Just a reminder - any of us foolish enough to open a file sent to us will be guilty of Edwards' offence and should be prepared to receive the same sentence. His position has nothing to do with it. Neither does the fact that he immediately deleted the images and told the correspondent not to send him any more.

Seems the right sentence to me - I hope for the Magistrate's sake he never accidentally opens an attachment sent to him by any malicious perpetrator. Which was not, of course, let's make clear, what happened to Huw Edwards.

There are probably more famous people involved here.

You get more punished for posting silly things online which should be taken with a pinch of salt, at least the granny in prison will be nice and warm this Winter.

No I think the problem is - the law and the public should NOT be influenced by media hype. It happened with Brexit (a trivial issue exaggerated by media - and Farage of course who, like his mate Don, knows just how to use the media). It happened with Covid (a nasty new virus for a small area of people but NOT the killer plague for all depicted by the media). It's happened with False Allegations. Thank Heavens for the few decent and sensible people like this Magistrate (he could have got huge positive publicity by going with the media hype). Check out my video this week -

Yes he seems to have been sentenced fairly, without bowing to media pressure. But of course people will now go on about cover ups, establishment secrets etc, either out of genuine ignorance about where sentencing bars are set for everyone, or because they just love to shout!

And you can guarantee the media will mention that one of the photos he didn't look at and deleted was of a 7 year old.

The most appalling crimes say the PM and the BBC. I can think of many more appalling crimes than a newsreader looking at porn. But if media and Prime Ministers regard it as the most appalling, let society delight that we have stopped this massive criminal.

Adrian Allen's input

I recall there was an episode of Judge John Deed about this with him being set up in similar fashion.

It does now seem there was more to it than "accidentally" opening a file; and he at one point even explicitly agreed to underage images. Went on for four years.

But I still stand by my comments on sentencing, and from a small piece by The Secret Barrister he was sentenced four square within sentencing guidelines.

Those spouting "one rule for them..." are talking out of their proverbial...

Edwards got off lightly.

People in positions like he held do have a bigger responsibility to behave. How awful that the BBC's very own announcement of the Queen's passing after 70 years is now so sullied and so soon after it happened.

He should have been made an example of and served some time in prison. Examples are being made of those "rioters" as we speak, and those who wrote silly things on twitter. Who ever knew that writing silly things in the public domain was worse than child abuse.

Irrespective of what he was sent, he was knowingly engaging with wretched people who think nothing of sharing such content and having passed the age of 60 I feel sure he hasn't just started acting like this, and why was he sending such huge sums of money to a teenager anyway?

One or two people I've talked to about this have suggested they think he actually wanted to be caught. Well when you consider he was such a high profile BBC news man with widespread recognition how can he have ever imagined he would be able to openly do the things he has done without it coming out at some point?

In the end though, the biggest penalty he has suffered is the total loss of his reputation and that will never be restored for sexual kind of offences. People such as Jonathan here will be well aware of that.

I wonder if many of Edwards friends or former colleagues have personally stuck by him in this? Did they with you Jonathan?

Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics. Amazing - could well have referred to one gorgeous hunk. Young? Like Savile it could have been "over 16 but under 21". My point is it's the way media stokes and pours petrol by using language making it all far worse than it was and by going along with the hyped story. People DO like porn - god knows why - and because it's not to our taste shouldn't affect their acceptance as a newsreader (silly job anyway).

Couldn't of he bought some beefcake mags or use his phone for porn on the surface web?

If he was getting underage sicko stuff why not go to the police? It sounds like his wife used him for a meal ticket anyway. Huw has fucked it up for himself. If I was his son, I would sever ties and protect my children the best I can. If he sent cards they would be posted back unopened.

If it sent him to do a downward spiral then tough...it's not my problem.

JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics

This is the passage on BBC news:

"The court heard that in another exchange with Williams, Edwards replied "yes" followed by three 'X's when asked whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16"."

I know spin can be put on this either way (could & discerned...), but as the judge did explicitly comment this is - words to the effect - not a case of Edwards receiving isolated unsolicited pics. He was being a lot more sly than this - and allowing it to happen.

So, fairly sentenced for a horrible crime that does sustain the real abuse of children. No point sending him to prison though. I bet he will run a mile from any porn from now on. The judge and Probation reports accepted his remorse as genuine.

A civilised society would just let him move on now. Where has forgiveness gone?

I was in the pub tonight talking about this story with a couple of others. One of them asked a good point in these days of fake imagery. These are real young people in the case of Huw Edwards, but what if the same pictures were not real people but simple avatars, very realistic avatars doing exactly the same things at the same ages, but not actual real young persons. Where does the law stand on that when there genuinely wouldn't be any physical victim but some of these avatars can now look as good as real photography of real people.

Well spotted WYOT - again I failed to look at every word of the sentence. But I suspect if Edwards had been genuinely interested in under age there would have been hundreds of pics, not just a few. His "Don't send under age" implies genuine lack of interest more than a desire for safety. But leaving aside the question - your overall question is right. What has gone wrong with society when our healthy desire to protect yet deal with kindness is so secondary to our desire to see and inflate the worst, titillated by "a great story". I've long wondered why humans seem unable to sympathise with both victims and perpetrators in different ways.

JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics. Amazing - could well have referred to one gorgeous hunk. Young? Like Savile it could have been "over 16 but under 21". My point is it's the way media stokes and pours petrol by using language making it all far worse than it was and by going along with the hyped story. People DO like porn - god knows why - and because it's not to our taste shouldn't affect their acceptance as a newsreader (silly job anyway).


Child rape is not porn.

Did he call the police when it was sent to him? No.

Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics. Amazing - could well have referred to one gorgeous hunk. Young? Like Savile it could have been "over 16 but under 21". My point is it's the way media stokes and pours petrol by using language making it all far worse than it was and by going along with the hyped story. People DO like porn - god knows why - and because it's not to our taste shouldn't affect their acceptance as a newsreader (silly job anyway).


Child rape is not porn.

Did he call the police when it was sent to him? No.


It's laughable how people are trying to defend him. If he wanted AI porn he could have Googled it or gotten some Hentai shit.

If he shouted at a police dog he would have gotten so jail time.

Too much excuse making for Edwards here.

As he watches the news he used to present tonight and sees another man his age sent down for a year or two for a twitter/X post the authorities didn't like he might care to consider just how lucky he has been.

He clearly paid his lawyers well. To bleat on in mitigation that his failure to go to Oxford University in some way explains his behaviour is preposterous and insulting to the rest of us. The judge must have bought into this nonsense like only some judges manage to do.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics. Amazing - could well have referred to one gorgeous hunk. Young? Like Savile it could have been "over 16 but under 21". My point is it's the way media stokes and pours petrol by using language making it all far worse than it was and by going along with the hyped story. People DO like porn - god knows why - and because it's not to our taste shouldn't affect their acceptance as a newsreader (silly job anyway).


Child rape is not porn.

Did he call the police when it was sent to him? No.


It's laughable how people are trying to defend him. If he wanted AI porn he could have Googled it or gotten some Hentai shit.

If he shouted at a police dog he would have gotten so jail time.

I think he should have got exactly the same sentence as everybody else who commits the same crime, and he did.
It is nonsense to say he should set an example just because he reads the news.
I am pretty sure that no criminal has ever gone straight because they want to be just like Martin Brunt.