Close Menu
    Ex BBC presenter Huw Edwards charged with making indecent images of children
    United Kingdom

    Ex BBC presenter Huw Edwards charged with making indecent images of children

    Share.
    View 19 Comments

    19 Comments

    2. ferrel_hadley on

      >The broadcaster, 62, faces three charges over alleged activity between December 2020 and April 2022.

      >Edwards – who quit BBC in April after 40 years on screens – was arrested last November and will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday morning (July 31).

      I don’t think we will have as many people defending him now.

      Without knowing if this is related to the case that blew up last year it’s hard to know if the parents ended up being right or if this is something else.

    3. bathabit on

      Question for clarification: “making” in this context means downloading (i.e making a copy), right?

    7. Enders-game on

      Between this and Southport… well, that’s enough internet for me today. Life is an unrelenting hell.

    8. limeflavoured on

      From the Guardian article:

      >“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.”

      Before we get too much nonsense.

    10. migraine_boy on

      From a position of covering to most prestigious events in the country to… this… madness. I’m no conspiracy nut, but it does make you wonder what happens in the higher echelons

    11. ZebraSandwich4Lyf on

      What exactly does “making” indecent images mean?

      No argument against him being a nonce, guy is clearly a wrongun I just dunno what making images means in this context.

    12. AonghusMacKilkenny on

      Jesus fucking Christ, and we had people defending him a few months ago.

      The BBC announcing the Queen’s death is now tainted forever. National scandal.

    13. cutielemon07 on

      Well. Now I’m curious. But I don’t suppose we’ll find out for a while still. Speculation isn’t good, because after all, Libel laws are still in place.

      That said, I feel bad for his wife and kids.

    14. Fionacat on

      As some people were asking about AI

      “In deciding whether the image is a photograph/pseudo-photograph or a prohibited image, prosecutors should ask themselves whether the image, if printed, would look like a photograph/ pseudo-photograph. If it would, then it should be prosecuted as such. Some high-quality computer-generated indecent images/AI Generated images can pass as photographs and it is possible to prosecute on the basis of quality computer-generated images as pseudo-photographs. Technology exists to alter photographs to appear as though they are AI-generated images. The law applies equally to photographs and pseudo-photographs, regardless as to their method of creation.”

      Someone was super on the ball at CPS and already ahead of AI creations, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

    15. GallusRedhead on

      I remember in the wake of a previous scandal someone saying that there was another perpetrator who was high profile in the BBC, and they wouldn’t go on record about it because of the power and influence of that person. I can’t for the life of me remember who it was being interviewed, but I wonder if this was who they meant.

    16. Equivalent_Pay_8931 on

      This sub was defending him last week always been a weirdo ever since he paid a 17 year old to send him nudes.

    17. ash_ninetyone on

      The story first said young person. Most people assumed it meant 18-20. It’s not illegal, but considered weird for a 60+ year old and improper of his position.

      It being of children is a lot worse than that ofc

      Btw in the law
      > In the UK, it is illegal to make, distribute, possess, or show indecent images of anyone under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. This includes photographic and AI-generated images.

      Legislation defines a child as being under 18.

      Doesn’t matter if they looked older or you thought they were. are categories that apply. Sentencing is based on category. Category is determined by severity (such as the act they’re doing), and then goes from there based on age/vulnerability, intoxication, etc. There’s no details on where that lies or what it involves. That’s unlikely to happen until his trial.

      It’s weirdly unsettling to see someone who was so widely seen as the fact of news in this country destroy his own life and reputation by (until proven guilty, but given he’s been charged…) engaging in noncery. There wasn’t a major event that happened in the UK without his face and commentary applied

    18. redbarebluebare on

      Isn’t he one of the top paid individuals at the BBC too? Yeah maybe time their funding arrangements are reviewed too.

    19. mariegriffiths on

      The number of nonces at the BBC is beyond belief.

      1. Either they are not really nonces and this is a smear campaign to bring them into line.

      2. The BBC actively employs nonces and uses this as Kompromat to bring them into line.