Huw edwards (10 Viewers)

SkyBlueMatt

Well-Known Member
If it is that 17 year old, it’s a weird state of affairs that he could have fucked him but can be done for photos of him naked. Was through OnlyFans wasn’t it as well?

Just a guess but reckon it’s something else.

In the beginning that's what I thought it was all about. There were outlets saying nothing illegal 'at the time' had been done. I don't trust a word shitrags like the s*n say. Its why I didn't jump to conclusions but I was very wrong.

It has to be something else, I don't know how the categorisations work but when it's being reported as "the most serious classification". It sounds much worse that buying some blokes OF who lied about his age. It's grim (even if he was 18, Huw Edwards is in his 60s) and illegal but as others have mentioned, he would have some kind of argument to defend.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Is the classification age as well as the actual photo then? Would make sense that it’s something else in that case
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Is the classification age as well as the actual photo then? Would make sense that it’s something else in that case
no idea, the articles about Edwards all seem to be written in a way that assumes everyone knows what cat a, b etc are.
 

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
Think it must be.

That's him completely finished then if that's the case.

It's another BBC employee, so it doesn't reflect well does it. Depends how much, if any, the Beeb knew about it.
Surely a shoe in for Strictly this year. BBC love an old colleague.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Pretty sad given his and the BBC's campaign calling the Tate brothers a danger to teenage boys. Almost as if the news cannot be trusted
People like Huw Edwards often hide in plain sight, it’s part of their disguise.

Doesn’t mean that the Tate brothers aren’t a danger to teenage boys and then by extension teenage girls.
 

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
Is it too soon to say Huw Edwards touched my willy?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Plead guilty.

All rather grim. Mostly images of 13 - 15 year olds but a couple of “moving” images of primary school age children
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Hopefully the bloke sending them is getting sent down too?
Should do more. Edwards was apparently told they were legal and could have some illegal photos, but said no thanks just stick to legal.

Doesn't excuse Edwards of course (if you've got images sent like that, whatever the bloke sending them says you'd surely be a bit suspicious!!) but nonetheless, the other bloke's far more the trafficker and the problem isn't he if he's the one spreading them around...
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
Should do more. Edwards was apparently told they were legal and could have some illegal photos, but said no thanks just stick to legal.

Doesn't excuse Edwards of course (if you've got images sent like that, whatever the bloke sending them says you'd surely be a bit suspicious!!) but nonetheless, the other bloke's far more the trafficker and the problem isn't he if he's the one spreading them around...
Wasn’t one of the charges for creating images?
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Plead guilty.

All rather grim. Mostly images of 13 - 15 year olds but a couple of “moving” images of primary school age children

Mentioned a 7-9 year old on the radio

‘Under the law, images can mean both video clips and still pictures. The Crown Prosecution Service said most of the category A images were estimated to show children aged between 13 and 15, but two clips showed a child aged about seven to nine.
Category A images show serious abuse including penetrative sexual activity.
He also had 12 category B pictures, which involve non-penetrative sexual activity, and 22 photographs in category C, which covers other indecent images. The category B and C pictures showed children aged between 12 to 15’

The blokes sick !
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sorry but if someone sent me a Fucking 7 year old in a porn vid, that would be it. What the fuck? He’s said “don’t send anything illegal” then very clearly had illegal images sent.

The producing images thing I think is the law not being tech savvy and counting images on a computer as making them because they’re copied I think
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Sorry but if someone sent me a Fucking 7 year old in a porn vid, that would be it. What the fuck? He’s said “don’t send anything illegal” then very clearly had illegal images sent.

The producing images thing I think is the law not being tech savvy and counting images on a computer as making them because they’re copied I think
Hence my relatives - more instead of instead of etc.

I'm not disagreeng with you but, around these parts, feel the need to re-emphasise that!

The 'making' is also a term that's been around a while.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Sorry but if someone sent me a Fucking 7 year old in a porn vid, that would be it. What the fuck? He’s said “don’t send anything illegal” then very clearly had illegal images sent.

The producing images thing I think is the law not being tech savvy and counting images on a computer as making them because they’re copied I think
It's weird he said don't send me illegal pictures, yet he kept getting photos of underage kids for months after.

The cynical side of me is kind of thinking that could have been a deliberate ploy, for any future defence, should he be caught.

Could be verbally he was saying send them, but typing not to.

Maybe it's just me. Doesn't add up though.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
If this was over WhatsApp it suggests the person sending them is cooperating with police.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
It's weird he said don't send me illegal pictures, yet he kept getting photos of underage kids for months after.
Apparently they continued to exchange legal photos after - the illegal ones were in a bunch he asked if they were legal and was told yes, but there were plenty others could be sent.

It does beg the question what he'd have got if he said hit me with the most illegal photos you have!
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Yeah tbh this wasn't the direction I was intending to push it, more that the other bloke deserved even harsher punishment!
Yeah, obviously they have nabbed him too, but I am guessing he has turned into some kind of whistleblower for a more lenient sentence.
 

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon

Well-Known Member
Just reading the details in the article is puke inducing, i just can't ( and don't want to) imagine how people get to the point they think it's ok to create this stuff knowing what they have to do to a child. Fucking horrendous.

I think he'll top himself at some point, sounded like he was on the verge of it previously.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Tbf and I can't stand nonces, but from reading it someone sent them to him. How is that his fault? As long as he deleted it and didn't forward, surely they should go after whoever sent it to him however much lower profile they are.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top