Huw Edward’s pleads GUILTY to making indecent child images

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-set-to-appear-in-court-after-being-charged-with-making-indecent-images-of-children-13187776

some of these images were of children as young as 7 😭

@PrincessofWells And he told the person who sent them not too. That is documented within the message exchange.

He did but carried on talking to the person, and didn't report the pictures

I think we have already established that:

-He did not block the person and continued to communicate with him
-He did not contact the police
-He told him (when asked) not to send illegal images
-He did not download, forward or share the images and nothing was found on any of his devices.

The main thing here is he did not report it to the police immediately. The images were sent as early as December 2020. That’s almost four years those children (one as young as 7 at the time) could still be being subjected to the most heinous abuse.
If he’d gone to the police the stuff of consenting adults isn’t illegal. They’d think him a dirty old perv probably, but that’s it.
He was complicit in the abuse. Sharing them or not is redundant. People need to realise that if they aren’t actively reporting crimes like this they are still culpable. When did people lose any form of moral courage to do the right thing, especially when some of the most vulnerable people in society are being exploited.

He did not report it to the police at all.

I think this view has been hammered out repeatedly on this thread, as if any discussion of the nuances means disagreement that what he did or didn't do was wrong.

Would he have got away with it if they hadn’t got the person who was sending the pictures? HE had deleted all the photos so not picked up on his devices.

My understanding (might be wrong) is that he was investigated and that's how they were found. Everything sent on Whatsapp is retrievable because there is no privacy (Meta/Fb own the content). I assumed the sender was found via H.E investigation, but I am just assuming.

I thought they only found out about Huw because they were investigating someone else. By chance that person was sending stuff to Huw.
Unlucky for him, but them's the breaks.

But WHY was he in contact with a pedo on WhatsApp? He was clearly looking at dark stuff he couldn’t get elsewhere. Imagine if your dh was getting stuff from a friend and they mentioned kids and ‘accidently’ sent kids I mean wtf? The pedo obviously knew huw was going to be ok receiving it… someone quite happily receiving it and not immediately puking and calling the police probably isn’t far from making it himself.

Oh well that's alright then. In other words he wanted them but didn't want anything illegal, like there's a difference. This guy is completely morally corrupt

Well, logically if he didn't want anything illegal (if that's true), he didn't want child SA images.

It's a very bad look to be contacted by, or be in contact with a paedophile and it would be easy under the circumstances to assume he sought him out or was known by him. However, we don't know.

These people, should be made to sit in front of a camera and stare us in the face and tell us why on earth he felt it necessary to carry out something, which he must have known, was sickening and wrong? He is a journalist, and has interviewed many people. Now I feel we should question and interrogate him as to why, what, who and when, did this craving start to happen? I make no excuses for any man or woman using children to sexually excite and stimulate them. It's very very wrong, but we need to know why he has this need, when he was married and seemed a very normal guy. 🤔

What the hell is wrong with men?

I'm sure if this were possible, there would be more information on this out there on why they feel the need to do this. There are many sexual predators and paedophiles in the world, it isn't new. There is nothing wrong with most men.

Not excusing anything, but there’s clearly a fundamental difference between legal images and illegal ones…

Tell that to the parents of the children

This isn't a logical comment. Legal images do not involve children.

@Newsenmum we have no idea why he was in touch with a paedophile.

One possibility - he was actively seeking out paedophiles to chat to. Seems unlikely given he asked the one he was in touch with to stop sending the illegal images

Another possibility - he's a closest gay man who is attracted to men who are younger than him. He meets people on line to share legal porn images one of whom starts by sending legal images but keeps trying to send illegal ones. Huw is an idiot who doesn't block or report him.

Am sure there are multiple other possibilities. We don't know, maybe sentencing remarks will tell us more.

That doesn’t make sense. There are none in the legal pics, and I’m saying illegal ones are different. You’re saying they’re the same

I take your point but I have never liked the guy. He has always seemed to me to be hiding a morose personality behind a mask. He was way over-promoted - pretty okay reading the news but useless when sent on outside broadcasts unscripted. His reputation at the BBC was not good. He was seen as a brown-noser who got above himself and acted inappropriately towards younger staff, male and female. When you contrast the outpouring of love re the death of somebody like George Alagiah, you begin to see that Huw used his Welshness to get pushed forward. In the right place at the right time. I always thought Martin Lewis, whom he pushed out, was far superior. And no, I am not at all surprised at what he was up to. When it was first rumoured there was a senior bloke at the BBC involved with child pornography, I guessed Edwards straight away. There was always just something wrong about him.

Hopefully people wouldn't call footage or images of a woman or man being raped 'porn'.

So they really need to consider why they call footage of children being sexually abused 'porn'.

The phrase 'child porn' is so minimising and disgusting. I wish people would think before using it and instead use a phrase like 'child sex abuse imagery' or 'images of children being abused'.

Does there have to be a reason? He is a sexual deviant and I expect the problem was exacerbated by his hiding behind the 'happily married with five kids' persona. Like many famous people in positions of power, they believe they can get away with anything and, working at the BBC, who can blame him? It was all too easy, wasn't it? Nobody ever called him to account, he was bored, thought he'd indulge himself. Its the scale of the hypocrisy that sickens. How many times has he had to comment on paedophile rings in the UK or even on Savile? He is a sanctimonious hypocrite who has been caught out. But look at him today, he didn't look remotely remorseful. He thinks (knows) that he will get off with a fine. He has enough put away to retire to live with Mammy in Wales and doubtless join a few more WhatsApp Groups. I hope his kids tell him where to go.

@alldayeveryday247 I think child porn has become the usual term we all tend to hear, but I agree

This is a rather hyperbolic post. He's been guilty of some bad things, but there is nothing so far to suggest he is part of any paedophile ring, and we don't know that he is like Saville.
He's obviously at least a closeted gay man who found a very unhealthy way of expressing it. There are a few different possibilities but we don't know that he enjoys underage images. A lot of what you say here is based on assumption.

The most depressing thing about this thread is the number of people trying to defend him.

Would you leave him with a seven year old boy right now? Why not? Because he didn’t give a fuck that the person messaging him asked if he wanted kids. How would you react if someone said that you to? You’d keep accepting images from this man? They were ALL very young, some probably just overage and they were very extreme images and videos. This isn’t regular grown up porn. This guy knew he was safe sending stuff to huw.