Huw Edwards

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

5 minutes ago, Windsor said:

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

But Huw Edwards never shared them with anyone else, just received them via WhatsApp. (according to the papers he sent a message to tell the guy not to send anything illegal). Clearly idiotic behaviour when you're a national figure though.

Reminds me a bit of that policewoman case from a year or two back. 

[Master Obit 828]

Just now, Youth in Asia said:

But Huw Edwards never shared them with anyone else, just received them via WhatsApp. (according to the papers he sent a message to tell the guy not to send anything illegal). Clearly idiotic behaviour when you're a national figure though.

Reminds me a bit of that policewoman case from a year or two back. 

So he says.

 

They clearly had grounds to believe he'd be interested in them even if he didn't make them.

 

This is all becoming a bit of a huwdunnit.

[Sean 6,313]

2 hours ago, Youth in Asia said:

But Huw Edwards never shared them with anyone else, just received them via WhatsApp. (according to the papers he sent a message to tell the guy not to send anything illegal). Clearly idiotic behaviour when you're a national figure though.

Reminds me a bit of that policewoman case from a year or two back. 

Surely if someone shared a image of a child between 7 and 9 you would report it and block them.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

1 hour ago, Master Obit said:

So he says.

They clearly had grounds to believe he'd be interested in them even if he didn't make them.

This is all becoming a bit of a huwdunnit.

 

It's not really "so he says". It's what the WhatsApp messages state. They were quoted in court. He said he wanted "nothing illegal". But still received and viewed some such images and never reported them (to the police, I mean, not on the News at Six).

 

I mean, aside from whatever happens to Huw, I'm hoping (and assuming) they've banged up the guy he was talking to, who stated "I've got lots younger if you're interested". That guy's a real piece of work.

[Master Obit 828]

8 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

It's not really "so he says". It's what the WhatsApp messages state. They were quoted in court. He said he wanted "nothing illegal". But still received and viewed some such images and never reported them (to the police, I mean, not on the News at Six).

 

I mean, aside from whatever happens to Huw, I'm hoping (and assuming) they've banged up the guy he was talking to, who stated "I've got lots younger if you're interested". That guy's a real piece of work.

Yeah I mean fair enough but forgive me for preliminarily doubting someone who has a paedophile on WhatsApp that is sending them messages. The guy didn't report the messages to police, which tells you that either 

1) He didn't think that there was anything wrong with the guy possessing them, or at least didn't feel repulsed enough to get the law involved.

2) He knew that ratting on the guy would lead to him being exposed for certain things.

Both of which qualify him as a disgraceful individual.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if more comes out here.

[Windsor 2,233]

2 hours ago, Youth in Asia said:

But Huw Edwards never shared them with anyone else, just received them via WhatsApp. (according to the papers he sent a message to tell the guy not to send anything illegal). Clearly idiotic behaviour when you're a national figure though.

Reminds me a bit of that policewoman case from a year or two back. 

You misunderstand. 
 

When he received those files and opened them on his device, it created an illegal image. By opening the file he made an illegal image on his own device. 
 

When he received the first illegal image the smart thing to do would be to block the contact. But instead he was happy to received more despite him saying he didn’t want them. 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

7 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

Yeah I mean fair enough but forgive me for preliminarily doubting someone who has a paedophile on WhatsApp that is sending them messages. The guy didn't report the messages to police, which tells you that either 

1) He didn't think that there was anything wrong with the guy possessing them, or at least didn't feel repulsed enough to get the law involved.

2) He knew that ratting on the guy would lead to him being exposed for certain things.

Both of which qualify him as a disgraceful individual.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if more comes out here.

 

Actually read an article in the Guardian Magazine on Saturday about something very similar called The Knock: an account of a man being arrested for possessing very similar images from both his and his wife's viewpoint. He was actually more severe than Huw in that he installed software on his devices to explore the dark web and find some really disturbing stuff. The article stated that most such cases don't involve bad people, they involve bad decisions, usually related to an extreme interest in porn, which has become so extreme you end up in illegal territory. They know it's wrong but they can't stop, or they keep returning to it. In a case like this (and I stress that this is based on what is currently known, not the "more that comes out" that you suggest without proof), he hasn't made any illegal images, he hasn't distributed any illegal images to anybody else, he has not installed any illegal software on his devices to search for this content, he has taken interest in these images, consumed them, done nothing to stop the man from sending them or reported him and kept it quiet to protect his own reputation and career. And for all of that, he will rightly be punished, possibly with custodial time (I've not looked into the likely sentences) and with the loss of his career and reputation. The reason it matters is that we need to stick to the facts and we need to have different levels of severity so that the truly reprehensible individuals (like the man he was talking to) are given appropriately severe sentences for the damage they've caused and the danger they pose. Returning to the article to close, apparently in 2022, the police were arresting 850 people every month for online sexual offending, and that won't all be child abuse images like these, but a decent chunk I imagine would be. This is hardly an isolated case, and understanding the reasons surely helps in preventing it from happening, rather than just writing them all off as disgraceful individuals who deserve the book thrown at them without any nuance.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

1 hour ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

 

 

I mean, aside from whatever happens to Huw, I'm hoping (and assuming) they've banged up the guy he was talking to, who stated "I've got lots younger if you're interested". That guy's a real piece of work.

 

 

If I read the report correctly, all that chap Alex Williams got was a 12 month suspended sentence.

 

Not much of a deterrent to him or others.

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

2 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said:

If I read the report correct, all that chap Alex Williams got was a 12 month suspended sentence.

Not much of a deterrent to him or others.

 

Well there is something to really be pissed off about. 

[MortalCaso 1,624]

4 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said:

If I read the report correct, all that chap Alex Williams got was a 12 month suspended sentence.

 

Not much of a deterrent to him or others.

I am not sure prison/jail/etc. has proven to be an effective deterrent. Good point though.

[Comped 525]

If prison overcrowding is as bad as the government says, don't expect him to get a lengthy sentence unfortunately. In fact I would be surprised if we see him serve a day in prison at all, as pissed off as that makes me.

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

11 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Actually read an article in the Guardian Magazine on Saturday about something very similar called The Knock: an account of a man being arrested for possessing very similar images from both his and his wife's viewpoint. 

Yes I read the same article which is also what made me think. In that case the guy lost everything apart from his wife, who came out of it saying their marriage was stronger because she looked on him as somebody who had an addiction but has now recovered from it. 

Going back to the question of whether you should be jailed for receiving something on a WhatsApp chat, I'm not even sure that deleting it and blocking the sender would be enough in the eyes of the law, since your phone already 'created' the image by the act of receiving it. Similar to how if somebody had posted the image through your letterbox you would 'create' it by the act of opening the envelope and looking at it.

[Brad252 807]

10 hours ago, Comped said:

If prison overcrowding is as bad as the government says, don't expect him to get a lengthy sentence unfortunately. In fact I would be surprised if we see him serve a day in prison at all, as pissed off as that makes me.

Especially given a load of hooligans who caused trouble in Southport et al. need putting in them too.

 

The fact he plead guilty is more likely to weigh on him avoiding jail, given this usually leads to a more lenient sentence.

[Arsewipe 202]

He'll not go to prison. I know a bloke who got caught with hundreds of the worst images on his phone and he only got a suspended scentence.

[Comped 525]

13 hours ago, Brad252 said:

Especially given a load of hooligans who caused trouble in Southport et al. need putting in them too.

 

The fact he plead guilty is more likely to weigh on him avoiding jail, given this usually leads to a more lenient sentence.

Those hooligans will likely get lengthy sentences in comparison. Which is sad, depressing, and anger-inducing. But without a cell to hold him (especially someone of his celebrity status and convictions, both of which likely increase the amount of protection he'd need in prison), Hew likely will never see one.

[The Old Crem 3,582]

 

[lobius 30]

I assume they mean this bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4hZRSwGnoM&t=790s

 

Nice Olympics tie-in.

[Sod's Law 445]

Not an episode I'd miss if I never saw it again, but I hope it doesn't mean that historic announcement of the Queen's death will be scrubbed from the face of the internet forever. The news comes before the messenger who happens to give it.

[Toast 16,130]

Pretending that people never existed is pathetic and pointless.

[Comped 525]

1 hour ago, Sod's Law said:

Not an episode I'd miss if I never saw it again, but I hope it doesn't mean that historic announcement of the Queen's death will be scrubbed from the face of the internet forever. The news comes before the messenger who happens to give it.

Oh it won't be. The BBC can't hide that. They can hide a Dr. Who episode, but the death of HMTLQ is different.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,028]

For clarification they're not permanently removing the episode, they've temporarily taken it down whilst they rerecord his lines with someone else.

 

In regards to the Queens death and other news moments the statement about the Doctor Who episode said that they won't and can't change those things, there might just be more of an unwillingness to show it as time goes on.

[En Passant 3,741]

7 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

whilst they rerecord his lines with someone else.

 

I'm with toast on this, it's absolutely barking mad. Do they think we can't handle it or something?

Reminds me of that stupidity of actors voicing over Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams back in the day.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,028]

7 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

I'm with toast on this, it's absolutely barking mad. Do they think we can't handle it or something?

Reminds me of that stupidity of actors voicing over Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams back in the day.

To by honest I agree with you, it is kinda pointless. A few years ago they did a similar thing for one of the Season Collection boxsets, a short Doctor Who sketch that appeared on Jim'll Fix It had Jimmy Saville edited out of it, at that point just don't include the sketch on the DVD.

 

Edit: However I can also see with Doctor Who being one the BBC's biggest shows, and a family show at that, why they might want to remove him. Still think it's unnecessary.

Edited August 2 by Commtech Sio Bibble

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

11 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

For clarification they're not permanently removing the episode, they've temporarily taken it down whilst they rerecord his lines with someone else.

 

In regards to the Queens death and other news moments the statement about the Doctor Who episode said that they won't and can't change those things, there might just be more of an unwillingness to show it as time goes on.

 

I'm guessing probably Sophie Raworth, as she was prominent at the time the episode first aired anyway. Or Clive Myrie for a more recent popular face.

 

Just going to say it, I know he was probably in some sort of denial that he'd be caught (the illegal stuff stopped in 2021 IIRC), and was clearly very arrogant about his importance, but the fact that he'd done all this and knew the issues with showing content including people like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, the fact he still fronted up for the biggest seismic moment in the past 50 years in British culture, knowing it would become awkward to show in the future is pretty fucking annoying of him.

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,684]

23 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

For clarification they're not permanently removing the episode, they've temporarily taken it down whilst they rerecord his lines with someone else.

 

In regards to the Queens death and other news moments the statement about the Doctor Who episode said that they won't and can't change those things, there might just be more of an unwillingness to show it as time goes on.

Dammit, I love watching that announcement at least three times a day.