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 😭

But if someone received the unwanted images wouldn't that still make them open to prosecution because they had them on their device , even if it was reported to the police ?

Yes. Receiving the images and deleting them without reporting was enough.

The timeline isn’t clear- the young man he was exchanging photos with was prosecuted and pled guilty as a result of this investigation, I think.

So it doesn’t sound like Huw Edwards went looking for a paedophile, so much as was exchanging images with yet another young man. And this particular legal chat turned illegal.

At the risk of being accused yet again of being an apologist, I wonder whether having exchanged all these consensual images, he had an awful lot to lose by taking it to the police, as we saw with the first set of revelations.

Personally, perving on teenagers is disgusting even when it’s legal. We need a zero tolerance approach.
For too long society has accepted objectification of beautiful young bodies.

I spoke to my young adult sons about it, laying out pretty clearly the risks of these kinds of WhatsApp groups and asking what training they’d had about it- given they both have work mobiles.
Nothing, apparently, which surprised me given the risks to the companies.

Look at the Met. Loads of disgusting chat groups.

He said he didn't want illegal images in February, he then reiterated that he didn't want illegal images again a few months later. He then didn't receive any more illegal images from that point onwards.
The police also haven't found evidence of receiving or searching for illegal images anywhere else or in any other social media. The police are unbelievably thorough, nothing can be permanently deleted. If there had been more, they would know. I therefore think there's a chance that he wasn't in contact with this man with the intention of receiving illegal content.

And for that, I'm a peadophile apologist?! No, I have never stated he didnt do anything wrong and I believe he deserves to be convicted and punished as he viewed this content and continued contact with this man. That is a crime in itself. But I'm also careful in the judgements I make about others and like to hear all the facts and I recognise that there are different scales of ' bad'.
Thankfully the court agrees which is why we have scales of punishment and don't just chuck everyone in prison and throw away the key. The judge in this case suspended the sentence having reviewed all the EVIDENCE which suggests he doesn't view him as an immediate risk to children, so the chances are my judgement aren't a million miles away from the truth.

Please don't be wary of making your own valid points for fear of being called a peadophile apologist. Your views are balanced and justified, even if not everyone agrees with them, and you're entitled to have them without fear of the worst kind of name calling!

I can’t see that he’s been sentenced.

The other man has.

Going 'underground' for porn runs the risk that illegal images will get into the mix. Whether that was his intention or not we don't know because we can't read his mind. He is being held accountable for making the decision to get involved in it all which is surely a good thing.

Birds of a feather and all that.
If he didn’t want any more images from this nasty paedophile, it’s strange he didn’t just block him isn’t it?
He probably didn’t want to hurt his feelings.

I have little sympathy for HE but the law needs to change and there needs to be better publicity/ reporting / guidance around the law.

Receiving images should not be referred to as "making", when it isn't making in any commonly understood sense of the word.

There should be a clear route to reporting unsolicited images of child sexual abuse in which the reporter is not and does not feel they are at risk of being charged with a crime and through which their privacy is (reasonably) protected.

People, including cheating porn addled sleazebags, should be incentivised to immediately report images of child sexual abuse, not frightened to do so. For the sake of the children who are the victims of this abuse.

The law as it stands seems to be open to abuse as somebody could be targeted by being sent images of CSA to ruin / criminalise them and that just shouldn't be possible.

He hasn’t yet been sentenced, the magistrate wanted evidence from probation service and risk of reoffending etc.

Agree
the post was deleted for name calling. It’s continuing but the topic is relevant and trying to clarity and understand is not apologising for or condoning. If a small number of posters can’t understand that, that’s on them

No he didn't. I suggest you read the court notes because you don't fully comprehend what happened. In fact what you have said is libellous and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Apologies, I got the 12 month suspended from this thread but must have been inaccurate.

@Asherrain The 12 month suspended sentence was for the man who sent the images to HE although I'll add that I think that's far too lenient.

Just been googling. So this other man shared but also didn't create the images himself. Presumably he was either sent them by someone else or was accessing the dark web. I'm also surprised at the leniency of his sentence as I would assume the sharing of the images, which shows clear intent, would lead to a harsher sentence.

Did you say the same about Jimmy saville? Yes I agree we don’t know for sure but it’s pretty damn likely.

Remember the vulnerable young person who was according to his mother addicted to crack cocaine was being paid by Edwards to send sexually explicit images to find a drug addiction. This is not an innocent man we are talking about here he is a dangerous predator.
This.
If the mother had not gone to the papers the police would not have searched his phone so the images wouldn't have come to light and he would still be doing it.

Link? I can’t find that info

But we do know for sure what Jimmy Saville did, there were a lot of witnesses.

How Edwards doesn't come into the same category. His actions re the man sending him explicit images of himself whilst both worked for the bbc was not a crime though most people think it was morally bankrupt.

His latest crimes, receiving images of children that were uninvited, is a technical offence, which is why I would be very surprised if he received anything other than rapped knuckles. Community service would be a good sentence so when he's strimming graveyards he can reflect on his behaviour.

Personally I think there's a lot of homophobia over this. The law says the age of consent is 16 and we have to accept that 16 year olds make poor choices and don't always understand when they are being manipulated. Unfortunately there is no law that covers manipulation of young consenting adults. Maybe there should be.

@Iloveeverycat I don’t think they did find the images (re this court case) on his phone. They found them on someone else’s phone and then linked to HE

Is it homophobia to object to the acceptance of the very concept of ‘Twinks’?

Whilst I'm not exactly feeling sorry for HE, I am starting to feel there's more to this than meets the eye.
Receiving these photos was a crime, even though HE didn't forward them on, or save them to one of his devices.
His devices didn't contain any dodgy material when the police checked.

It's an incredible co-incidence that the police happened to be investigating someone who happened to be sending photos to HE.

Could HE have been targeted? We'll never know because he pleaded guilty, which under law he was.

He should have gone to the police though. Even though he would still have been arrested, charged and found guilty (because that's what the law says) it would have looked better on him if he'd reported the sender straight away.

Exactly what are you claiming they said about Saville and where?

If it’s okay for similar derogatory terms towards young women and we accept so easily that 16 is the age of consent for girls, then yes, that’s how the tone seems to be at least.

It's not a derogatory term.