Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

I don’t know who he is, and I don’t know how torrenting works, but that sounds reasonable. Were it not for the fact that the article ends by saying:

Speaking after the sentencing, Holly Triggs, operations manager at the National Crime Agency, said: "Tom Binns deliberately collected a huge number of indecent images of children.”

When I worked for the police, cases like this always, often had a defendant claiming they didn’t know how computers really worked. But yet somehow thousands of child porn images manage to burn themselves onto DVD. Get moved from one folder to another. They were never mortified or outraged that this stuff had been found. As you might imagine someone innocent of this would react. Just very calmly pretending they didn’t know what they were doing. Made my blood boil. Fortunately I didn’t have to hear the descriptions of the images.
 
Find it hard to believe anyone would torrent porn when there is at least one legal and free website which has cut through into everyday consciousness enough to be featured in lots of stand up comedians routines

Unless of course they were looking for something else
 
To play devil's advocate for a minute, I guess if he was obsessively torrenting loads of adult content it would be entirely possible to download a number of archives of images without being aware of what they were, and perhaps never even opening them
Even if it were the case, the forensic experts employed by the prosecution would be able to proved that the images were accessed even if his defense is claiming he did it unwittingly.
Every file on modern file systems, has a modified, accessed, changed (mac) attribute. It’s a very easy argument to dismiss.
 
I don't quite know how this shit works but apparently Huw Edwards has been on full pay all this time and was even given an inflation busting pay increase in that time according to today's annual report. He's still the third highest paid presenter at £450k or something. But doesn't work for them. Anyone?
 
I don't quite know how this shit works but apparently Huw Edwards has been on full pay all this time and was even given an inflation busting pay increase in that time according to today's annual report. He's still the third highest paid presenter at £450k or something. But doesn't work for them. Anyone?

Happens to police officers all the time: suspended on full pay for years while the disciplinary process moves at glacial pace. If they retire before the process finishes, they still get the full pension.
 
^ that - and the fact that he would have got his annual pay rise before the allegations were even aired.
 
I don't quite know how this shit works but apparently Huw Edwards has been on full pay all this time and was even given an inflation busting pay increase in that time according to today's annual report. He's still the third highest paid presenter at £450k or something. But doesn't work for them. Anyone?

The article was about pay was for the financial year April 2023-April 2024.

And he resigned in April. So "all this time" isnt quite the right way to put it, he doesnt work for them or get paid by them for several months now. As for the pay rise, that apparently got agreed before the stories about his private life emerged.
 
I don't quite know how this shit works but apparently Huw Edwards has been on full pay all this time and was even given an inflation busting pay increase in that time according to today's annual report. He's still the third highest paid presenter at £450k or something. But doesn't work for them. Anyone?
Listened to this on radio 4 today the presenter wasn’t letting it drop 😁
 
We could do with Huw Edwards' name being added to the thread title, I'll ask the mods.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “Huw Edwards, 62, of Southwark, London has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children following a Met Police investigation.

“The offences, which are alleged to have taken place between December 2020 and April 2022, relate to images shared on a WhatsApp chat.

“Edwards was arrested on 8 November 2023. He was charged on Wednesday, 26 June following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“He has been bailed to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, 31 July.

“Media and the public are strongly reminded that this is an active case. Nothing should be published, including on social media, which could prejudice future court proceedings.”

Or maybe not.
 
Or maybe not.

That doesn't change anything, the thread has always been about him, it just wasn't known who when the thread was started, so it's logical to add his name to the title now, to avoid someone starting a new one.

Threads will always be started on stories like this, people just need to be careful of what they post, that's always been the case on here.
 
Can we change it to Huw Edwards charged with possessing images of child ****

Not a good idea, we only know he's charged with making indecent images of children, not the nature of them. (edited to remove incorrect info.)

In fact, it would be a good idea to edit your post, making claims like that, when it hasn't be reported in the public domain is just the sort of thing that's a big no-no, and could get urban in trouble.

See Important: a note about the 'nonce' threads and naming living individuals

When you suggest, imply or infer that some living person is a nonce/kiddy-fiddler/sexual abuser/keen indulger in illegal sexual acts/squirrel shafter it puts the site at serious risk.

Unless you can support this claim with credibly-sourced links with references to actual successful prosecutions (NOT just allegations or rumours), there's a chance I'll get a letter from a very expensive lawyer saying that the post is defamatory.
 
Last edited:
Not a good idea, we only know he's charged with making indecent images of children, not the nature of them, the charges relate to cat. B & C offences, so not the worst.

In fact, it would be a good idea to edit your post, making claims like that, when it hasn't be reported in the public domain is just the sort of thing that's a big no-no, and could get urban in trouble.
6 category A offences, which are the worst
 
Not a good idea, we only know he's charged with making indecent images of children, not the nature of them.

In fact, it would be a good idea to edit your post, making claims like that, when it hasn't be reported in the public domain is just the sort of thing that's a big no-no, and could get urban in trouble.
Logical head on.

I’m guessing the “grade” or “categories” of his obscene pictures as stated in the charges are driven by quite specific parameters, probably including trashpony ‘s description.

Pretty fucked up and grim all round tbh.
 
I known the offences relating to this are categorised for a reason but I struggle to get my head round the idea there's a worst form as such.

Also, investigating and allocating these images must be hell on the mental health of those police officers doing so.
Yes it does.
Fortunately, coming from private enterprise we would involve police as soon as we saw anything suspect. But if these celebrities are anything to go by, it is just the tip of the iceberg. And it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom