What has emerged is a man whose sexual interests clearly started to be young men of just above legal age but looking at photos, not doing anything about it. He got involved with someone online (SUCH a dangerous place) who started sending him underage photos which Edwards rejected and asked to stop. The law, already confused saying such things always mean abused children (some of whom do not exist), and anybody even looking at such photos by mistake, is a child rapist, arrest and prosecute him. The media, loving a great story, inflates and simplifies it. The public, incapable now of rational thought, accepts that he is a child rapist rather as they believe Jimmy Savile abused dead bodies (better story). His career over. His marriage over. Quite possibly his life over, poor man. Media delight. Punter delight. Celebrity punished. BBC condemned. End of story. End of civilisation as we know it. Back to delightful middle East - "I want that bit of land"... "you have a big nose and like money". STUPID!!! Or rioting in Southport "he's an immigrant". Loathsome. A tiny chunk of humanity is behaving like animals. Give them a simple slogan and they will obey. Make Britain great again! I experienced this 24 years ago and warned of the consequences but no-one listened. So I started KingOfHits online.

"Her thoughts are with the victims whose lives have been destroyed" says Lisa Nandy, latest poltician of cliches. STUPID!!!

Why the heck is a celebrity using dating apps, I am sure he could have his pick at any gay bar?

If was receiving images he didn't want which is a crime, he should of went to the police right away or throw the phone away in the sewer or Thames. Then again he did send nude to underage lads online. Maybe he is in to filth just like Gary Glitter and Chris Langham.

BBC is ruined regardless. More people are cancelling their debit cards for the licence fee. TV's still work if you have one or not.

I understand the illegality but I absolutely abhor those like Nandy who falsely claim your life is ruined if you are sexualy assaulted or illicit pix taken etc.
The vile cruelty by these thoughtless idiots tells victims they can never recover from assault when the opposite should encouraged.

The victims of the crime. What victims? the people in the videos and pictures have been abused, but this is the crime of the person that filmed them, not the person that looked at the pictures, if so then the vice squad are all criminals. If you were sent illegal pics by someone that you didn't know then my advice would be to delete them immediately. Don't tell the cops, because then you will be arrested and it will be up to you to prove that you didn't request them. People have been prosecuted from having dodgy pics on their phone that were sent unsolicited. Like JK said its all about what is a good story. The tabloids all present Huw as a peado. He had 41 under-age images that he didn't ask for and probably 100s of adult images that might have been requested. If the sender was to send Lisa Nandy the same images then she too would be a paedo.

Hedda wrote:
I understand the illegality but I absolutely abhor those like Nandy who falsely claim your life is ruined if you are sexualy assaulted or illicit pix taken etc.
The vile cruelty by these thoughtless idiots tells victims they can never recover from assault when the opposite should encouraged.

The BBC should rebate every licence fee payer. Personally all the BBC staff should be sacked then reapply for jobs, then be vetted prior any interviews.

No wonder people hate legacy media.

Green Man wrote:
Hedda wrote:
I understand the illegality but I absolutely abhor those like Nandy who falsely claim your life is ruined if you are sexualy assaulted or illicit pix taken etc.
The vile cruelty by these thoughtless idiots tells victims they can never recover from assault when the opposite should encouraged.

The BBC should rebate every licence fee payer. Personally all the BBC staff should be sacked then reapply for jobs, then be vetted prior any interviews.

No wonder people hate legacy media.

Youtube should be banned, there is no regulation. People like Andrew Tate can spout anything they want without question or verification. Why are they not subject to offcom rules like broadcast tv channels

robbiex wrote:
The victims of the crime. What victims? the people in the videos and pictures have been abused, but this is the crime of the person that filmed them, not the person that looked at the pictures

I might be old fashioned Robbie but I think knowingly looking at children being raped, should alongside filming said rape, be criminalised.

robbiex wrote:
The victims of the crime. What victims? the people in the videos and pictures have been abused, but this is the crime of the person that filmed them, not the person that looked at the pictures, if so then the vice squad are all criminals. If you were sent illegal pics by someone that you didn't know then my advice would be to delete them immediately. Don't tell the cops, because then you will be arrested and it will be up to you to prove that you didn't request them. People have been prosecuted from having dodgy pics on their phone that were sent unsolicited. Like JK said its all about what is a good story. The tabloids all present Huw as a peado. He had 41 under-age images that he didn't ask for and probably 100s of adult images that might have been requested. If the sender was to send Lisa Nandy the same images then she too would be a paedo.


He probably stored them on the cloud. When he was arrested the police would take his tech to go through it, it's standard practise when you are done for porn.

The police get done also Robbie because there is a lot pervy idiots in the police force.

Wyot wrote:
robbiex wrote:
The victims of the crime. What victims? the people in the videos and pictures have been abused, but this is the crime of the person that filmed them, not the person that looked at the pictures

I might be old fashioned Robbie but I think knowingly looking at children being raped, should alongside filming said rape, be criminalised.

Well this is my point, he was sent the pics without asking for them, so he didn't knowingly look at the images. If he paid for the images you could argue that he is creating a market, but not when they were sent without been asked.

robbiex wrote:
Wyot wrote:'''''
robbiex wrote:
The victims of the crime. What victims? the people in the videos and pictures have been abused, but this is the crime of the person that filmed them, not the person that looked at the pictures

I might be old fashioned Robbie but I think knowingly looking at children being raped, should alongside filming said rape, be criminalised.

Well this is my point, he was sent the pics without asking for them, so he didn't knowingly look at the images. If he paid for the images you could argue that he is creating a market, but not when they were sent without been asked.

Yet Huw still carried on messaging him.

I'm with Robbie on this - it has become ridiculous. Rather as Israel killing Hamas leaders gives stupid sanction for anybody to assassinate Netanyahu, so prosecuting Edwards (who would never have been prosecuted were he not under fire for other, non criminal charges) tells anyone who wants to bring down King Charles III or a Crown Court judge or a top cop only has to acquire a private E-M (not hard these days) and send an apparently sensible E-M (from the Prince's Trust or another supported charity) with a schedule attached containing kiddy porn and BANG - trial time. Insanity.

Possibly GM because he wanted more perfectly legal if unwise pics of young men.

JK2006 wrote:
Possibly GM because he wanted more perfectly legal if unwise pics of young men.

Couldn't he just buy beefcake magazines or look at porn on his phone?

JK2006 wrote:
Possibly GM because he wanted more perfectly legal if unwise pics of young men.


More with GM on this one as legal but unwise pics of young men are freely available to directly access without continuing an online relationship with a man who has sent you Cat 1 child abuse pictures.

However, agreed that being held responsible for what someone else sends your WhatsApp etc - in general - is troubling.

Agree with all; very unwise; very stupid but seriously NOT criminal and anyone with mildly unwise sexual fantasies should not be prosecuted for serious offences. I find "attempted" crimes dodgy but "intended" ones even more so and unintended, unattempted ones strike me as way beyond acceptable (unless, of course, it's a GREAT STORY).

I just hope he is dealt with proportionately and not sent to prison, both for the reasons discussed above, but also because he was clearly mentally unwell and making ill judged decisions.

Men receive community sentences all the time for much more than he has done images-wise. He may be able to access more help and support on a community sentence.

Wyot wrote:
I just hope he is dealt with proportionately and not sent to prison, both for the reasons discussed above, but also because he was clearly mentally unwell and making ill judged decisions.

Men receive community sentences all the time for much more than he has done images-wise. He may be able to access more help and support on a community sentence.

My problem is the term "Making" instead or downloading/opening files. Making sounds like he has house full of sweets to lure kids and take filthy photos.

He had options which was cut ties with the bloke he was chatting, report to the police and hand over every bit of information he had if needed doxxing him, lob the phone in a swamp. His children will have to be interviewed also.

A reminder that if you have any pre 2007 Page 3 pix which made Murdoch a fortune in The Sun on your phone or pinned up on the wall that some are now classed as child abuse images.

The bbc were informed of his arrest last November, on the condition that they didn't reveal the information or act on it, even if you believe that people should be sacked based on an arrest alone, let alone a charge, which I don't. Given this information I don't see how the bbc could have done anything else. I know some people on the right will be against the bbc, even when their opinion would be completely different were it another channel. He resigned in April before his court case. I don't think that Edwards has done anything illegal, but was advised to plead guilty given this would be a jury decision and given the sensationalism around it there would be no way that he would be given a not guilty verdict.