>The offences are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022 and relate to images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat
Presumably everyone involved with that chat is being prosecuted
Is this twat still being payed his half a million pound salary?
> has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.
Well, that’s that then. And it’s separate to the news from last year – so might not involve the 17 year old, could be the same, could be younger. What a fall from grace. He was beloved by the nation. Terrible.
**Important Edit**: Legally in this sense, “making” can simply mean duplication of the file, it being saved etc – making it in the literal sense of a file being created. As such, **simply being sent it on WhatsApp and saving it can legally fall under “making” it**. It does not necessarily mean creation of the imagery.
*** According to the SkyNews article:
**What does ‘making’ images mean?**
According to the CPS, the term “making” can include opening, accessing, downloading and storing the content, or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.
Category A images are the most serious and include penetrative sexual activity and sexual activity with an animal or sadism, while category B images involve non-penetrative sexual activity.
Category C means the images do not fall into categories A or B and do not depict any sexual activity.
I assume he’s going to be seeing some jail time with the amount found on his phone.
The last time this situation was in the media, it seemed like he might have had some inappropriate chat with a young adult. That said, there were occasional anonymous comments from people who worked with him that hinted of bullying and irrational behaviour. It’s clear that even if people didn’t know he was messing with kids, he is deeply unpleasant and shouldn’t have been rewarded with a massive, taxpayer-funded salary and the best work opportunities.
What stands out for me is that the highest paid people at the BBC are still mostly the kind of men who have had everything handed to them.
We’re allowed to call him a nonce without the feelz brigade jumping to his defence now, right?
Wow, this is huge.
I am guessing the evidence is so strong, this is his only way to ‘try’ to avoid prison by doing an early guilty plea as a mitigating factor.
After he has been sentenced I just don’t see anyway back for him,a life of shame and hiding away is all he will have.
Can you imagine how his social interaction has changed (and will now change) from a short time ago? Unbelievable fall from grace.
An aside to this case, but relevant…If you’re a member of a WA group and some twat decided to share a ‘dodgy’ pic, anyone on that group who sees it could be done for making indecent images?
He went from one of the most trusted people on TV to another national discrase
Doesn’t change the fact that people were right to defend his right to privacy based on the original story from last year.
Not even going to try and defend this though omfg
“On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy.
The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.
Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.
No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.”
“Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
He added that Edwards “did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else”.”
I dont think this situation is what people think it is.
He really has caused his own downfall here, with his actions putting him at the mercy of strangers on the internet.
Needed to be an adult and talk to his partner and family IF his homosexual tendencies started to surface in the last few years. If this has been a life long thing though he really has treated his partner and family very poorly.
There are a still a lot of people out there that are married with kids but secretly have relations with same sex individuals. So this should be a lesson.
From some of the quotes/links people are making in this thread, it does not sound like he is/was a pedophile and that was my major concern.
Once he got that image of a seven year old he needed to either report it OR just stop. He chose secrecy instead and here we are.
Stupid man.
A paedophile of not just good character, but apparently “exceptional” character according to his barrister.
Such an odd defence as his outward character is obviously a facade for his disgusting deviant attraction to children (aged 7 and 9).
Can’t help but feel this isn’t as big a news story as it would have been if it wasn’t for what happened previously.
What I mean is, this should be viewed in isolation as the disgusting and disgraceful behaviour that it is. Because of last year’s allegations and the seeming perception that he was a victim (rightly or wrongly), I get the feeling the sentiment doesn’t seem quite as negative as it should.
Had these allegations come out first and been followed by the ones last year, I think there would have been more outrage at an identifiable pattern of behaviour from a disgusting individual instead of simply a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ type situation resulting in a fall from grace of a ‘beloved TV presenter’ perception that seems to be the current narrative.
All that historic Royal coverage that the BBC has in its catalogue, which will be difficult to use with his naration/commentary!
>The court heard that he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children. As well as the category A images, he also had 12 category B pictures and 22 category C photographs. On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard. The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy. The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told. Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images. No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.
If the other guy told him some of the images were illegal why on earth would you continue to talk to this man?
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
So many famous people being outed as sickos who get off on seeing children get abused.
Scary to think how many there are who aren’t famous and who don’t get outed.
“On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy.
The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.
Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.
No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.”
“Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
He added that Edwards “did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else”.”
Apart from reporting the guy to police, not really sure what Huw could have done here without getting into trouble.
I feel a bit lied to as this is the first time I’m seeing the definition of what ‘making’ images actually means – he was sent them in a chat along with legal images, and made comments saying not to send anything illegal. I sounds like the crime here is he suspected some to be illegal and did not report it? I don’t think anyone is going to go searching for what actually happened and just label him as someone who made illegal images
So it sounds like a closeted gay man has been chatting to an adult who sent him porn through WhatsApp.
‘Approximately 277 images were sent to Mr Edwards, 41 of which comprised indecent images of children – so just over 10 per cent of the total number of images sent.
He tells the male not to send him illegal images and no more are sent to him although the chat continues’.
It appears that he’s been very naive by engaging with this guy but I’m not sure it confirms he’s an active sexual predator like media is making out. He hasn’t ‘made’ and distributed porn. He’s received images/video, some of which is in category A. Why didn’t he report it in the first instance?
Reading the article, the case seems to focus on “making” images using what seems a pretty questionable definition.
This would at least seem to suggest an element of the law is not fit for purpose, because I can’t see any qualifier that if the image was not obtained voluntarily it must be immediately reported. I don’t recall any similar story adding a comment that “Mr. Smith was charged after he failed to immediately report receiving the unsolicited images to the police”.
Because legally it would seem if person A sends person B illicit images, unsolicited, which person B has not intended to obtain and does not want, they’re deemed guilty of a crime because the application has automatically downloaded images. You don’t even have to know these people.
Even if immediately reporting is a de facto immunity from prosecution, a law shouldn’t rely on CPS technically non-enforcing it. If there’s a legal duty to report (or more precisely, the crime has an element about a failure to report), then this should be enshrined in the law itself.
This doesn’t seem to be up to date for an age of digital apps that can receive and download content that was sent unrequested by complete strangers.
Imagine the BBC News:
Breaking news, BBC employee in child molestation shock. Brought to you by the ghosts of Jimmy Saville, and Rolf Harris. And our onsite reporter Gordon the Gopher
I wish I could say I’m surprised to see there are still people defending him. Hard drive checks for all of them please.
I don’t know what to make of intent. It stopping when noted suggests something, but then it took a good 40 odd images to get there… More likely a crisis of morality after the fact.
The correct response to when someone sends you 1 image of CP is to report to police.
Gosh, the BBC is rife with peadofiles and abuse of position types of people. Shows you what the management is like.
Anyone else slightly perturbed by the fact that literally anyone – anyone – in the entire world could send you this sort of stuff simply be randomly inputting your phone number, and you’d be committing the crime of “making” these kinds of images? Even though you don’t know the person. Haven’t requested them. Etc. That is slightly insane.
You have to question why he was involved with this individual. But it seems the law would catch people in the scenario above, too.
Just another BbC Nonce..! cancel your tv licence..! Scumbags..!
Gold medals 🏅 for gymnastics for some of the people in this thread dissecting this into 15 metastudies trying to say that maybe he’s not all that bad.
Huw is about to come on TV and say he can‘t sweat
Wasn’t Huw Edward the lead broadcaster for the BBC during the Queens funeral? They’re going to have to re dub those.
From reading the report, he maintained contact with a peadophile and exchanged many, many images of young guys and young-looking guys. The peadophile said he could get him images of children if Huw wanted, to which Huw twice replied no, don’t send me anything illegal.
In amongst the images shared to him and from him, the peadophile had sent Huw images and videos of actual children (which may have included video footage of horrific penetrative abuse, the very worst category of abuse imagery). Some of these children were as young as 12 years old. One would even have been maybe 9 years old or younger. These would have been very obvious abuse images, no doubt about it, even though Huw stated that he didn’t want them.
It seems Huw has a fondness for young men and young-looking men, meaning men who look like boys. He may indeed be a peadophile too; Huw may have wanted these images of children for himself but may have said ‘no thanks’ just in case. Even when he *knew* the man was a paedophile who would probably keep sending him abuse imagery anyway. Anyone else would have ran a million miles at this point (ignoring the fact that you clearly don’t engage in this sort of chat normally, the internet is full of free access, perfectly legal porn).
In any case, Huw clearly knew he was in receipt of illegal images, and knew the man he was sharing his own (legal) pornography with, was a clear self-stated paedophile. Huw did nothing about this, knowing that he was now in possession of abuse imagery and footage which this man had sent to him. He continued correspondence with the man for his own sexual satisfaction.
He never sent the images on or did anything else with them (beyond whatever his filthy mind conjured up).
I really feel that if he had dealt with this properly, he could have nipped this in the bud and had this man arrested. But of course this would have meant admitting to his enjoyment of images of young men, and would risk unearthing whatever else he was up to, or indeed whoever else he was corresponding with.
It would be nice if could report this news on BBC prime time. I mean, he is well informed about it.
34 comments
[and our next item is….oh no](https://preview.redd.it/6jqgztkctekc1.jpeg?width=640&auto=webp&s=93e6b9be8b41fa19256a542a1bd64f21a5019600)
>The offences are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022 and relate to images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat
Presumably everyone involved with that chat is being prosecuted
Is this twat still being payed his half a million pound salary?
> has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.
Well, that’s that then. And it’s separate to the news from last year – so might not involve the 17 year old, could be the same, could be younger.
What a fall from grace. He was beloved by the nation.
Terrible.
**Important Edit**:
Legally in this sense, “making” can simply mean duplication of the file, it being saved etc – making it in the literal sense of a file being created. As such, **simply being sent it on WhatsApp and saving it can legally fall under “making” it**. It does not necessarily mean creation of the imagery.
***
According to the SkyNews article:
**What does ‘making’ images mean?**
According to the CPS, the term “making” can include opening, accessing, downloading and storing the content, or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.
Category A images are the most serious and include penetrative sexual activity and sexual activity with an animal or sadism, while category B images involve non-penetrative sexual activity.
Category C means the images do not fall into categories A or B and do not depict any sexual activity.
I assume he’s going to be seeing some jail time with the amount found on his phone.
The last time this situation was in the media, it seemed like he might have had some inappropriate chat with a young adult. That said, there were occasional anonymous comments from people who worked with him that hinted of bullying and irrational behaviour. It’s clear that even if people didn’t know he was messing with kids, he is deeply unpleasant and shouldn’t have been rewarded with a massive, taxpayer-funded salary and the best work opportunities.
What stands out for me is that the highest paid people at the BBC are still mostly the kind of men who have had everything handed to them.
We’re allowed to call him a nonce without the feelz brigade jumping to his defence now, right?
Wow, this is huge.
I am guessing the evidence is so strong, this is his only way to ‘try’ to avoid prison by doing an early guilty plea as a mitigating factor.
After he has been sentenced I just don’t see anyway back for him,a life of shame and hiding away is all he will have.
Can you imagine how his social interaction has changed (and will now change) from a short time ago? Unbelievable fall from grace.
An aside to this case, but relevant…If you’re a member of a WA group and some twat decided to share a ‘dodgy’ pic, anyone on that group who sees it could be done for making indecent images?
He went from one of the most trusted people on TV to another national discrase
Doesn’t change the fact that people were right to defend his right to privacy based on the original story from last year.
Not even going to try and defend this though omfg
“On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy.
The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.
Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.
No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.”
“Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
He added that Edwards “did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else”.”
I dont think this situation is what people think it is.
He really has caused his own downfall here, with his actions putting him at the mercy of strangers on the internet.
Needed to be an adult and talk to his partner and family IF his homosexual tendencies started to surface in the last few years. If this has been a life long thing though he really has treated his partner and family very poorly.
There are a still a lot of people out there that are married with kids but secretly have relations with same sex individuals. So this should be a lesson.
From some of the quotes/links people are making in this thread, it does not sound like he is/was a pedophile and that was my major concern.
Once he got that image of a seven year old he needed to either report it OR just stop. He chose secrecy instead and here we are.
Stupid man.
A paedophile of not just good character, but apparently “exceptional” character according to his barrister.
Such an odd defence as his outward character is obviously a facade for his disgusting deviant attraction to children (aged 7 and 9).
Can’t help but feel this isn’t as big a news story as it would have been if it wasn’t for what happened previously.
What I mean is, this should be viewed in isolation as the disgusting and disgraceful behaviour that it is. Because of last year’s allegations and the seeming perception that he was a victim (rightly or wrongly), I get the feeling the sentiment doesn’t seem quite as negative as it should.
Had these allegations come out first and been followed by the ones last year, I think there would have been more outrage at an identifiable pattern of behaviour from a disgusting individual instead of simply a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ type situation resulting in a fall from grace of a ‘beloved TV presenter’ perception that seems to be the current narrative.
All that historic Royal coverage that the BBC has in its catalogue, which will be difficult to use with his naration/commentary!
>The court heard that he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
As well as the category A images, he also had 12 category B pictures and 22 category C photographs.
On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy.
The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.
Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.
No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.
If the other guy told him some of the images were illegal why on earth would you continue to talk to this man?
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
So many famous people being outed as sickos who get off on seeing children get abused.
Scary to think how many there are who aren’t famous and who don’t get outed.
“On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Mr Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 – a category A film featuring a young boy.
The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.
Mr Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.
No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.”
“Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
He added that Edwards “did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else”.”
Apart from reporting the guy to police, not really sure what Huw could have done here without getting into trouble.
I feel a bit lied to as this is the first time I’m seeing the definition of what ‘making’ images actually means – he was sent them in a chat along with legal images, and made comments saying not to send anything illegal. I sounds like the crime here is he suspected some to be illegal and did not report it? I don’t think anyone is going to go searching for what actually happened and just label him as someone who made illegal images
So it sounds like a closeted gay man has been chatting to an adult who sent him porn through WhatsApp.
‘Approximately 277 images were sent to Mr Edwards, 41 of which comprised indecent images of children – so just over 10 per cent of the total number of images sent.
He tells the male not to send him illegal images and no more are sent to him although the chat continues’.
It appears that he’s been very naive by engaging with this guy but I’m not sure it confirms he’s an active sexual predator like media is making out. He hasn’t ‘made’ and distributed porn. He’s received images/video, some of which is in category A. Why didn’t he report it in the first instance?
Reading the article, the case seems to focus on “making” images using what seems a pretty questionable definition.
This would at least seem to suggest an element of the law is not fit for purpose, because I can’t see any qualifier that if the image was not obtained voluntarily it must be immediately reported. I don’t recall any similar story adding a comment that “Mr. Smith was charged after he failed to immediately report receiving the unsolicited images to the police”.
Because legally it would seem if person A sends person B illicit images, unsolicited, which person B has not intended to obtain and does not want, they’re deemed guilty of a crime because the application has automatically downloaded images. You don’t even have to know these people.
Even if immediately reporting is a de facto immunity from prosecution, a law shouldn’t rely on CPS technically non-enforcing it. If there’s a legal duty to report (or more precisely, the crime has an element about a failure to report), then this should be enshrined in the law itself.
This doesn’t seem to be up to date for an age of digital apps that can receive and download content that was sent unrequested by complete strangers.
Imagine the BBC News:
Breaking news, BBC employee in child molestation shock. Brought to you by the ghosts of Jimmy Saville, and Rolf Harris. And our onsite reporter Gordon the Gopher
I wish I could say I’m surprised to see there are still people defending him. Hard drive checks for all of them please.
I don’t know what to make of intent. It stopping when noted suggests something, but then it took a good 40 odd images to get there… More likely a crisis of morality after the fact.
The correct response to when someone sends you 1 image of CP is to report to police.
Gosh, the BBC is rife with peadofiles and abuse of position types of people. Shows you what the management is like.
Anyone else slightly perturbed by the fact that literally anyone – anyone – in the entire world could send you this sort of stuff simply be randomly inputting your phone number, and you’d be committing the crime of “making” these kinds of images? Even though you don’t know the person. Haven’t requested them. Etc. That is slightly insane.
You have to question why he was involved with this individual. But it seems the law would catch people in the scenario above, too.
Just another BbC Nonce..! cancel your tv licence..! Scumbags..!
Gold medals 🏅 for gymnastics for some of the people in this thread dissecting this into 15 metastudies trying to say that maybe he’s not all that bad.
Huw is about to come on TV and say he can‘t sweat
Wasn’t Huw Edward the lead broadcaster for the BBC during the Queens funeral? They’re going to have to re dub those.
From reading the report, he maintained contact with a peadophile and exchanged many, many images of young guys and young-looking guys. The peadophile said he could get him images of children if Huw wanted, to which Huw twice replied no, don’t send me anything illegal.
In amongst the images shared to him and from him, the peadophile had sent Huw images and videos of actual children (which may have included video footage of horrific penetrative abuse, the very worst category of abuse imagery). Some of these children were as young as 12 years old. One would even have been maybe 9 years old or younger. These would have been very obvious abuse images, no doubt about it, even though Huw stated that he didn’t want them.
It seems Huw has a fondness for young men and young-looking men, meaning men who look like boys. He may indeed be a peadophile too; Huw may have wanted these images of children for himself but may have said ‘no thanks’ just in case. Even when he *knew* the man was a paedophile who would probably keep sending him abuse imagery anyway. Anyone else would have ran a million miles at this point (ignoring the fact that you clearly don’t engage in this sort of chat normally, the internet is full of free access, perfectly legal porn).
In any case, Huw clearly knew he was in receipt of illegal images, and knew the man he was sharing his own (legal) pornography with, was a clear self-stated paedophile. Huw did nothing about this, knowing that he was now in possession of abuse imagery and footage which this man had sent to him. He continued correspondence with the man for his own sexual satisfaction.
He never sent the images on or did anything else with them (beyond whatever his filthy mind conjured up).
I really feel that if he had dealt with this properly, he could have nipped this in the bud and had this man arrested. But of course this would have meant admitting to his enjoyment of images of young men, and would risk unearthing whatever else he was up to, or indeed whoever else he was corresponding with.
It would be nice if could report this news on BBC prime time. I mean, he is well informed about it.