Huw edwards (1 Viewer)

SkyBlueMatt · Jul 30, 2024

shmmeee said:
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 · Jul 30, 2024

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

Otis · Jul 30, 2024

shmmeee said:
Is the classification age as well as the actual photo then? Would make sense that it’s something else in that case

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.

Mcbean · Jul 30, 2024

Gone !

Otis · Jul 30, 2024

Mcbean said:
Gone !

Gone?

chiefdave · Jul 30, 2024

shmmeee said:
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 · Jul 30, 2024

Otis said:
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.

Otis · Jul 30, 2024

Sbarcher said:
Surely a shoe in for Strictly this year. BBC love an old colleague.

Not so sure.

Surely he would start using the "it takes two to tango" as his defence

Mcbean · Jul 30, 2024

Otis said:
Gone?

Has to be - with no pay

skybluetony176 · Jul 30, 2024

Brett Clement said:
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.

skybluetony176 · Jul 30, 2024

Brett Clement said:
They are not, Huw Edwards is

Moron.

Houchens Head · Jul 30, 2024

Is it too soon to say Huw Edwards touched my willy?

We'll_live_and_die · Jul 30, 2024

Houchens Head said:
Is it too soon to say Huw Edwards touched my willy?

You're way too old for his liking

skybluetony176 · Jul 30, 2024

We'll_live_and_die said:
You're way too old for his liking

Willy is his Jack Russel

Sick Boy · Jul 31, 2024

Mcbean said:
Has to be - with no pay

He resigned a while ago.

Mcbean · Jul 31, 2024

Sick Boy said:
He resigned a while ago.

But they were still paying him and initiated a pay rise recently ?

Sick Boy · Jul 31, 2024

Mcbean said:
But they were still paying him and initiated a pay rise recently ?

He resigned in April.

Mcbean · Jul 31, 2024

Sick Boy said:
He resigned in April.

Ok

Grendel · Jul 31, 2024

Plead guilty.

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

Nick · Jul 31, 2024

Hopefully the bloke sending them is getting sent down too?

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 31, 2024

Nick said:
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 · Jul 31, 2024

Deleted member 5849 said:
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?

Grendel · Jul 31, 2024

djr8369 said:
Wasn’t one of the charges for creating images?

It’s a technical term which includes downloading

CCFCSteve · Jul 31, 2024

Grendel said:
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 · Jul 31, 2024

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

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 31, 2024

shmmeee said:
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 · Jul 31, 2024

shmmeee said:
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.

Sick Boy · Jul 31, 2024

The very fact he even said that says it all about the pair of them.

shmmeee · Jul 31, 2024

If this was over WhatsApp it suggests the person sending them is cooperating with police.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 31, 2024

Otis said:
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!

Liquid Gold · Jul 31, 2024

There's just no chance he didn't know they were dodgy.

If you want to see some naughty pictures the internet is right there. You don't go getting zip files from some weird bloke.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 31, 2024

Yeah tbh this wasn't the direction I was intending to push it, more that the other bloke deserved even harsher punishment!

Otis · Jul 31, 2024

Deleted member 5849 said:
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 · Jul 31, 2024

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 · Jul 31, 2024

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.

Huw edwards (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency