BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

On WhatsApp on my Android Pixel 8 Pro and in my iPad Pro (WhatsApp on Chrome Browser), I don’t get thumbnails, I get the picture as soon as I open the Chat Group.

On a walk this morning/afternoon with a friend who was a Crown Prosecutor, she said if it is sent to a chat group/conversation on WhatsApp, one doesn’t need to have opened it, as your phone will have "made" the photo by receiving it.

[Russ]

I tend to keep out of chat groups - fair enough. It would explain how he’s been charged. I still get the impression he’s not deliberately searched for this stuff but a good tip is not to get involved with anything involving adults just above “legal age”.

It’ll all come out in the end…

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

The law is against the "making" of illegal images.

However, while not defending Mr Edwards, the law seems a little alarming in some cases.



Most of those make sense (not sure how you would prove Live Streaming) - its the last two seem a bit alarming.

Someone could randomly send you/group an image, without warning, and you're classed as "making" it ?
The same with an email, how could you possible know what was in an attached image, until you opened it ?

In fact, the previous one about an automatic 'pop-up' seems a bit concerning as well, the point of an "automatic pop-up" is you had no control.
Accessing a pornographic website itself is not normally illegal - of course you could just run any half decent pop-up blocker to prevent that happening.

Also, how do you even report it ?
If you keep the image in any form as evidence, or forward it on to police, you're breaking the law yourself ?
I suppose the relevant word is "can", so isnt always interpreted that way, depending on context, events etc.

In the case of Huw, what he should have done is as noted above "delete the content, leave the group, block the sender".

So the thing that (for me) points towards his guilt is that he didnt do the last two of those things.
Why you would be in a private group unless you were looking for dodgy images, its not as if legal porn is hard to find, just google it.

The Met advise people not to delete such images as they say that this will help to trace the offender.

The Online Safety Act amended the 1978 legislation to grant Ofcom the right to be granted immunity from the various charges of viewing, creating etc of illegal material because of their duty of online safety.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Russ

I tend to keep out of chat groups - fair enough. It would explain how he’s been charged. I still get the impression he’s not deliberately searched for this stuff but a good tip is not to get involved with anything involving adults just above “legal age”.

It’ll all come out in the end…

Having read the Mirror’s interview with the 21 year old Welsh guy Edwards allegedly groomed I’m taking back what I believed about him not deliberately seeking out this stuff.

Innocent until proven guilty of course. But my guess is we won’t see or hear from him in many years.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The Met advise people not to delete such images as they say that this will help to trace the offender.

The Online Safety Act amended the 1978 legislation to grant Ofcom the right to be granted immunity from the various charges of viewing, creating etc of illegal material because of their duty of online safety.

Don’t delete items we can prosecute you from holding whether you’ve opened them or not. Fantastic.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Don’t delete items we can prosecute you from holding whether you’ve opened them or not. Fantastic.

Indeed:

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/adv...n/pornography/

The law on this is a mess, even the police can fall foul of the laws on child pornography:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...robyn-williams

[Stephen]

I've seen also that an episode of Doctor Who, where Edwards featured reading the news has been temporarily removed from iPlayer so they can edit the episode to remove him and add in a different voice over or something.

Of course, the BBC goes to great lengths to cancel you, once convicted.
A huge number of old Top of the Pops are no longer shown (i.e. repeated).

Here you go : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo

[1andrew1]

You don't need to be convicted to be removed, as BBC Children in Need has removed its advert that starred the Southport stabbing suspect. To be fair, I think we'd have all done the same in this instance.
https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-remov...spect-13189841

[jfman]

Dear Huw,

Since we kept paying you while you were investigated for being a beast is there any chance of 200 grand back?

Yours,

DG, BBC

https://www.theguardian.com/media/ar...-return-salary

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jfman

Dear Huw,

Since we kept paying you while you were investigated for being a beast is there any chance of 200 grand back?

Yours,

DG, BBC

https://www.theguardian.com/media/ar...-return-salary

Dear DG,

No.

Kind regards

Huw

P.s where's my leaving present and please stop sending the Whatsapp messages.

Sentenced today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgxg673y8et

Edwards was given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years - so he will not go to prison unless he offends during that time

He will be on the sex offenders' register for seven years, and will have to complete rehabilitation

[RichardCoulter]

The judge said that Edwards had crossed the threshold for a custodial sentence, but because he pleaded guilty early on and had mitigating circumstances (mental health issues), he gave him a lesser sentence of 6 months suspended.

[nomadking]

Ridiculous getting credit for pleading guilty when caught with undeniable proof.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Ridiculous getting credit for pleading guilty when caught with undeniable proof.

Indeed, but its standard practice when sentencing is being worked out.