Huw Edwards #14

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Grifty Mc said:
Can you just close the door on them though. Sorry I know someone I think posted it previously but what was the link to a letter or email that you send to them to say you no longer need one?
Click to expand...

I didn’t renew mine for money reasons at first but I just don’t answer the door to anyone (family/friends text me to let me know they are coming) anyone with a clipboard or wearing black I hide they can’t enter your property without permission. They can’t do anything unless you let them in. I don’t know about if you answer the door but I’ve gotten away with it. I’ve ignored letters and don’t engage with anyone at my door unless I know who it is.
---
Tots said:
I was so shocked when I saw the headlines…..I can’t believe it wasn’t revealed sooner if he was arrested in November.

I did read his alleged offences would get a maximum of 10 years in prison if found guilty. Still not enough but better than 6 months.
Click to expand...

I’ve read if you get more then 30 months sentence you will be on the sex offenders register for life and a SHPO for life. My ex’s brother is on the register for 10 years (claims a pop up by accident) didn’t get a sentence. 37 images isn’t an accident (I don’t believe my ex’s brother either) I honestly hope just because he’s famous he doesn’t get away with it!
---
Sorry just to add I don’t just not answer the because I’m scared of tv licence I have other debts as well and they can’t do anything unless you talk to them (haven’t paid council tax for 4 years, water bills etc) obviously I don’t want to live this way but I just don’t have the money. They aren’t going to put everyone in prison for not paying these things we all know there’s not space in prisons and I guess it depends where you live.
 
Last edited:
Crazy87 said:
I didn’t renew mine for money reasons at first but I just don’t answer the door to anyone (family/friends text me to let me know they are coming) anyone with a clipboard or wearing black I hide they can’t enter your property without permission. They can’t do anything unless you let them in. I don’t know about if you answer the door but I’ve gotten away with it. I’ve ignored letters and don’t engage with anyone at my door unless I know who it is.
---


I’ve read if you get more then 30 months sentence you will be on the sex offenders register for life and a SHPO for life. My ex’s brother is on the register for 10 years (claims a pop up by accident) didn’t get a sentence. 37 images isn’t an accident (I don’t believe my ex’s brother either) I honestly hope just because he’s famous he doesn’t get away with it!
---
Sorry just to add I don’t just not answer the because I’m scared of tv licence I have other debts as well and they can’t do anything unless you talk to them (haven’t paid council tax for 4 years, water bills etc) obviously I don’t want to live this way but I just don’t have the money. They aren’t going to put everyone in prison for not paying these things we all know there’s not space in prisons and I guess it depends where you live.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be patronising or anything but I appreciate it may be difficult but if you have debts please speak to step change or citizens advice as they may be able to help. Hopefully you are doing ok. X
 
Limey said:
His wife seemed to be standing by him, at least initially. It does put me in mind of this article that appeared in the Guardian this weekend.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...024/jul/27/husband-viewing-child-abuse-images

Some people will tie themselves in knots to justify family members' offending - the wife in this article claiming they were both 'secondary victims', no, your husband is a criminal.
Click to expand...

I saw that the other day and when I got to the end and it said that not only did she stay with him, but it made them stronger :sick:
 
While it's impossible to have sympathy given the circumstances, it does seem harsh generally that if someone sends you images like that you can be charged for "making indecent images". Presumably they'd only charge you if you were found to have asked for them to be sent to you? Either way sounds like the legal definition of making an image is outdated because if someone sends me an image on Whatsapp, it opens and saves automatically - I haven't 'made' that image.
 
DreamTeam84 said:
Are the images ones he’s received and saved from the boy he was paying?
Click to expand...
They'll never say, because it's illegal to identify victims. But the implication seems to be not.

AlexTwist said:
Presumably they'd only charge you if you were found to have asked for them to be sent to you? Either way sounds like the legal definition of making an image is outdated because if someone sends me an image on Whatsapp, it opens and saves automatically - I haven't 'made' that image.
Click to expand...
They have charged people in those sort of circumstances. But usually because they should know it's a possibility due to the nature of the chat.

And the law used comes from 1988, so it predates widespread Internet use. The current definition is primarily based on case law from the 2000s.
 
The law is incredibly outdated, it hasn’t been revised since the internet came into wider use and definitely not since the invention of camera phones and front facing cameras.

If a young teenager sends an inappropriate image to their partner then that can become an offence, there is tremendous strain put on the CPS and the police when it comes to deciding how and what to prosecute. The courts then have to rely on case law when interpreting these outdated statutes.

I really don’t understand why this hasn’t been addressed by governments (apart the fact for the majority of this time the Tories have been in power and their priorities are lining their pockets!)
 
AlexTwist said:
While it's impossible to have sympathy given the circumstances, it does seem harsh generally that if someone sends you images like that you can be charged for "making indecent images". Presumably they'd only charge you if you were found to have asked for them to be sent to you? Either way sounds like the legal definition of making an image is outdated because if someone sends me an image on Whatsapp, it opens and saves automatically - I haven't 'made' that image.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a difference. This woman HAD a video, there’s no mention of her making an image. I assume making is perhaps storing or editing?
https://amp.12ft.io/https://www.the...child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams
 
I can't help but wonder, (from a professional point of view, I guess) what it was about the original young person that motivated Huw Edwards to pay them £35,000 for pictures. The original young person must have been over 18, otherwise the police investigation wouldn't have found at the time that there was no criminal wrongdoing?

It seems really bizarre that someone would pay such a large sum of money, no matter how rich they were, for something they could in theory access for free. Regular porn, involving 18+ men is legal to view, and readily available. This leads me to wonder what it was about that young person that Huw wanted? Did they look a lot younger than they were? Were they willing to do things that perhaps pushed the limits of decency? There was something about this vulnerable, young person that Huw Edwards was willing to pay a lot of money for and I believe that exploring this issue would lead to the root of his offending as a whole and would give an insight into his predatory behaviour.

Disclaimer: I absolutely respect the privacy and anonymity of victims, and wouldn't actually want to have this information revealed to the public. I am just musing here.
 
Limey said:
His wife seemed to be standing by him, at least initially. It does put me in mind of this article that appeared in the Guardian this weekend.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...024/jul/27/husband-viewing-child-abuse-images

Some people will tie themselves in knots to justify family members' offending - the wife in this article claiming they were both 'secondary victims', no, your husband is a criminal.
Click to expand...

So many things wrong with this article. And the minimisation of his actions. He had a sexual interest in children. Category A too.

I understand the issues with porn addiction and becoming desensitised but what I don’t understand is how you can go from ann interest in adults to children. He said he was horrified at first. But then he went back a number of times. Clearly no longer horrified 🤢

His last sentence sums up their whole attitude. Their worst fears are people finding out. 🙄

There’s no requirement to disclose I’m on the register to anyone other than the police, but we worry my son’s school might be told when he starts there. That could make our worst fears come true.
 
Julesdorid said:
Don't answer the door, don't engage with them, I filled a form out online, correct address, an occupier for name, declared I don't watch TV, I've been left alone till a reminder arrived last week, same again online, I've never had a visit, I've got milk in the fridge it doesn't mean I own a cow x
Click to expand...
I got a visit during lockdown. The man at the door said he’d usually come into check but can’t due to Covid, but he’ll be back at some point in the future. I said don’t bother, I won’t be allowing you entry into my home.
 
Lazarus said:
I think there’s a difference. This woman HAD a video, there’s no mention of her making an image. I assume making is perhaps storing or editing?
https://amp.12ft.io/https://www.the...child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams
Click to expand...
Under the case law for the offence "making" includes downloading a file or viewing it in a Web browser. Essentially the only way to be guilty only of possession under the current interpretation is for someone to hand you a physical photograph.
 
L3moning said:
Under the case law for the offence "making" includes downloading a file or viewing it in a Web browser. Essentially the only way to be guilty only of possession under the current interpretation is for someone to hand you a physical photograph.
Click to expand...

I guess this is because you technically are 'making' (at least if you download it) because you're creating a digital copy?
 
AlexTwist said:
While it's impossible to have sympathy given the circumstances, it does seem harsh generally that if someone sends you images like that you can be charged for "making indecent images". Presumably they'd only charge you if you were found to have asked for them to be sent to you? Either way sounds like the legal definition of making an image is outdated because if someone sends me an image on Whatsapp, it opens and saves automatically - I haven't 'made' that image.
Click to expand...

yeah when I read “making” i thought he had made them as in taken the actual pictures himself. It’s such a weird wording.
 
AlexTwist said:
While it's impossible to have sympathy given the circumstances, it does seem harsh generally that if someone sends you images like that you can be charged for "making indecent images". Presumably they'd only charge you if you were found to have asked for them to be sent to you? Either way sounds like the legal definition of making an image is outdated because if someone sends me an image on Whatsapp, it opens and saves automatically - I haven't 'made' that image.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but if someone under age really sent you something like that out of the blue. Why wouldn't you delete it straight away? And then tell the contact in no uncertain terms not to contact you, or block them? Even if it autosaves, you can still delete it.

Keeping it on your phone says a lot
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top