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
The fact that no other charges have been listed at the moment is interesting.

If the images shared on WhatsApp were of people he knew and was regularly talking to then there could be potentially additional charges of inciting sexual activity with a child. If he had sent images to someone under 18 of himself then it could add charges of inciting a child to view pornographic material.

The fact that no other charges have been made just yet could potentially indicate that he had been sent the material specifically for his own “personal use” by another adult or from a group chat with like-minded individuals. WhatsApp is popular for these sorts of things because it’s all encrypted. Once a chat has been deleted, it can’t be reclaimed no matter what. Only the images would remain, which would provide details of how/when they’d been saved/downloaded.
 
thegossboss92 said:
Could it be technically possible that the OF kid (from the Sun article) was under 18 when contact commenced and that the child in the photos were of him? Does OF have rigorous checking of age? Like, do you have to supply official ID to register?
Click to expand...

You do have to supply ID to register as a creator on OF. They make you take a picture of your ID, then one of your face. It's then matched and checked.
 
shellie said:
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:
Click to expand...

India Knight vibes right there

Also I love how all the 'right side of history' lot last year were all like "Ewwww evil tabloids raking over Huw's life and he's done nothing wrong!!!"

and now the evil tabloids have been proved right

Take that Owen Jones lolololol
 
lookatmekimmy said:
premierchristian.news

Tabloid rush to judgment on Huw Edwards condemned as prayers urged for church-going BBC newsreader - Premier Christian News | Headlines, Breaking News, Comment & Analysis

Following the naming of BBC News presenter, Huw Edwards, as the man at the centre of tabloid allegations about payments for explicit images, media commentators
premierchristian.news premierchristian.news

Be interested to see how the church responds now.
Click to expand...
Interesting isn't it? Every person who I have known in my life experience, who have done really bad things, have always gone above and beyond to make themselves pillar of the community in some way. It looks like a certain type need to convince themselves of their virtue to reconcile their evil behaviours.

That's not to say all pillars of the community are harbouring dark secrets or evil people always do charity work and are church goers. It's just something I've noticed anecdotally in my experience.
 
Someone where I used to work was done for making and distributing child abuse images. He was a guy at the top of his profession and the images were of male underage boys. He got 3 years in prison. He was the pillar of the organisation too. They are everywhere. He was suicidal when he got found out. He had a lot of friends at the same organisation (women) who weren’t quite saying Be Kind, but almost.
 
GrunkaLunka said:
Anyone who says that there's nothing wrong with a 60 year old man taking a sexual interest in a teenager is part of the problem. We really need to stop normalising this sort of behaviour.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, short of putting the "½ age +7" rule into law, you're always going to have things happen which are legal but skeevy. I'm also not sure how "normal" people see it as anyway, given the comments every time it comes up.
 
There seems to be a lot of people saying gleefully that they were correct with their suspicions and that they can laugh now at those who gave him the benefit of the doubt. Whether you thought he was wronged at the time or guilty of more, there are now potentially underage minors who have been victimised! Grim, not sure it makes me feel like being “correct”.
 
LittleMissOnions said:
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!)
Click to expand...
Don't rely on labour doing anything about it.
 
Grifty Mc said:
I don’t really want to google the Category A definition but I assumed if that was the ‘worst’ it wouldn’t be pics of a 16/17 year old on your phone.
Click to expand...
I think he was sending pics to the young lads too , I seem to recall a selfie where he was showing his arse with his trousers down. Maybe it's all that, as well?
Plus, didn't he send money too?
 
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...

It’s such an unsettling article and did give off huge ‘but we’re a nice middle class family!’ levels of denial.
Almost as if the financial cushion they had being able to downsize, move etc has made it feel palatable to them.
 
Tofino said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope to bleeping god those parents will NEVER invite any of their sons friends to their house 😳 Jesus, I’m not sure how you could stay by your husband in that scenario anyway, let alone when you have a young son. That poor lad, if his dad is going to be around, he should never have a friend over to the house or even have a birthday party where his father is present. Imagine denying your kid a normal childhood because you choose to stick with your pweirdo husband?

Also, on the subject of “making an image” you can change the settings on WhatsApp so that it doesn’t automatically save images which personally I do and would recommend every one to do as it saves your phone being clogged up with a load of tit from group chats 😂 and also being sent anything inappropriate “accidentally”. But presumably Huw’s scenario isn’t a case where someone has accidently sent him 37 category A images - what are the chances? And even if they did, if he wasn’t intent on looking at or using the images, he’d have just deleted them immediately, and hopefully reported whoever sent them to him to the police. I know that’s what I’d do if someone sent me bleeping child pornography ffs. Let’s not try and come up with theories or reasons as to how this happened. He wanted the images, plain and simple. He’s a paedophile.
 
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