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 😭

No one is defending him, people are being logical. We’re back to straw manning now because you’re angry and need to vent.

Please read posts carefully before commenting. I am talking about HE as a newsreader reporting on paedophile rings NOT belonging to one. Ditto Saville

Sorry but I don’t think all closeted gay men get WhatsApp images of children from a pedo who seems to think he can talk to you about that…. It wasn’t like he got one image and said “oh no I feel sick” and blocked or reported. He kept going. These images should have made him sick and immediately want to report. Don’t pretend this is normal for a closeted gay man.

You’re still straw manning. I’m not defending him. But we are talking about possibities/probabilities rather than known facts.

You are so right it is terribly depressing the degree of acceptance so many people have. It’s all an accident, not his fault, he’s been unlucky and he didn’t want illegal pics. I think everybody who makes excuses for this repellant excuse for a man should be forced to leave their young children with him. Shameful the excuses being made

He obviously knew what he was getting into chatting with a convicted paedo online and actually receiving child abuse images from him. If he was innocent of course he would not be taking to him he would block him and even if he did talk to him the first video he got he would have gone to the police. He didn't do that. Also this wasn't even the first perverted thing he got involved with. He was already under investigation for offering to pay a young boy for indecent pictures of himself. He is into young boys sexually for sure. He had many images and some of them category A which is rape and torture of children this one was age 7

If he were innocent he wouldn’t have pled guilty.
What we know for sure is that he is gay, likes young men, received illegal images of child SA, and exploited a vulnerable 17 year old. What we don’t actually know is that he is an actual paedophile - meaning he gets off looking at children.

Is it possible or even probable: yes. But we don’t know that.

Just because everyone doesn’t fully agree with everything you say does not mean you have to shame others. You are resorting to straw man arguments in saying things like “excuses”, “unlucky”, “not his fault”, “an accident”, “acceptance”.

I think people need to realise that the law is structured to compel action. You will be guilty of an offence if you have received child porn and sat on it. Doesn't matter if you went looking for it or if someone sends it to you unsolicited. The point is, it's so appalling, you don't get to make a value judgement on whether you think it's okay to keep quiet or retain the images. This makes it easier to prosecute because you don't have to prove sexual intent or positive action. You just have to show they had it and knew. And quite right too. If you received it unsolicited, you are duty bound to report it. It's not really open for debate, it is for child protection!

@sadabouti That’s an excellent point

It's why Edward's (and most people charged with it) pleaded guilty. There is no escaping conviction because the law is meant to completely criminalise the handling of child porn. It isn't the fact he received it, it's the fact he did fuck all and in choosing to do so protected the people creating and trading the images. That's worthy of criminal conviction in my book. And obviously Edwards agrees, or he would not have pled guilty. He'll end up with a suspended sentence and signing the sex offenders register for five years.

@sadabouti thanks for putting it this way. I see what you mean and agree.

Please stop saying “child porn”. These are images and films showing children being sexually abused and violated. I was appalled to hear Channel 4 journalist Jane Dodge say “child pornography” in her interview with Krishnan this evening.

@Lampslights

they can't have all been 14 or below as they've said 300+ were LEGAL and 35 illegal

if the were all 24 & below they'd all be illegal

No one's going to report it though, because doing that doesn't absolve them of culpability. They can still get charged for it because the offence is absolute - all it takes is receiving a dodgy image, whether solicited or not, whether they retain it or delete it immediately, none of that matters.

HE's barrister said in mitigation that Huw had deleted the images and told the sender not to send him anything illegal. Since he's pleaded guilty those claims will never be tried in court.

Some of these responses… Jesus.

Huw Edwards didn’t report this man because he knew he was a paedophile. He’d been contacted by this man on social media - presumably not unsolicited on the off chance this public figure might fancy being sent images of teenage boys being sexually abused. They discussed these images of CSA and only after being sent a film of a very young boy being SA, did he say he didn’t want anything illegal. He was presumably happy to receive the other 44 images over the months preceding this.

He wasn’t an accidental recipient of these images. He is a predator who clearly has a proclivity for underage boys and has no regard for the children whose lives have been ruined through his disgusting habits. He needs the book throwing at him.

Some of these comments seem to be from people also interested in the legal aspects generally, others more upset on the specific case. Plus likelihood Vs absolutes. Remaining outraged doesn't seem a useful place to have an actual discussion - that's assuming that's allowed?

All in favour of cracking down on illegal images but the law seems unhelpful if it discourages people from reporting them for fear of repercussions regardless of the circumstances. All it would take is for someone with a grudge to send you something illegal and you get convicted for it even if you try to report it? Seems more appropriate to look at what happened after the images were received ie. were they accessed again, shared or stored with similar images for example.

Hopefully in this case they can identify the maker of the originals and put a stop to it at the source.

Where has this idea come from that you’d be convicted, even if you tried to report it? Is there an example of this that you can provide?

Huw Edwards definitely didn’t try to report the illegal images because he was a willing recipient of most of them (and ignored the more serious ones because he still wanted to get his rocks off to the other stuff being sent) and in the other example on this thread of woman in the police force, she didn’t report what she’d been sent either, did she? Nothing like the Huw Edwards situation but a definite error of judgement.

What do you mean legal pornography?
These were children.
He has been charged and pleaded guilty to something which was illegal.

He received loads of porn that featured over 18s as well as pictures featuring children and teenagers.

May I point out that some of the people at the BBC who reported him as behaving inappropriately towards them are women. This guy is just a sexual deviant, a predator.

He’s probably done a lot more than this. They already found out about him paying a young man for photos. They only discovered these recent pictures through the arrest of the man who he was in contact with. It would have therefore been on this other man’s phone / computer. I’m guessing they originally took edwards devices to check but said they didn’t find anything so therefore he must have deleted WhatsApp messages from his side. Also he may have had a phone he got rid of deleted stuff etc

He received almost 400 images most of them legal pornography- photos of adults.
In among them for a two month period were 40 illegal ones- children aged 13-15- and two with boys under ten.

No-one’s going to report it though

You’re kidding! If I were sent an image on WhatsApp that showed children being sexually abused, I would be at the police station/ on the phone to the police immediately. I imagine that many people would do the same.