The career of Huw Edwards is DEAD to US

I guess the BBC must have prolapsed his anus.

Poor guy. I feel sorry for him.

MARY!

At least he got to announce the Queen's death before his own.

Didn't his ass pics leak a while back?

Oh boy.

Well, his OnlyFans career has just begun!

Didn't someone say they saw Huw's dick and that he's hung?

Kind of amazed it's taken this long for him to officially resign, actually.

I think BBC and Huw were both lying low until the scandal blew over a bit. Otherwise he probably would have been burned at the stake in terms of public opinion, if not legal repercussions.

I get all excited hearing about BBC.

His contract must of been up don't you think? No payouts.

There would have been no legal repercussions. The police said no crime had been committed.

"Didn't his ass pics leak a while back?"

At his age, it's just his ass that leaks.

Sex scandals don't seem to be a big deal in England if no crime is involved.

Who will announce the next death of a monarch? Rylan Clark?

"Who will announce the next death of a monarch? Rylan Clark?"

From one queen to another....

Clearly dead, most sincerely dead:

"Former BBC presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with child pornography offences after 37 indecent images were allegedly shared on a WhatsApp chat. Scotland Yard confirmed the 62-year-old broadcaster was facing three charges of making indecent images of children between December 2020 and April 2022. Police said Edwards was arrested on November 8 last year and charged just over a month ago on June 26 following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service. Edwards - who helmed royal and political events at the BBC before resigning in April - has been bailed and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court this Wednesday. According to the charge sheet, Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp."

Crikey

Well shit, a bona fide pedo announced the death of the Queen.

What the hell does "making indecent images of children" mean?

Like, on a note pad?

In his mind?

I’m puzzled by this. It’s 2024 - rather than emailing or texting or other forms of messaging, with actual twinks, which could prove to be problematic, couldn’t he just go online and type in ‘twinks’ or ‘hot twink holes’ or ‘heavily hung hot twinks’. That would seem much less perilous.

Well the big issue is that someone is actually named Huw.

[quote]What the hell does "making indecent images of children" mean?

The link to the CPS guidance is in the other thread which was updated before this one x

Yikes. His huge meltdown back then makes a lot more sense. If it’s just photos of the known acquaintance, that’s the sad, but very real risk of chasing bait. *shrug* If it’s worse stuff, he’s fucked for life. To become such a public figure and still risk it all…incredible.

We're American.

We don't care Huw it is.

R25 Right? How can kid porn be enjoyable to the point where you risk everything.

So he was freaking out – not because of the claim that was the subject of all the publicity – but because he knew he had child porn on his electronic devices and would be caught

From the other thread

[quote]A child is a person under 18 (s.7(6) of the PCA) and the age of a child is a finding of fact for the jury to determine. Expert evidence is inadmissible on the subject as it is not a subject requiring the assistance of experts (R v Land [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 301).

So the child in question is almost certainly the vulnerable drug addict who was selling photos to Edwards when he was 17, meaning The Sun and the young man's parents were correct in their reporting of the story and justified in reporting it.

[quote]What the hell does "making indecent images of children" mean?

Making” an image is not the same as “producing” the image. If you are charged with “making” images this is likely to relate to the downloading or printing of an image that was already in existence. The offence of making indecent images is sentenced in the same way as being in possession of indecent images. Distributing indecent images is treated more seriously than making / possessing them. Producing indecent images is more serious again.

Category A involves images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism; Category B covers images which show non-penetrative sexual activity; while Category C is for indecent images not within categories B or C.

What a piece of shit.

[quote] Well shit, a bona fide pedo announced the death of the Queen.

There’s a very obvious, mostly depressing joke in there.

[quote]. Well shit, a bona fide pedo announced the death of the Queen.

She’d already been painted by a bona fide pedo. And that involved being in the same room as him.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

BTW, the putrid rag is Edwards in this case, not the Daily Maul.

Avoids prison as expected.

Jesus Christ.

Offensive tweets = prison

Downloading porn of 13-year-olds = suspended sentence

This fucking country.

For the record, I don't object to people going to prison for inciting violence and racial hatred online. But if you can go to jail for that, why not for downloading child porn?

Looking at that photo, I think I can see why things went all pear shaped.

[quote] For the record, I don't object to people going to prison for inciting violence and racial hatred online. But if you can go to jail for that, why not for downloading child porn?

There’s a Twitter account called Emily Wilding Davison or something like that who compiles sentencing reports across the UK of paedos who walk free despite downloading the most appalling child abuse images.

There excuses are laughable - work stress, marriage breakdown, bereavement - and yet they don’t lose their liberty. There were a spate of trans paedos pretending that their gender identity struggles took them to a dark place but thankfully they have petered out.

But we at a point in society where sharing images of small children being raped is seen as a minor crime.

I actually agree, R39. however, I think that people who make offensive tweets are being sent to jail as a wider campaign to stigmatize and punish political dissidence, which is altogether a thousand times more dangerous. Sadly, in order to protect political freedom we must respect the right that some people have to voice their bigoted opinions, but this appears to be an unpopular opinion nowadays, which will lead to a very dangerous climate in which anyone who expresses an opinion that is critical of the government or a powerful figure, can be punished as a terrorist. And no, that is not something acceptable in any way.

On the other hand, ephebophilia and pedophilia are not punished as harshly because many people at the top of the social hierarchy are involved in it - let's remember that Keir Starmer did everything in his power to prevent Jimmy Savile from being prosecuted, because of Savile's close relationship with the Royal Family. The same is applicable to Rolf Harris and Max Clifford, and let's not even talk about the Epstein child-exploitation ring in the US. Sadly, since the victims are always poor and the poor are mostly voiceless, and the people committing the abuse are often wealthy and well-connected, the judicial system is notoriously lenient towards pedophiles.

It's absolutely appalling how the wealthy and influential get leniency from the law.

[quote] let's remember that Keir Starmer did everything in his power to prevent Jimmy Savile from being prosecuted,

No he didn't "do everything in his power to prevent prosecution" stop lying.

Mr Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the decision not to prosecute Savile was made on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”. The allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS.

A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made. The Labour party told us it could not comment on individual cases and the CPS said that records relating to the decision not to charge Savile were not kept, which the service said is in line with its data retention policy.

He does have a pretty decent ass for an old perv.

R49 Still fairly good looking too.

Brits over on reddit seem to be generally defending his suspended sentence (not him) saying it actually is in line with the offense. Haven't a clue whether that's true.

Explicitly, i don't want want to take sides for this guy. What I take issue with is the reporting though. If we are talking about a 17 year old, he is not "a child." In my country, 17y olds can get their driving license already and can vote. They can go to the military. "Child" is suggesting helplessness. He's still a dirty old man but he's not a cradle robber.

What is the age of consent in England? If it is 16 or 17, how is having pictures of your sex partner child porn? Putting people in prison for hate speech (excluding planning criminal acts)is a terrible idea. Hopefully, the US will cling to the first speech liberties we still have.

Huw Edwards’ status did not impact on his sentence. An unemployed man would have been given the same sentence.

And no, Starmer did not protect Jimmy Savile. Starmer’s record as DPP/chief prosecutor saw major improvements in how sex crimes were treated.

R40, I've seen that account, it's shocking how many men get away with no jail time for kiddie porn. They don't even have to be rich and famous, or politicians, or cops. Just regular guys are walking free. The UK needs to build more prisons.