Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[Social Media]

 

Huw Edwards has been given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years for accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.

BREAKING: Former BBC newsreader Huw Edwards has been given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years for accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.@SkyMartinBrunt reports.

Latest: https://t.co/pJ3mSvsMWa

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/FCxNyXeFVw

— Sky News (@SkyNews) September 16, 2024

 

The former BBC presenter had pleaded guilty to three counts of "making" indecent images of children.

 

Westminster Magistrates' Court in London heard how Edwards paid up to £1,500 to a paedophile who sent him 41 illegal images between December 2020 and August 2021, seven of which were of the most serious type.

 

Of those images, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine. Prosecutor Ian Hope told the court Edwards had been assessed as posing a "medium risk of causing serious harm to children".

 

Sentencing him, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring told Edwards his "reputation is now in tatters".

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-09-16

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Pedo..........

[lungbing]

But a BBC one, so that doesn't appear to count.

[Chomper Higgot]

Definitely should have been sentenced to prison.

 

 

[chickenslegs]

Hopefully, the CPS will appeal against this unduly lenient sentence.

 

Edit: I should have said that I hope the CPS will ask for a review of the sentence.

Edited Monday at 01:57 PM by chickenslegs

[NowNow]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Definitely should have been sentenced to prison.

 

 

 

Why? Do you know more than reported? I only read that someone sent photos via WhatsApp. He asked them to not send any more of such young children...and he even deleted them, as they weren't found on his phone. But even opening them is classed as "making them", as a senior policewoman found out to her cost.

 

Of course this only from what has been reported in the mainstream. I have no idea as to the truth of the matter. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Why? Do you know more than reported? I only read that someone sent photos via WhatsApp. He asked them to not send any more of such young children...and he even deleted them, as they weren't found on his phone. But even opening them is classed as "making them", as a senior policewoman found out to her cost.

 

Of course this only from what has been reported in the mainstream. I have no idea as to the truth of the matter. 

 

 

From the BBC

 

The sentencing hearing is told Edwards, 63, paid another man, Alex Williams, hundreds of pounds for gifts and presents in exchange for the images

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgxg673y8et

[NowNow]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

From the BBC

 

The sentencing hearing is told Edwards, 63, paid another man, Alex Williams, hundreds of pounds for gifts and presents in exchange for the images

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgxg673y8et

 

Not good, but viewing them is better than him actually molesting children. Though of course if the pictures were of children being abused, that would be difficult to overlook.

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Definitely should have been sentenced to prison.

 

 

I don't agree. 

 

What he did was utterly foul and reprehensible. 

 

Banging him up would achieve nothing. It would not deter others nor rehabilitate him. His reputation is shredded, his career ended. That is his punishment.

 

I am, it may surprise you, and others, not a great fan of prison.

 

If one takes the view that there are three purposes behind prison: to punish, that has in his case been done; to reform his behaviour, incarceration won't do that; to protect society, he is a broken down dirty old man, who poses no threat to society.

Edited Monday at 03:21 PM by herfiehandbag

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

I don't agree. 

 

What he did was utterly foul and reprehensible. 

 

Banging him up would achieve nothing. It would not deter others nor rehabilitate him. His reputation is shredded, his career ended. That is his punishment.

 

I am, it may surprise you, and others, not a great fan of prison.

 

If one takes the view that there are three purposes behind prison: to punish, that has in his case been done; to reform his behaviour, incarceration won't do that; to protect society, he is a broken down dirty old man, who poses no threat to society.

I take the view there are 4 purposes behind prison, your three and setting a deterrent.

 

Edwards was not a passive recipient of these images, refer BK Brian’s post above, he was actively engaged in obtaining them.

 

Behind child pornography are layers of abuse, it is a crime with real  victims who are vulnerable children.

Its a ‘business’ driven by demand, and Edwards has clearly been part of that demand driving the abuse.

 

I take particular objection to ‘he’s lost his reputation and his career’ being considered in sentencing or what is an appropriate punishment.

 

He had no right to that reputation or that career, he engaging in filth behind a cloak of decency, he was never decent.

 

Moreover, it’s an argument often used (in the UK) when considering the sentencing of criminals who have ‘successful lives’ an argument not available to those who are not privileged with wealth and social capital.

 

Now I think you and I might find a great deal of agreement on the failings of the penal system, there is a lot wrong with prisons and rehabilitation, but this isn’t about what is wrong with prison, it’s about a privileged, wealthy, connected man being treated very leniently by the courts.

 

He’s a pervert, he belongs behind bars.

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:25 AM by Chomper Higgot

[brewsterbudgen]

The prisons are over-crowded so it would be ridiculous to exacerbate the problem.  His life is pretty much over.

[The Fugitive]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take the view there are 4 purposes behind prison, your three and setting a deterrent.

 

Edwards was not a passive recipient of these images, refer BK Brian’s post above, he was actively engaged in obtaining them.

 

Behind child pornography are layers of abuse, it is a crime with real  victims who are vulnerable children.

Its a ‘business’ driven by demand, and Edwards has clearly been part of that demand driving the abuse.

 

I take particular objection to ‘he’s lost his reputation and his career’ being considered in sentencing or what is an appropriate punishment.

 

He had no right to that reputation or that career, he engaging in filth behind a cloak of decency, he was never decent.

 

Moreover, it’s an argument often used (in the UK) when considering the sentencing of criminals who have ‘successful lives’ an argument not available to those who are not privileged with wealth and social capital.

 

Now I think you and I might find a great deal of agreement on the failings of the penal system, there is a lot wrong with prisons and rehabilitation, but this isn’t about what is wrong with prison, it’s about a privileged, wealthy, connected man being treated very leniently by the courts.

 

He’s a pervert, he belongs behind bars.

It's been known since Victorian times that it's not the severity of the sentence that acts as a deterrent, it's the certainty of being caught. Locking people up with other similar minded people can only make them worse. Prison should be reserved for those who would otherwise, physically, cause harm to others.

[Bday Prang]

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

His life is pretty much over.

I read somewhere that he is entitled to a huge gold plated BBC pension,  in the region of £300,000 per year,   He'll survive

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

It's been known since Victorian times that it's not the severity of the sentence that acts as a deterrent, it's the certainty of being caught. Locking people up with other similar minded people can only make them worse. Prison should be reserved for those who would otherwise, physically, cause harm to others.

As I have argued, Edwards has, as a customer of child pornography, provided the market that drives harm to children.

[Bday Prang]

Just now, The Fugitive said:

Prison should be reserved for those who would otherwise, physically, cause harm to others.

And who is to say he wouldn't , just for a moment lets forget his carefully manicured "Mr BBC" image  and think of him as just another pedo.    It probably starts with a few inappropriate thoughts which then develop into sexual fantasies, then he moved on to looking at  photo's probably alone and probably not actually illegal ones.   Then having made contact with another like minded individual he started paying money for the  photos  which began to get stronger and stronger in nature.  What would be next? videos presumably,  and then further emboldened and seeking  "more"   visiting child prostitutes would be a further step in the wrong direction.  Had he not been caught when he was who knows what depravity his unnatural sexual urges would have lead him to get involved in.

[JonnyF]

Suspended sentence? Pathetic.

 

Lucky he didn't make a stupid post on FaceBook from his own living room. That would have warranted jail. But a lefty luvvie Paedophile from the BBC? No jail for you Huw. Never mind you had images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused. .

 

Two tier Britain raising it's ugly head again. 

 

Is being a Paedophile a required qualification for working at the BBC these days? I wonder how many more there are lurking in the BBC corridors.

 

I wonder if he'll pay back the salary they paid him while suspended? Doubtful. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use (paying for sexual pictures of young children).

 

Time to defund the BBC. Long overdue in fact. Sickening. 

[JonnyF]

11 hours ago, NowNow said:

Not good, but viewing them is better than him actually molesting children. Though of course if the pictures were of children being abused, that would be difficult to overlook.

 

If people didn't pay for them, people wouldn't make them. Or at least they would make far fewer of them.

 

And yes they were pictures of children being sexually abused. Boys between 7 and 9 years old. Categorized as the most extreme category of child pornography.

 

Edwards provided the market for this abuse. No need to defend him. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Suspended sentence? Pathetic.

 

Lucky he didn't make a stupid post on FaceBook from his own living room. That would have warranted jail. But a lefty luvvie Paedophile from the BBC? No jail for you Huw. Never mind you had images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused. .

 

Two tier Britain raising it's ugly head again. 

 

Is being a Paedophile a required qualification for working at the BBC these days? I wonder how many more there are lurking in the BBC corridors.

 

I wonder if he'll pay back the salary they paid him while suspended? Doubtful. Good to see the money extorted from the British public being put to good use (paying for sexual pictures of young children).

 

Time to defund the BBC. Long overdue in fact. Sickening. 

Your on form this morning Jonny.

 

Kicking off with your customary lie about people being jailed for ‘stupid post on Facebook’ and it never got better after that.

[The Fugitive]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As I have argued, Edwards has, as a customer of child pornography, provided the market that drives harm to children.

I have heard a judge tell a defendant that he will not send him to prison because the length of the sentence would not provide sufficient time for his rehabilitation. A community order was made instead.

Edited yesterday at 01:55 AM by The Fugitive
Spacing error.

[JonnyF]

11 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

Why? Do you know more than reported? I only read that someone sent photos via WhatsApp. He asked them to not send any more of such young children...and he even deleted them, as they weren't found on his phone. But even opening them is classed as "making them", as a senior policewoman found out to her cost.

 

Of course this only from what has been reported in the mainstream. I have no idea as to the truth of the matter. 

 

 

 

He exchanged them for 'gifts'.

 

In other words, he bought images of 7-9 year old boys being sexually abused. 

 

But he works for the BBC, he's a celebrity. So no jail for Huw. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If people didn't pay for them, people wouldn't make them. Or at least they would make far fewer of them.

 

And yes they were pictures of children being sexually abused. Boys between 7 and 9 years old. Categorized as the most extreme category of child pornography.

 

Edwards provided the market for this abuse. No need to defend him. 

Agree entirely.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Your on form this morning Jonny.

 

Kicking off with your customary lie about people being jailed for ‘stupid post on Facebook’ and it never got better after that.

 

It's not a lie. I have provided many links in previous posts. I know your memory is not too good these days so maybe you can re-read them?

[Bday Prang]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take the view there are 4 purposes behind prison, your three and setting a deterrent.

 

Edwards was not a passive recipient of these images, refer BK Brian’s post above, he was actively engaged in obtaining them.

 

Behind child pornography are layers of abuse, it is a crime with real  victims who are vulnerable children.

Its a ‘business’ driven by demand, and Edwards has clearly been part of that demand driving the abuse.

 

I take particular objection to ‘he’s lost his reputation and his career’ being considered in sentencing or what is an appropriate punishment.

 

He had no right to that reputation or that career, he engaging in filth behind a cloak of decency, he was never decent.

 

Moreover, it’s an argument often used (in the UK) when considering the sentencing of criminals who have ‘successful lives’ an argument not available to those who are not privileged with wealth and social capital.

 

Now I think you and I might find a great deal of agreement on the failings of the penal system, there is a lot wrong with prisons and rehabilitation, but this isn’t about what is wrong with prison, it’s about a privileged, wealthy, connected man being treated very leniently by the courts.

 

He’s a pervert, he belongs behind bars.

 

 

 

 

Well said indeed,  Credit where its due , its not often I agree with you , but I have no problem admitting it when I do,

Personally I think there should be some sort of system in place where people like him  ( celebrities and famous personalities etc)  should face justice without their celebrity status being revealed.   In an earlier hearing the judge uttered words to the effect that there was no doubt as to his character as he was known as  man of the finest character (despite his "activities") I think it was when granting bail.

 He should have been referred to simply as MR H.E   until after he was sentenced. and reporting restrictions put in place. although I understand its difficult these days

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's not a lie. I have provided many links in previous posts. I know your memory is not too good these days so maybe you can re-read them?

Your links never seem to be to actual court records, charged and convicted crimes.

 

When presented with these you go silent. 

[proton]

Brit  Sam Melia recently got two years for putting stickers on walls etc, even though they were deemed not illegal the court decided they were inciting racial hate, this disgusting lying pedophile gets off! 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

visiting child prostitutes would be a further step in the wrong direction. 

Seriously. Child prostitutes?

 

You obviously know more about it than I. I've lived in more than a few countries, but "child prostitutes" never showed up on the radar, not even in Thailand, and if not there, then where?

I'm happy to say that I have absolutely no idea where to find such.

Edited yesterday at 02:08 AM by thaibeachlovers

[The Fugitive]

18 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

And who is to say he wouldn't , just for a moment lets forget his carefully manicured "Mr BBC" image  and think of him as just another pedo.    It probably starts with a few inappropriate thoughts which then develop into sexual fantasies, then he moved on to looking at  photo's probably alone and probably not actually illegal ones.   Then having made contact with another like minded individual he started paying money for the  photos  which began to get stronger and stronger in nature.  What would be next? videos presumably,  and then further emboldened and seeking  "more"   visiting child prostitutes would be a further step in the wrong direction.  Had he not been caught when he was who knows what depravity his unnatural sexual urges would have lead him to get involved in.

Agree. A solicitor (criminal defence) once told me that I'd be amazed at what is found on 'ordinary' peoples computers. Also what people collect; printed matter, cine films, VHS cassettes, DVD's and, of course, download. I asked if it made a difference whether the material was illegal at the time it was obtained or legal/illegal where it was sourced from but she didn't give me an answer.    

[Bday Prang]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously. Child prostitutes?

 

You obviously know more about it than I. I've lived in more than a few countries, but "child prostitutes" never showed up on the radar, not even in Thailand, and if not there, then where?

I'm happy to say that I have absolutely no idea where to find such.

I don't know anymore about this than you and I don't particularly like the tone of your post,  Just because child prostitutes don't appear on ones radar does not mean they do not exist,   It does not even have to be child "prostitutes"  Have you ever considered the possibility that children could even be abducted for the purposes of providing victims for these perverts?

 I also have absolutely no idea were such depravity takes place but again it does not mean that it never happens.

 As an example , try thinking  of it like  an addiction to hard drugs, You and I  like most people have absolutely no idea where to  source Heroin, but put a hardened addict into any city or  large town and they will find a source  and a collection of like minded individuals within the hour.  

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

and, of course, download.

That era is basically over. Given that AI is here and that everything we do on the computer is monitored, it's a simple task to program the AI to block anything the authorities deem illegal.

 

The facilities that house the computers that monitor us are huge and use massive amounts of power, as I saw on a documentary I saw. Of course that will change as tech develops- the size will reduce and the capacity will increase, though they may have to build new power stations just to run them.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That era is basically over. Given that AI is here and that everything we do on the computer is monitored, it's a simple task to program the AI to block anything the authorities deem illegal.

 

The facilities that house the computers that monitor us are huge and use massive amounts of power, as I saw on a documentary I saw. Of course that will change as tech develops- the size will reduce and the capacity will increase, though they may have to build new power stations just to run them.

You have my sympathy TBL, it can’t be easy.