar
Huw Edwards had an experienced KC defending him and they didn't even try the 'unsolicited and deleted quickly' defence. Why? Because he didn't delete quickly? Because they weren't unsolicited? Because they didn't want a court case to expose lots of other, even more sordid, details?

As to your friend, I'd be very suspicious of their story too. The police randomly investigated them, the CPS found enough evidence to prosecute and the court found them guilty.

we know they were unsolicited because it’s in the messages between the two men. Huw asked the images not to be sent.
the law still covers unsolicited images. you get convicted even if the images were unsolicited if you then fail to act and report them

Asherrain · 03/08/2024 10:19

Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:06

And again! No that is not the law! You can let someone go before a charge under the right circumstances, which these arguably were.

Show quote history

Do you have any idea what situation the BBC would be in if they had had sacked someone go who turned out to be innocent who was in hospital for mental health issues? FFS it's common sense. He could have committed suicide and they would be culpable. He hadn't been charged at that point!

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:20

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:14

Is noone else deeply uncomfortable at the homophobia of the suggestion he is a paedophile because he was getting photos from a 20 year old man?

I don't usually get myself involved in online discussions but this has peed me off.

What?

He had 40 pictures of children.

Some between 7-9 year old.

Children

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 10:21

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:17

Please report this thread if you are feeling sickened by the truck load of sympathisers clearly here.

The site has been infiltrated by male supremacists for a long time. This thread is just a more extreme manifestation.

Men should act with impunity upon whatever their sexual or violent predilections are whilst society merely looks away, apologises for them, and excuses them at the expense of their victims. And this, tragically, is the way patriarchal society has been since time immemorial.

You see them all over threads where women have posted for help having been victims of the most appalling abuse at the hands of men. No mainly female space can be free of them, because they are simply incapable of leaving women alone.

ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 10:21

LuluBlakey1 · 03/08/2024 10:05

I liked Huw Edwards as a presenter and am shocked by what he has done and the character that has emerged to be the real him.
However, we should all think about how we post about this. Yes it is horrible and completely unacceptable.
But do not think for one second he is the only well known man who behaves like this. Some have already been exposed- for varying seriousness of offences and behaviours- Philip Scofield, Jimmy Saville, Prince Andrew. There will be many others, some who colleagues/the public are already aware of (Donald Trump, Prince Andrew), many who they aren't. There are hundreds of thousands of men like Huw Edwards, and many worse. They work in the Houses of Parliament, our, hospitals, schools, GP practices, churches, social services, childrens' clubs, shops, local sports centres, swimming pools. They are on our tvs, we listen to their music, they are idolised as sportsmen. They are the joiner/builder/plumber who came to your house to do a job this week, your NDN, that nice man you chat to while you walk the dog, your child's friend's dad who picks them up and takes them all to football training. They are your brother, brother-in-law, your DP's best friend, your DP/DH/FIL, your dad and grandad.
They are not men in grubby overcoats luring children with sweets. Most are much more sophisticated, often protected by the layers of respectability in their lives, many are our idols.
It's very easy to mouth off about what the BBC should have done, how disgusting Huw Edwards is, how the licence fee should be got rid of etc. Infact, the licence fee is a form of regulation- it means the BBC can be held to account. GB News is dangerous and almost unregulated and produces lies and completely shit broadcasting- but it's free of course.
There are much more complex issues here about how we behave as a society- the regulation of the internet, the easy availability of porn and it's effect on our society and our behaviours, the quality of tv programming (the way males and females are allowed to behave and are presented, particularly in 'reality celeb' stuff), the whole cult of 'celebs', their behaviours and putting people on platforms.
We should not accept it from any man- why is Trump admired by anyone? He sexually assaulted women and admitted it. Why are Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still admired and making films? Why is Philip Scofield apparently planning a tv comeback? Why do people admire Kanye West? Chris Brown? Defend Russell Brand? Defend Kevin Spacey?
Our attitudes to fame and to the behaviours from men (that we are prepared to accept/tolerate) are complex and they shouldn't be. We don't question enough, we are not watchful enough, we don't call out unacceptable behaviours.
What Philip Scofield did was inappropriate but not illegal but people knew it was happening and did not act- because of the power of the celebrity. No one should have that power. The same was true of Huw Edwards- it looked inappropriate but not illegal and that was that until by chance the police picked up, through a different investigation, him conversing with a man they were investigating for pedophile images. Had his inappropriate behaviour been dealt with earlier at the BBC they would not be in the mess now when he has been prosecuted for worse. But let's be clear- they would not have stopped him, he would have continued with whatever he was doing privately.
How many of us know exactly what our DPDH/male family members look at on the internet? We don't. What is our tolerance of porn? Youporn, XXX Or whatever they are called- they are mainstream but have been associated with child abuse and sexual exploitation. Do we know/mind that our partners watch them? Perhaps we watch them ourselves.

It's not about whether you like them as a person or like their work/shows/music whatever though is it, it's about these high profile cases with all these men who are either left to get away with ot or get off far too lightly for my tastes.
We know they are everywhere,what about those of us here who have witnessed and suffered at the hands of these vile creatures.

As for the bbc well look at their track record when it comes to paedophiles and how they protect them/let them get away with their noncery/erect statues etc and draw your own conclusions!

Porn is a different discussion altogether, but it is an industey where women and children suffer and i'm sure is full of nonces too!

fieldsofflowers · 03/08/2024 10:21

noworklifebalance · 03/08/2024 09:08

He didn’t accidentally received 40+ images of child sex abuse on his phone by a known paedophile.

Paedophiles do not send such images and footage randomly to members of the public.

Edwards had a KC defence lawyer and chose to/was advised to plead guilty - made no attempt to clear his name - knowing it would have a devastating impact on his career and family. This would suggest that the evidence against him was irrefutable.

Show quote history

he didn’t have a defence in law. the law is very clear, even if you receive them unsolicited you have committed a crime. it’s up to you to report it and minimise your criminality

Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:22

Asherrain · 03/08/2024 10:19

Do you have any idea what situation the BBC would be in if they had had sacked someone go who turned out to be innocent who was in hospital for mental health issues? FFS it's common sense. He could have committed suicide and they would be culpable. He hadn't been charged at that point!

Show quote history

No offence but you clearly don’t understand the law on this. It wouldn’t have mattered if he was innocent because he’d be let go based in damaging the companies reputation not because they are accusing him of being guilty. Yes it can be complicated ground for an employer, but it’s NOT illegal and the BBC had that option open to them.

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:22

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:17

You don't need evidence that he viewed them to be convicted.
He kept the images, that is enough in the eyes of the law.

He will rot in prison for a long time, where karma will be waiting for him.

Show quote history

He will unlikely even go to prison, let alone rot in it

I agree he should but sadly he won't.

And I don't see why we shut down this thread. Better to challenge the apologist and the factually incorrect

Willyoujustbequiet · 03/08/2024 10:24

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

I don't believe he is a paedophile.
A paedophile is defined as a noun for someone who is sexual attracted to children.
He explicitly stated he did not want any photos of anyone underage. He asked not to be sent any. He was sent one anyway, which immediately downloaded onto his phone, but he said it was wrong and he does not want that.
Yes he should have blocked all contact, yes he should have reported to the police. He didn't and he is now paying a very severe price for that. However, there is nothing to suggest he has any sexual feelings towards children and therefore nothing that defines him as a paedophile.

I'm struggling to believe anyone could be this naive.

He said not to send anything illegal to cover his own back should someone else read the messages.

Amongst other things was sent a video showing penetration of a 7-9 year old child from a man he was aware was a convicted paedophile and yet he continued to chat to him for 18 months.

The intent of the relationship with this convicted paedophile was to secure images for his own gratification. He is the very definition of a paedophile ffs.

Stop minimising child abuse.

Eggseggslegs · 03/08/2024 10:25

Geran4 · 03/08/2024 07:42

I may be wrong but I thought this had been investigated and that the police had found that no criminal activity had taken place?

Show quote history

He's been charged. Yes remove the lot, imagine if it was your family affected and definitely no royalties for him!

LuluBlakey1 · 03/08/2024 10:26

ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 10:21

It's not about whether you like them as a person or like their work/shows/music whatever though is it, it's about these high profile cases with all these men who are either left to get away with ot or get off far too lightly for my tastes.
We know they are everywhere,what about those of us here who have witnessed and suffered at the hands of these vile creatures.

As for the bbc well look at their track record when it comes to paedophiles and how they protect them/let them get away with their noncery/erect statues etc and draw your own conclusions!

Porn is a different discussion altogether, but it is an industey where women and children suffer and i'm sure is full of nonces too!

Show quote history

You are choosing to miss my points. Never mind

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:26

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:22

He will unlikely even go to prison, let alone rot in it

I agree he should but sadly he won't.

And I don't see why we shut down this thread. Better to challenge the apologist and the factually incorrect

Show quote history

He will 100% be going to prison with 40 CAT A images.

I work in law and this is my job! He will receive credit for his early guilty plea, however he has a number of aggravating factors to consider as well.

fieldsofflowers · 03/08/2024 10:27

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:26

He will 100% be going to prison with 40 CAT A images.

I work in law and this is my job! He will receive credit for his early guilty plea, however he has a number of aggravating factors to consider as well.

Show quote history

priest at my school had more than this number and only a handful of years ago was given a suspended sentence and went to work at another school.
whole Huw will probably be made an example of i wouldn’t bet on it

alldayeveryday247 · 03/08/2024 10:28

@Hummingbird75

He will 100% be going to prison with 40 CAT A images.

I'm not sure how you're confident of that when unfortunately the man who actually sent him those images hasn't even gone to prison.

He got a suspended sentence. Won't see the inside of a cell now unless he reoffends.

Our laws are beyond fucked up.

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:29

@Hummingbird75
There is a potential defence, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show they were unsolicited/ they did not know what they were/deleted them rapidly.
<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100916230916/www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#a07" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100916230916/www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100916230916/www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#a07" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">too<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100916230916/www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#a07" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">g/extremepornography/#a07

Huw Edwards and his KC did not attempt this defence. HE only said he didn't want anything illegal when directly prompted by Williams, he was not proactive in asking for adult content only.

Willyoujustbequiet · 03/08/2024 10:30

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:09

As far as I can see, he received some illegal images and asked that they not be sent again. Doesn't sound like someone who wants to look at underage pics to me.

He hasn't been charged with anything else. Given they will have gone through all his history, that's telling to me, if this is all they could find.

Show quote history

If this is all?

You're not serious.

You would continue to chat for a long time to someone who already sent you a video of a 7 year old being penetrated?

Unbelievable.

PhillipMontyTomato · 03/08/2024 10:30

Might not be the point of this thread but it really bothers me that there is a celebratory musical about Michael Jackson in London.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:33

alldayeveryday247 · 03/08/2024 10:28

@Hummingbird75

He will 100% be going to prison with 40 CAT A images.

I'm not sure how you're confident of that when unfortunately the man who actually sent him those images hasn't even gone to prison.

He got a suspended sentence. Won't see the inside of a cell now unless he reoffends.

Our laws are beyond fucked up.

I have never seen a defendant walk out on a SS for 40 category A images. I am sure there will be the odd example one can dig up - but on the whole the sentencing guidelines are adhered to.

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:33

Sorry @Hummingbird75 - I think I quoted you erroneously there!

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:35

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:26

He will 100% be going to prison with 40 CAT A images.

I work in law and this is my job! He will receive credit for his early guilty plea, however he has a number of aggravating factors to consider as well.

Show quote history

https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/names-faces-eight-paedophiles-perverts-28062972

Eight that haven't and that's with a cursory search.

Names and faces of 8 paedophiles and perverts who walked free this year

Amongst them are a man who had a thing for poo and a pensioner who watched a video of a woman being forced to have sex with an animal

https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/names-faces-eight-paedophiles-perverts-28062972

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:35

For the purposes of clarity:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child/&_rt_nonce=7b149739af

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:36

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:33

I have never seen a defendant walk out on a SS for 40 category A images. I am sure there will be the odd example one can dig up - but on the whole the sentencing guidelines are adhered to.

Show quote history

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/01/man-who-shared-indecent-images-with-huw-edwards-named-as-alex-williams

The person that sent them to HE only got a suspended sentence

Man who shared indecent images with Huw Edwards named as Alex Williams

Williams, 25, of Merthyr Tydfil, was given 12-month suspended jail term for possessing and distributing indecent images, including of children

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/01/man-who-shared-indecent-images-with-huw-edwards-named-as-alex-williams

noworklifebalance · 03/08/2024 10:36

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:33

I have never seen a defendant walk out on a SS for 40 category A images. I am sure there will be the odd example one can dig up - but on the whole the sentencing guidelines are adhered to.

Show quote history

from what I read, he had 3 cat A images/videos out of the 40 child sex abuse images found on his phone/whatsapp

Doesn’t make a difference in my eyes but wanted to clarify the facts as I have read them.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:36

Take a look at the sentencing guidelines.

alldayeveryday247 · 03/08/2024 10:36

@Hummingbird75

I have never seen a defendant walk out on a SS for 40 category A images. I am sure there will be the odd example one can dig up - but on the whole the sentencing guidelines are adhered to.

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/01/man-who-shared-indecent-images-with-huw-edwards-named-as-alex-williams

I didn't attempt to dig up an example, I'm saying the specific man who sent them to Huw Edwards was given a SS. So it's unlikely Huw Edwards will see the inside of a cell for receiving the same images.

As I say, our sentencing guidelines are terrifying for it to be possible for someone sending dozens of category A images to get a SS.