Jump to content
Paul Bearer

Huw Edwards

Recommended Posts

I looked up the definitions of image categories.

 

  • Category A – Images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism
  • Category B – Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity
  • Category C – Indecent images not falling in categories A or B

 

I suppose the dropped-trouser pic would fall into category C, least serious - notwithstanding its nightmarish quality for anyone who's seen him announcing the Queen's death and other state occasions. On the other hand he's plainly involved in the making of that image, and the making of indecent images is a more serious offence than mere possession of them. If he's visible in the A and B pictures he could be in a lot of trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Slackhurst Broadcasting said:

I looked up the definitions of image categories.

 

 

  • Category A – Images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism
  • Category B – Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity
  • Category C – Indecent images not falling in categories A or B

 

I suppose the dropped-trouser pic would fall into category C, least serious - notwithstanding its nightmarish quality for anyone who's seen him announcing the Queen's death and other state occasions. On the other hand he's plainly involved in the making of that image, and the making of indecent images is a more serious offence than mere possession of them. If he's visible in the A and B pictures he could be in a lot of trouble.

 

 

Hell yeah, beyond even the redemitive possibilities of the celebrity jungle! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brad252 said:

Looks like the BBC announcing the Queen's death won't be on public record anymore if found guilty.

 

-In walks AI- "I heard you have a problem."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

There's no good reason for not showing it.  I can't see the justification for pretending certain people never existed because they've done something wrong. 

If there was any consistency to it, much of history would be wiped.

They will just use the radio version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Slackhurst Broadcasting said:

I looked up the definitions of image categories.

 

 

  • Category A – Images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism
  • Category B – Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity
  • Category C – Indecent images not falling in categories A or B

 

I suppose the dropped-trouser pic would fall into category C, least serious - notwithstanding its nightmarish quality for anyone who's seen him announcing the Queen's death and other state occasions. On the other hand he's plainly involved in the making of that image, and the making of indecent images is a more serious offence than mere possession of them. If he's visible in the A and B pictures he could be in a lot of trouble.

The trouser pic can’t be a child porn image - it was just him. The pictures seem to be of minors not just sent to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw damn, I used to like him too. I once did an audio tour of Cardiff Castle and it was his voice narrating it. He was surprisingly good at making the place come to life. 

 

Mind you, I also used to like Neil Oliver and look at the rabbit hole he's been plunging down since Covid. Maybe I ought to just stop liking people on TV (a lesson my parents' generation will have learned long ago by now). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

They will just use the radio version. 

Or they could co-opt one of the other networks if they absolutely had to. Would not be ideal, but possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

The trouser pic can’t be a child porn image - it was just him. The pictures seem to be of minors not just sent to them. 

 

So it's less awful than the pictures he's been charged for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slackhurst Broadcasting said:

 

So it's less awful than the pictures he's been charged for.

Legally speaking most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submitted a guilty plea. 
 

Willz just beat me to it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2023 at 19:16, ladyfiona said:

Jonathan Pie's opinion.

 

 


Jonathan Pie now has pie all over his face.

 

Not the first time his big gob has jumped the gun and made him look like a twat, and won’t be the last.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockin'  the MIB look

 

 

 25e91890-4f17-11ef-b1f9-6193958006be.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:


Jonathan Pie now has pie all over his face.

 

Not the first time his big gob has jumped the gun and made him look like a twat, and won’t be the last.

Funnily enough he has recently retweeted Rachel Reeves from 2017 saying Labour stand up for Winter fuel allowance (among other aspects of pensioner support) and said this hasn't aged well. No surprise a number of the replies contain that video he did on Huw Edwards in a pot kettle black style fashion.

 

Jonathan Pie on X: "Have to say it, this hasn’t aged well." / X (twitter.com)

 

That said the charges he's plead guilty to are not the same ones that the Met were investigating last year, and Pie could (and should) issue a retraction and admit he got that wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say, so that we're clear, that the term "making images" apparently doesn't necessarily mean what it sounds like. Receiving images via social media can be classified as "making images" and there is no suggestion that Edwards has made anything in a conventional sense. All seems to be linked to a single WhatsApp conversation exchanging pornographic material, some of which was illegal in nature, which he was aware of, at least to some degree (he did request nothing illegal at some point). Most of the images concern children between 12 and 15 but 2 Category A images involved a 7- to 9-year-old.

 

This is only information, not a comment on the severity of his actions or the charges. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some wikipedia editor has something to say about him anyway, if you look him up

image.png.830215f676b40093dba4d6d45156f115.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pazuzu said:

Well some wikipedia editor has something to say about him anyway, if you look him up

image.png.830215f676b40093dba4d6d45156f115.png

It's absolutely shameful that there are people like this out there. Putting the month first in the date is completely unacceptable.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

Putting the month first in the date is completely unacceptable.

 

The expiry date on the covid tests delivered yesterday is 2024 - 10 - 11

I can't tell if that means October or November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

The expiry date on the covid tests delivered yesterday is 2024 - 10 - 11

I can't tell if that means October or November.

In any civilised country, October.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

The expiry date on the covid tests delivered yesterday is 2024 - 10 - 11

I can't tell if that means October or November.

October. Numerical Year-Month-Day (ISO 8601) should be relatively standard everywhere, I'd think, even in a country that still spell the month first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How’s about that then?

 

IMG_0925.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone posts some dodgy pictures through your letterbox, you can go to jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Youth in Asia said:

So if someone posts some dodgy pictures through your letterbox, you can go to jail?


If someone gives you pictures on one occasion and you keep swapping them after seeing the illegal ones…probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:


Jonathan Pie now has pie all over his face.

 

Not the first time his big gob has jumped the gun and made him look like a twat, and won’t be the last.

 

I considered going to see him on tour. Instead i'm going to see a Youtuber called Max Fosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use