Huw Edwards Admits Child Porn Charges

[youngmafbog]

37 disgusting images of which 7 were cat 'A'

Vile beast needs a lenghty sentence.

[Untitled]

my understanding of the sky news coverage was that these were all images allegedly sent to him by the person who was in them? i.e. that they are supposed to have taken indecent pictures of themselves while underage and sent them to him? 

is that right or am i mistaken? 

[gingejbee]

No doubt somebody will pop up here to blame the BBC...

[naomi24]

untitled, a report from yesterday said 'children' so presumably it's more than one child.

[Untitled]

sky news says all the images came from one man who was an adult when they corresponded... i seem to recall when this controversy first came about that it was regarding this person but perhaps i am not remembering correctly... they also continued to exchange legal porn pictures with each other afterwards

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-set-to-appear-in-court-after-being-charged-with-making-indecent-images-of-children-13187776
 

were all these images of the person sending them or did this person have a gallery of such images of other children and sent them? 

[barry1010]

He was sent images via WhatsApp, one was of a very young child.  

Last year he paid a young woman to send pornographic photos of herself, which led to his suspension from the BBC. The police investigated but stated no crime had been committed as she was over the age of consent.

I think these photos of children were sent by another adult.

 

 

[youngmafbog]

Sorry should have supplied a link, everyone should be able to access this one:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13692595/huw-edwards-guilty-child-pornography-charges-court-appearance.html

 

 

[youngmafbog]

"

Former BBC news star Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty to making 41 indecent images of children - and now faces jail.

Edwards, 62, kept seven category 'A' images of the very worst kind on his phone after being sent them on WhatsApp. 

The sick child porn images showed youngsters aged between seven and 14, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.  "

[youngmafbog]

//I think these photos of children were sent by another adult.//

And?

What would you have done if sent to you?  Same as he did replying how good looking the child was?

This man is a vile disgusting pervert and needs locking away for a long time.

[barry1010]

This is the reason I prefer the old charge of 'possession of indecent images' which is a more accurate description than 'making' which implies more than receiving and keeping images.

I would like to think the people who are abusing the children to create the images are caught but I doubt it. They could be anywhere in the world

[curlyfries81]

And the sicko got a £40,000 payrise last year, despite hardly working. I hope he's locked up for a very long time and my sympathies go to his victims and his family. 

[naomi24]

//This man is a vile disgusting pervert and needs locking away for a long time.//

 

I cant disagree with that.

[Untitled]

the police use a database of already-categorised child abuse images to "filter" ones that they catch people possessing which suggests that some of the ones in circulation might be quite old... i.e. the people who created them long gone or already imprisoned. what a horrible thought. 
 

do calm down youngmafbog. barry was just clarifying the reported details he was not attaching any opinion to them. 

[barry1010]

Young, I was answering the question, not passing an opinion. If I received such images I would report it to the police immediately as would any decent person.

Thankfully I never have had that problem but I understand that others have clicked innocent looking links or had pop ups with these images. 

 

[barry1010]

Thank you, Untitled 

[Old_Geezer]

I also find the use of the word "making" inappropriate. I suspect it was deliberately chosen by someone to express distaste of the whole affair. One doesn't make a video if watching YouTube, one isn't making an e-mail if one arrives in the inbox, one isn't making an app if downloading from Play Store, one is therefore not making photos if sent them.

[youngmafbog]

You appeared to be making excuses for him.  Perhaps make things clearer.

I make no appologies for be extremley angry at this (or anyone else that partakes in child pornography in any shape or form).

[davebro3]

I agree - but presumably the "making" wouldn't happen if there wasn't someone to pass the images on to (for gain?).

[New Judge]

"Vile beast needs a lenghty sentence."

He's unlikely to get one.

First of all, let's address a Daily Mirror headline:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-huw-edwards-warned-could-33365209

"Huw Edwards warned he could face 12 years in jail...."

The maximum sentence for the offence is ten years, and since Mr Edwards has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to a one third discount off any sentence, making the maximum that can be imposed 6 years and 8 months. However:

"Westminster Magistrates' Court was told Edwards' offending had a starting point of 12 months in prison."

Which, looking at the sentencing guidelines, seems about right.

It seems the Magistrates' court has retained jurisdiction and ordered a probation report. The maximum prison sentence that court can impose (whether immediate custody or suspended) is six months. Mr Edwards would have been warned if the court had not ruled out the possibility of sending him to the Crown Court for sentencing if, following the report, it was considered the lower court's powers were insufficient. I'm sure that if this warning was given it would have been reported. I've read four reports and none mentions it.

So, it looks like the maximum he will see is six month's custody. (The Magistrates' courts can apply the one third discount in such cases by not sending the matter to the Crown Court). However, read on:

"However his barrister, Philip Evans KC, said there were mitigating factors and the sentence should be suspended.

He said: 'There are serious issues in relation to Mr Edwards health, both physical and mental, at the time of the offending and now.' "

It is my belief that Mr Edwards is extremely unlikely to see the inside of a prison cell. My best guess is that he will received a prison sentence of six months maximum, but suspended. The court may see fit to accompany that sentence with a Rehabilitation requirement.

[Untitled]

why isn't this going to crown court? i had missed that. seems astonishing for such a serious offense.

[ToraToraTora]

All criminal cases start in the magistrates court. Why they have not kicked it straight up to crown court I don't know, judge?