Never had him down as a pederast.
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Upcoming suicide no doubt
I'm slightly confused, what are the 'legal' pictures of children that he was happy to receive exactly?
Yes but you suspect that this is used as a convenient charge when they catch someone who is actually actively engaged in illegal porn viewing/exchange.
If you got a dodgy pic from a rondomer, deleted it and blocked them (for example) then even if somehow you came to the attention of the law then I doubt that is the sort of thing they are interested in prosecution. And of course you as a normal person may well have reported it to the cops at the time anyway.
Maybe images that were obviously for sexual pleasure but not in of themselves obscene e.g. kids in swimsuits or whatever?
From a post I put earlier in this thread
“it seems like it has been a prolonged conversation where he had received IIOC.
I would add the wording in the sky article says “they continued sending legal images,” after the IIOC was shared.
There is a category of images where we grade the indecent images which we would call “6’s or indicative.” That means basically images that are technically legal because they are 1) impossible to determine if they are definitely under 18 despite probably being so or 2) legal because whilst sexually suggestive there is nobody e.g tight swimwear on the child meaning you can’t see the genitals or the outline of them. Still morally awful, and would shock the average person but not technically illegal. So they would be legal but enough to suggest intent.
That’s my educated opinion anyway”
I suppose there is also a wider story to this now which is that he is either gay or bisexual, as he was originally presumed to be heterosexual with a wife and kids. Feel sorry for them too.
Seems like he liked young men as the individual who was sending him these images was a 25 year old named Alex Williams.
He has already been sentenced -
Seems like he liked young men as the individual who was sending him these images was a 25 year old named Alex Williams.
He has already been sentenced -
All he's got to do is get on the far right, white nationalist grift and he'll be accepted into a new community.
Suspended terms for all these paedophiles and some people who blocked a motorway for a bit got 5 years.
Yeah, a very weird and grim world.
They did. And the only reason it came to light was because they arrested the sender and seen the whats app messages to edwards on your man's phone and went from there. Presumably there was more than one secondary case of the inital arrest of the sender but we are only hearing about edwards.
I get you. The reporting is a touch odd.
Would that not be considered a crime? Say having 1000s of pics of that nature?
GB News gig in 1-3 years
The guy "procuring" them probably got hold of them in the exact same way that Edwards did. Feels like sharing them should be a worse crime than just receiving them but looks as though the law doesn't see it that way.
Sounds like such images are used as likely indicators of someone who consumed dodgier prosecutable images. I'd guess that you could get someone charged for just those sorts of pictures but it sounds like conviction due to reasonable doubt would be very unlikely. Of course they may not even be able to charge someone as each individual image was judged to be legal? I am just guessing. Maybe someone on here with appropriate legal expertise/experience will know?
I'm kind of nervous myself now. Over the last few months I've been in a few whatsapp groups where someone had their phone hacked. The hackers mainly did stupid stuff like changing the group title. So all you had to do was leave the group. In one of them the hacker sent two videos. One of them you could see from the thumbnail was a beheading video, the other thumbnail was a pink blur. I deleted both videos without opening them. I had no intention of watching something I would find disturbing. Does the law here mean that me - and everyone else in the group - could be guilty of "making" these videos if they turn out to be illegal? Is the fact I never watched them any kind of excuse? What should you do if someone you don't know sends you a video on whatsapp you don't want to watch? Seems a bit mad if you should report them to the police - sight unseen - or risk prosecution.
Also god knows where these people found each other. The internet is probably the answer, presumably the dark web and it’s not hard to imagine that the whole “don’t send me anything illegal” line is a very naive attempt at a cover story should he ever be caught, knowing exactly what they’ve arranged to share.
One of the reasons I hated playing sunday league is that you'd have a lot of gremlins who would take the whatsapp group chat as an opp to post vile shite.
I don't think that argument would have any credence given the fact the WA groups you're in sole aim isn't to distribute that kind of material and as you said, the group was hacked.
Whereas Huw was asking for material, receiving lots of it, and was clear his intentions, so the fact something landed on his phone is part of a wider trend of behaviour.
I assumed he was a feck buddy. Two people in a sexual relationship with each other sharing explicit images. Not that it matters really. Sounds as though the law applies in the same way regardless.
Sure. I was mainly thinking of the Irish case that @Hugh Jass mentioned. I'd forgotten about that one but it was a case where someone got prosecuted simply for not reporting content they received - and didn't want or ask for - to the police.
The law is obviously technically quite weird and probably slightly outdated regarding modern online communications, possibly worthy of a review. However you could infer (or would certainly like to think) that the reason they’ve gone after him with it is more due to the surrounding context than the specifics of the law itself.
I mean why are you in a WhatsApp group to get porn at all? - the most bountiful resource on the internet. And when in one where someone has sent you dodgy enough images that their legality has been flagged, would you then continue to get them from him? It kinda paints a wider picture of risky image trading that seems a more sound base for going after him.
Though it still does seem like a law that could easily be abused by the wrong authorities
I don’t really see what’s weird here tbh. That was a perfectly reasonable seeming opinion last year when the initial scandal happened, and apparently an entirely separate incident. Obviously with more context it seems a lot worse now, but that’s true of a lot of things. Also the guy screen grabbing is very pro-Israel and is clearly annoyed at Jones for posting constantly about the rape riots there and trying to use a completely different thing to attack him whilst he ignores that himself. All in all pretty shitty political squabble that has little to do with Edwards and everything to do with online point scoring.
Last edited:
Still more true than not true. They're just more in the public eye. If Huw Edwards was you or I, he probably never would have been caught, and if he had you would never have heard about it.
That said I will concede that successful TV presenters are far more likely than the average member of the public to have a personality disorder of one kind or another. It's what makes them successful in many cases.
That didn’t seem to be the case with the Police Chief case referred to above. The Guardian article suggested that the test was “Under the law on possessing indecent images, it was for Williams to prove she had a legitimate reason to have it, or that she had not seen the video and did not have reason to believe it was indecent.”
Assuming that remains the test (the case is a few years old) it does suggest that the only way in which you could be completely safe if you got a clip with a dodgy looking thumbnail would be to go straight down to the police station. Otherwise, if the person who sent it was arrested, you could easily appear on some list.
Which also happens to be his preferred age range.
There is limited rehabilitative work you can do with a paedophile in a custodial setting and in terms of public protection for most of them custody isn’t necessary.
Not that the other sentence doesn’t seem disproportionate
The sister getting charged isn't too strange, given she sent it to like a dozen people. Good intentions, perhaps, but bad judgment. Her getting charged is absurd, though.
If someone posted a picture in this thread, even hidden in a spoiler, anyone who loaded the page (didn't even see the post) would now have downloaded that picture. Though I would hope it'd take more than that for anyone to get into trouble. In this case she was at least sent it directly, which is how they found her (someone else who was sent the picture reported it to the police).
Here's an explainer about the Irish case I was thinking of. It references a similar case in the UK. The Irish woman got a four month suspended sentence for immediately deleting a video she was sent and replying "why are you sending me child pornography?"
No mention of whether you delete a video without opening it gives you any protection. Does whatsapp still save videos you never look at?
EDIT: I think the UK case has already been discussed in this thread.
Whatsapp has the autosave feature on from when you download the app, so even if you don't click on a photo sent to you and open it, it will already be autosaved to your device. I turn that thing off cause it's annoying having your phone clogged up with crap!
I've just done exactly that. Unfortunately too late for those videos sent by the hacker. Guess that's me (potentially) screwed. Even if I work out where they're saved and delete them it's too late anyway?
How do we think Pogue will do in jail ?
If the cops pull you up on it just say you assumed she was nearly 13
Should be fine. I watched that show recently where they put celebrities in a fake jail. Picked up some tips.
Last edited:
I agree, a lot of them need help instead of sentencing. As long as they've not acted on it of course.