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 😭

It’s not me who said it was, it was implied by the person I’m responding to

It's also worth pointing out that he had no choice but to plead guilty. This is an area that is close to my field of work. If you have received the images then you have 'made' them. This is a crime that doesn't require motive or intent.
If you plead not guilty all you will do is instigate a trial where you will certainly be found guilty and your sentence will be worse as you didn't admit guilt in the first place.
I only mention this as a lot of people see a guilty plea as an admission of guilt of engaging in peadophilic activity, when that isn't always the case.

The Guardian has named the person who sent the images to HE. The sender got 1 year suspended sentence earlier this year. HE will probably walk away with similar - although he'll never read the news again.

It's also worth pointing out that he had no choice but to plead guilty. This is an area that is close to my field of work. If you have received the images then you have 'made' them. This is a crime that doesn't require motive or intent.
If you plead not guilty all you will do is instigate a trial where you will certainly be found guilty and your sentence will be worse as you didn't admit guilt in the first place.
I only mention this as a lot of people see a guilty plea as an admission of guilt of engaging in paedophilic activity, when that isn't always the case.

Yes, I agree.

"KeirSpoutsTwaddle
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."

"In among them". It's not a red sock in with the white wash. It's receiving an average of one pic or video every weekday from now until the end of September of children being hurt, abused. There's pornography and then there's something completely different. Not legal pornography and illegal 'pornography'. He kept engaging with this convicted sex offender who was repeatedly sending him this material of children.

@Flimsy1234 @creamofroses my understanding is that the term ‘Twinks’ is similar to ‘barely legal’ as more usually used about girls.

I think sexually objectifying very young adults is wrong and shouldn’t be an accepted part of culture, straight or gay.

Any culture that accepts someone’s type as being ’barely legal/Twinks’ needs to be challenged.

Not a convicted sex offender at the time.

I’ll repeat, he’s a sleaze bag, but shouldn’t be portrayed as even worse than he is. Other posters have summarised better than me what he actually did, rather than the obfuscation being thrown around.

In dramatically exaggerating what he has done, you risk men who have received images, deleted them and not reported them, think they are better than him.
What he did is bad enough in its own right.

"Not a convicted sex offender at the time."

Ok then! The material he sent HE was what led to him being one.

"I’ll repeat, he’s a sleaze bag, but shouldn’t be portrayed as even worse than he is."

How have I portrayed him as worse than he is?

"Other posters have summarised better than me what he actually did, rather than the obfuscation being thrown around."

Again, I didn't 'throw' anything round. These are facts, aren't they?

"In dramatically exaggerating what he has done, you risk men who have received images, deleted them and not reported them, think they are better than him."

Again, how is what I said "dramatically exaggerating" anything? I don't understand how stating what he HAS done is "risking" anything.

Your posts seem to be suggesting what he did was bad but not too bad. You also seem to want to avoid using the correct term for the material he repeatedly viewed.

Absolutely not.

The 40 images were of child sexual abuse.

I agree on the terminology.

I don’t agree that HE sought ought paedophila. He had no reason to know when exchanging images that the man was a paedophile.

He sought out ‘barely legal’ - which I believe is disgusting anyway- and after a prolonged period of communication began receiving illegal images of child sexual abuse. If I remember correctly the 7 worst were boys aged 13-15 engaged in penetration of some sort, and a video of a primary aged child.

He deleted the illegal images and said at least twice- too young, no illegal ones.

He should have reported them. Yes. I imagine he didn’t want to have to disclose the rest of the conversation, knowing all his devices would be taken and investigated.
He should have blocked the guy, yes. Again, he had a lot to lose if the young man in question chose to expose him.

He was corrupt and shouldn’t have started down the road in the first place.

I’m going on memory so apologise if I’m wrong on some details. I wasn’t anticipating deep diving in this filth. We will find out from the sentencing what the judge considers about it.

In addition to people like HE who contributed to the trade in images of child abuse, there are people who deliberately cultivate and profit from it, and who conspire and manipulate to get access to children to abuse.

I don’t think it’s helpful to lose nuance and accuracy in discussing this.

Many people have interpreted the charges as HE having abused children, including the very little ones, recorded that abuse and shared the images. That isn’t what happened.

At least as far as these particular charges go. What else he has done remains to be seen.

Wtf.

Most of them were under 16 and are you victim blaming now?

The most homophobic thing is giving a gay man lenience on something to abhorrent.

Most people are aware of the details. He was having regular, depraved conversations with a pedo (and he knew that he was one) and looking at very young men doing extreme sexual acts. He allowed those abused children to be abused by doing nothing.

But what you don't understand is that this is legal where the person is 16 or above. That doesn't make him depraved in the eyes of the law. The acts were not 'extreme'. Anal and oral penetrative images or videos of men are entirely legal as are those of female depictions providing they are participating freely and are 16 or over.

There's definitely trafficking, rape, and other offences within the porn industry but that's a different argument.

If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of the law in a moral context let's do that but let's not invent things that were not present in this case.

Unsolicited depictions of child sexual abuse is what has been reported in this case and I'm sure he will receive a sentence commensurate with the offence.

The legal age of consent re online images is 18, so if Edwards had engaged in any of the activities described above with a young male in person it would have been legal (questionable, but legal). Online its a crime.

That is interesting, so they needed to be at least 18. Do you have a reference for that?

BBC has been aware of this since November 2023!

news.sky.com/story/bbc-was-aware-huw-edwards-had-been-arrested-over-indecent-images-of-children-since-last-november-13188949

Nope, it’s 18.
And yes, I am also talking morally and not just legally. What’s your point?

Lol maybe google the law? It’s quite well known…

A twink is a type, and could just be a slim, hairless, effeminate, boyish looking young man of 23. So the term is not really similar.

Keir "I don’t agree that HE sought ought paedophila. He had no reason to know when exchanging images that the man was a paedophile."

The clue the man is a paedo is in the 40 abuse images/videos the man sent him! Who are you not agreeing with, who has said he sought it out? But if he's engaged a stranger to swap and discuss porn with and that person then repeatedly sends CSA material and he doesn't stop communicating with them, it could be argued that he's sought it out. Not as obvious as searching for the material himself but that's where he's ended up.

"He sought out ‘barely legal’ " do you have a news link for this info please?

"He deleted the illegal images and said at least twice- too young, no illegal ones." do you have a news link for this quote about "too young" please?

I thought I'd read that HE only requested no illegal material in response to a message from the man directly asking him about CSA material, therefore asking him to confirm in writing. Before this he didn't say anything about receiving the CSA imagery?

"In addition to people like HE who contributed to the trade in images of child abuse, there are people who deliberately cultivate and profit from it, and who conspire and manipulate to get access to children to abuse.

I don’t think it’s helpful to lose nuance and accuracy in discussing this."

Many people have interpreted the charges as HE having abused children, including the very little ones, recorded that abuse and shared the images. That isn’t what happened."

I haven't been inaccurate. I haven't seen anyone on this thread convey the interpretation that HE recorded that abuse. I think you could consider that people know what he's done, aren't confused and still find it disgusting, outrageous, criminal. Someone here called it a 'technical offence' and you've made up a suggestion that HE was probably just too scared of the paedophile to stop receiving CSA imagery from him.

Receiving, deleting, continuing to want images from this man (!!) and not doing anything to help those poor children counts as abuse. Yes.

Anyone who makes, receives, passes on, shares, stores, looks at, or watches pornography involving minors, is complicit in child sexual abuse. They are aiding and abetting and encouraging the abuse of children, and are as guilty as those performing the abuse.

To watch how HE entered and left the court with his head held high and a look of arrogance on his face, turned my stomach. No wonder he had reported mental health problems - that at least gives me hope that a part of him is eaten up with guilt and regret but more than anything, genuine remorse for his actions and those he has harmed. However, his body language told a different story.