Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The career of Huw Edwards is DEAD to US

Leaves the BBC "on medical advice."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48September 16, 2024 9:54 PM

I guess the BBC must have prolapsed his anus.

by Anonymousreply 1April 22, 2024 9:03 PM

Poor guy. I feel sorry for him.

by Anonymousreply 2April 22, 2024 9:06 PM

MARY!

by Anonymousreply 3April 22, 2024 9:08 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 4April 22, 2024 9:09 PM

Didn't his ass pics leak a while back?

by Anonymousreply 5April 22, 2024 9:35 PM

Oh boy.

by Anonymousreply 6April 22, 2024 9:38 PM

Well, his OnlyFans career has just begun!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7April 22, 2024 9:41 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 8April 22, 2024 9:52 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 9April 22, 2024 9:55 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 10April 22, 2024 9:57 PM

I get all excited hearing about BBC.

by Anonymousreply 11April 25, 2024 3:13 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 12April 25, 2024 3:54 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 13April 25, 2024 5:11 PM

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

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

by Anonymousreply 14April 25, 2024 9:02 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 15April 25, 2024 9:05 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 16April 25, 2024 9:21 PM

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

From one queen to another....

by Anonymousreply 17April 26, 2024 10:00 PM

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."

by Anonymousreply 18July 29, 2024 4:16 PM

Crikey

by Anonymousreply 19July 29, 2024 4:20 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20July 29, 2024 4:23 PM

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

Like, on a note pad?

In his mind?

by Anonymousreply 21July 29, 2024 4:27 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 22July 29, 2024 4:28 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 23July 29, 2024 4:29 PM

[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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24July 29, 2024 4:42 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 25July 29, 2024 4:43 PM

We're American.

We don't care Huw it is.

by Anonymousreply 26July 29, 2024 4:44 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 27July 29, 2024 4:50 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 28July 29, 2024 4:51 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 29July 29, 2024 6:10 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 30July 29, 2024 7:06 PM

What a piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 31July 30, 2024 5:21 PM

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

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

by Anonymousreply 32July 30, 2024 5:23 PM

[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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33July 30, 2024 5:36 PM

[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.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34July 31, 2024 5:02 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 35July 31, 2024 5:03 PM

Avoids prison as expected.

by Anonymousreply 36September 16, 2024 12:18 PM

Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 37September 16, 2024 12:25 PM

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?

by Anonymousreply 38September 16, 2024 1:32 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 39September 16, 2024 1:39 PM

[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.

by Anonymousreply 40September 16, 2024 2:34 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 41September 16, 2024 2:39 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 42September 16, 2024 3:12 PM

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

by Anonymousreply 43September 16, 2024 3:57 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 44September 16, 2024 4:11 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 45September 16, 2024 4:38 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 46September 16, 2024 4:55 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 47September 16, 2024 6:09 PM

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.

by Anonymousreply 48September 16, 2024 9:54 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!