Huw Edwards

[whelk]

Who would you rather go on the piss with? Edwards or Schofield? Edwards for me

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

The law isn't the only standard by which we judge things. Plenty of people are sacked for doing stuff that isn't against the law.

This isn't a comment on this case, just a general comment.

People get sacked for 'doing stuff' that isn't against the law either because they did it on company time or because it could be considered to 'bring their company into disrepute'.  

Based on the facts we know to date, we have 'man gives money to another person after being sent pictures'.  The fact that the man in question works for the BBC and is in the public eye should be irrelevant in this case, unless he did it whilst on 'company time'.  I suspect that's why the BBC did nothing when they first heard the allegations.  Now they seem to be basing their actions on popular public opinion rather than sticking to their defined principles of checking facts and remaining impartial.  All a bit embarrasing for them to be fair.

[Fan The Flames]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

People get sacked for 'doing stuff' that isn't against the law either because they did it on company time or because it could be considered to 'bring their company into disrepute'.  

Based on the facts we know to date, we have 'man gives money to another person after being sent pictures'.  The fact that the man in question works for the BBC and is in the public eye should be irrelevant in this case, unless he did it whilst on 'company time'.  I suspect that's why the BBC did nothing when they first heard the allegations.  Now they seem to be basing their actions on popular public opinion rather than sticking to their defined principles of checking facts and remaining impartial.  All a bit embarrasing for them to be fair.

🤣🤣

You don't know if any of that bears any resemblance to the reality. You don't know what the BBC did originally or what conclusion they came, if they ceased investigating or not, whether they've changed approach, what the investigation is looking at now etc etc. You've filled in some big old gaps there.

[egg]

1 hour ago, the saint in winchester said:

You don't think his ongoing payments to this previously 17 yo (now 20yo) male that continues to fund his drug habit, prompting his parents to speak up pleading for him to stop, bear any investigation? As long as it's not illegal, that's okay?

We don't know whether he's actually still paying money, and if so, why. Regardless, what the man does with the money is down to him, not Edwards.

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

We don't know whether he's actually still paying money, and if so, why. Regardless, what the man does with the money is down to him, not Edwards.

And if he truly is a junkie he would just find another way to fund his habit if that source has dried up. The parents are concerned about the wrong thing.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And if he truly is a junkie he would just find another way to fund his habit if that source has dried up. The parents are concerned about the wrong thing.

Indeed. The suggestion that there must be something wrong because he's apparently giving someone financial support, and the other person apparently has a drug issue, is bizarre. 

The whole situation is a complete farce, yet Edwards is painted as jack the ripper. 

[Lighthouse]

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

7 hours ago, egg said:

Indeed. The suggestion that there must be something wrong because he's apparently giving someone financial support, and the other person apparently has a drug issue, is bizarre. 

The whole situation is a complete farce, yet Edwards is painted as jack the ripper. 

He's not Jack the ripper but if it my child was getting given large sums of money to send compromising pictures to Huw Edwards than I would have a quiet word with his employers and would be disappointed that they did nothing. I think that is a normal reaction of any conscientious parent. 

If he thought it was acceptable then he would not be receiving treatment. I think we used to call it standards in public life. If it was a politician then they would be out on their ear. Sadly there are no winners but I don't think that you can read the news to the nation and then behave like that even if it is legal or not.

 

 

 

Edited 14 July, 2023 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

He's not Jack the ripper but if it my child was getting given large sums of money to send compromising pictures to Huw Edwards than I would have a quiet word with his employers and would be disappointed that they did nothing. I think that is a normal reaction of any conscientious parent. 

If he thought it was acceptable then he would not be receiving treatment. I think we used to call it standards in public life. If it was a politician then they would be out on their ear. Sadly there are no winners but I don't think that you can read the news to the nation and then behave like that even if it is legal or not.

 

 

 

Even when they are 20 years old?

[CB Fry]

9 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

He's not Jack the ripper but if it my child was getting given large sums of money to send compromising pictures to Huw Edwards than I would have a quiet word with his employers and would be disappointed that they did nothing. I think that is a normal reaction of any conscientious parent. 

If he thought it was acceptable then he would not be receiving treatment. I think we used to call it standards in public life. If it was a politician then they would be out on their ear. Sadly there are no winners but I don't think that you can read the news to the nation and then behave like that even if it is legal or not.

 

 

 

You're still accepting The Sun's framing of it when we don't actually know what has happened.

Parents of a 20 year old flogging pictures of his arse on OnlyFans, with maybe a bit of light blackmail thrown in, the parents find out a famous name is involved and off they toddle being offered tens of thousands of pounds from the Murdoch media for a TV interview and the opportunity to blame their adult junkie sons failings on a famous man instead of their own shit parenting.

 

There are MPs who have done comparable things that have not been "out on their ear" because they are still MPs, Chris Pincher is still there, and there's at least one on a sexual assault charge that we don't even know who it is yet, and they are still there.

Boris Johnson recommended women for senior government jobs of the back of them noshing him off in a government buildings, he got another women preferential access and government contracts off the back of him banging them, he cheated on his wife while she was being treated for cancer, he's got kids we don't even know about etc etc etc.

But I know you are absolutely fuming about all that as well.

Edited 15 July, 2023 by CB Fry

[Smirking_Saint]

18 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

People get sacked for 'doing stuff' that isn't against the law either because they did it on company time or because it could be considered to 'bring their company into disrepute'.  

Based on the facts we know to date, we have 'man gives money to another person after being sent pictures'.  The fact that the man in question works for the BBC and is in the public eye should be irrelevant in this case, unless he did it whilst on 'company time'.  I suspect that's why the BBC did nothing when they first heard the allegations.  Now they seem to be basing their actions on popular public opinion rather than sticking to their defined principles of checking facts and remaining impartial.  All a bit embarrasing for them to be fair.

This little episode, if it turns out to be nothing more than what you say looks set to be another complete embarrassment for the BBC, especially so close after the Lineker fall out

Im not really sure what’s happening with BBC top brass right now but its all a bit of a mess isn’t it

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

12 hours ago, CB Fry said:

You're still accepting The Sun's framing of it when we don't actually know what has happened.

Parents of a 20 year old flogging pictures of his arse on OnlyFans, with maybe a bit of light blackmail thrown in, the parents find out a famous name is involved and off they toddle being offered tens of thousands of pounds from the Murdoch media for a TV interview and the opportunity to blame their adult junkie sons failings on a famous man instead of their own shit parenting.

There are MPs who have done comparable things that have not been "out on their ear" because they are still MPs, Chris Pincher is still there, and there's at least one on a sexual assault charge that we don't even know who it is yet, and they are still there.

Boris Johnson recommended women for senior government jobs of the back of them noshing him off in a government buildings, he got another women preferential access and government contracts off the back of him banging them, he cheated on his wife while she was being treated for cancer, he's got kids we don't even know about etc etc etc.

But I know you are absolutely fuming about all that as well.

Clearly the Sun story has a strong degree of truth in it if he has been suspended by the BBC and more people are coming forward. It turns out that Newsnight were investigating Huw Edwards as well.

You seem to forget that the parents went to the BBC first and the Sun was a last resort when the BBC did nothing. The family were not paid by the Sun. 

There is a legal process to go through in many cases but I think Neil Parish would tell you his position was untenable and countless others.

I think you will find that Boris Johnson had to resign from Government. As it happens I think he is a shit anyway. 

I am not outraged by Huw Edwards I just don't like double standards and think the BBC should have responded to the complaint instead of ignoring it. I believe a free press is critical to keeping people and organisations to account. 

I feel sorry for Huw Edwards but I think this sorry episode undermines his integrity and his behaviour does not befit his high ranking position at the BBC. People can do what they like within the law but if you are a senior figurehead of the BBC then there must be some parameters. I would say the same for a church leader, a politician, a policeman etc. I am hardly one to cast the first stone but then I don't front the most watched news programme. 

[The Kraken]

34 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Clearly the Sun story has a strong degree of truth in it if he has been suspended by the BBC and more people are coming forward. It turns out that Newsnight were investigating Huw Edwards as well.

You seem to forget that the parents went to the BBC first and the Sun was a last resort when the BBC did nothing. The family were not paid by the Sun. 

There is a legal process to go through in many cases but I think Neil Parish would tell you his position was untenable and countless others.

I think you will find that Boris Johnson had to resign from Government. As it happens I think he is a shit anyway. 

I am not outraged by Huw Edwards I just don't like double standards and think the BBC should have responded to the complaint instead of ignoring it. I believe a free press is critical to keeping people and organisations to account. 

I feel sorry for Huw Edwards but I think this sorry episode undermines his integrity and his behaviour does not befit his high ranking position at the BBC. People can do what they like within the law but if you are a senior figurehead of the BBC then there must be some parameters. I would say the same for a church leader, a politician, a policeman etc. I am hardly one to cast the first stone but then I don't front the most watched news programme. 

Out of interest, have you actually fact checked what you’ve said there? It’s a lot of words to then repeat yourself in saying the BBC did “nothing” when they actually did do something. Twice, in fact. There’s evidence to show that they responded to the family by email and by telephone. You could argue they should have done more than that, but I’d suggest they have met their minimum requirements at the very least.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

52 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Out of interest, have you actually fact checked what you’ve said there? It’s a lot of words to then repeat yourself in saying the BBC did “nothing” when they actually did do something. Twice, in fact. There’s evidence to show that they responded to the family by email and by telephone. You could argue they should have done more than that, but I’d suggest they have met their minimum requirements at the very least.

Well as far as I understand it the BBC had a complaint in May and did nothing so the parents went to the Sun - of course the BBC said they tried to call the parents but could not get hold of them. If the BBC felt it was acceptable to suspend  Huw Edwards when the story broke in the Sun in July then why did they not suspend him when the parents complained in May? Surely the bulk of the complaint was the same when they initially made contact. It would have been better for all parties if they had acted before it became high profile. I am very happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood this.

Edited 15 July, 2023 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[The Kraken]

21 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Well as far as I understand it the BBC had a complaint in May and did nothing so the parents went to the Sun - of course the BBC said they tried to call the parents but could not get hold of them. If the BBC felt it was acceptable to suspend  Huw Edwards when the story broke in the Sun in July then why did they not suspend him when the parents complained in May? Surely the bulk of the complaint was the same when they initially made contact. It would have been better for all parties if they had acted before it became high profile. I am very happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood this.

The bbc emailed the family and got no response. They telephoned as well, 2-3 weeks later, also no response. There is no ‘of course the BBC said….’, this is factual and on record.

As I said, you could argue that the BBC should have done more than in response to such a major allegation. In mitigation, the BBC get thousands of complaints every year about their presenters, and not far off one a day that are considered ‘major’ (source, The Spectator). 

So hopefully that gives you a bit more information than it appears you had originally.

Edited 15 July, 2023 by The Kraken

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

22 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

The bbc emailed the family and got no response. They telephoned as well, 2-3 weeks later, also no response. There is no ‘of course the BBC said….’, this is factual and on record.

As I said, you could argue that the BBC should have done more than in response to such a major allegation. In mitigation, the BBC get thousands of complaints every year about their presenters, and not far off one a day that are considered ‘major’ (source, The Spectator). 

So hopefully that gives you a bit more information than it appears you had originally.

If you assume that the complaint was the same in May as it was is in July why did it warrant Huw Edwards being suspended then and not in May - was it just because it was more high profile? The issue seems to be that it was not properly investigated when the initial complaint was made. Did anyone even bother to speak to Edwards?

 

Edited 15 July, 2023 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[The Kraken]

5 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

If you assume that the complaint was the same in May as it was is in July why did it warrant Huw Edwards being suspended then and not in May - was it just because it was more high profile? The issue seems to be that it was not properly investigated when the initial complaint was made. 

Again, how can it be investigated if the BBC’s response to the family gained no reply? The original email went out a day after the initial complain was made by the family. Their phone call 2-3 weeks later got no reply.

The family went to the Sun to spill their story, but you’ll excuse me if I withhold my feelings on them for now until a couple of things get resolved.

1) Why did they happen to go to the Sun in the first place, a paper who are a fucking disgrace but who coincidentally pay the most for stories from the public?

2) Why have the family (allegedly) nowsigned up to TalkTV, the sister TV station of The Sun, in a financial deal that is due to net them a nice financial reward?

3) Why, in the first instance, is all this going on when the original complainant contacted the Sun before they first printed and denied the whole back story?

It’s all a bit fishy, and a lot of the facts aren’t there yet. But you seem to be ignoring some of the actual facts that are out there. When you say the case was ‘not properly investigated’, what more did you expect? The BBC tried to get in contact twice and got no response. Or do you think it’s right that, instead of getting back in contact with the bbc, the family went to The Sun instead?

[whelk]

The Newsagents Podcast have had the ex-editor of The Sun, David Yelland on a couple of times last week to give insight.

if anyone thinks the press haven’t got an agenda against the BBC then they should listen. He also talks about Edwards case for libel as they clearly mentioned ‘a child’ was involved and deliberately omitted that they had the ‘victim’s’ denial. He also said from what he knows he would not have had enough to run the story and they know the BBC are constrained and how they would have to react to keep story running. And not that we don’t know this but points out they can say ‘BBC lied’ and BBC could never say equivalent of the Sun.

 

[CB Fry]

57 minutes ago, whelk said:

The Newsagents Podcast have had the ex-editor of The Sun, David Yelland on a couple of times last week to give insight.

if anyone thinks the press haven’t got an agenda against the BBC then they should listen. He also talks about Edwards case for libel as they clearly mentioned ‘a child’ was involved and deliberately omitted that they had the ‘victim’s’ denial. He also said from what he knows he would not have had enough to run the story and they know the BBC are constrained and how they would have to react to keep story running. And not that we don’t know this but points out they can say ‘BBC lied’ and BBC could never say equivalent of the Sun.

 

Both episodes were really interesting.

Even Yelland's point that the first story was a front page splash and then a tiny column on page 2. Normally these kind of stories are backed up with "more on p3,4 and 5" with photos and analysis. The Sun usually goes big on stories but here they didn't because they didn't have much to go big with.

It was nothing more than "chuck out some vague shit but in big letters" in the hope that the general Sun reading population think it is the next Jimmy Savile.

And it got the Lee Andersons of this world to push the line that the BBC is a "safe haven for perverts" .......as a member of the multiple sex offending, house of commons porn-watching Tory party. Sure, sure.

Reading the response of the likes of @Sergei Gotsmanov you can see that it is absolutely mission accomplished. 

[CB Fry]

If it was a Conservative MP they'd be out on their ear, out on their ear, out on their

 

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Clearly the Sun story has a strong degree of truth in it if he has been suspended by the BBC and more people are coming forward. It turns out that Newsnight were investigating Huw Edwards as well.

I don't think anyone, at any point, has made any denial that the 'story' isn't true.

The 'story' isn't as glamourous as the Sun made out though, but I guess 'man buys porn, legally' doesn't have the same headline grabbing strength as the one they printed.

[Tamesaint]

52 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't think anyone, at any point, has made any denial that the 'story' isn't true.

The 'story' isn't as glamourous as the Sun made out though, but I guess 'man buys porn, legally' doesn't have the same headline grabbing strength as the one they printed.

Similarly a story such as "Newspaper prints abuse story even though the alleged victim tells them that he wasn't abused" doesn't have headline grabbing strength.

Never mind. It gives another stick to the Murdoch organisation and the Conservative party so they can bash the BBC. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

If it was a Conservative MP they'd be out on their ear, out on their ear, out on their

 

I help pay this fucker’s salary. I demand to see his text messages 

[Gloucester Saint]

On 15/07/2023 at 09:33, Smirking_Saint said:

This little episode, if it turns out to be nothing more than what you say looks set to be another complete embarrassment for the BBC, especially so close after the Lineker fall out

Im not really sure what’s happening with BBC top brass right now but its all a bit of a mess isn’t it

It’s been stacked full of Conservative stooges, it’s why this country is going down the toilet at a rate of knots. 

Edited 16 July, 2023 by Gloucester Saint

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

If it was a Conservative MP they'd be out on their ear, out on their ear, out on their

 

You don't think that there is a legal process before this happens?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

10 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Again, how can it be investigated if the BBC’s response to the family gained no reply? The original email went out a day after the initial complain was made by the family. Their phone call 2-3 weeks later got no reply.

The family went to the Sun to spill their story, but you’ll excuse me if I withhold my feelings on them for now until a couple of things get resolved.

1) Why did they happen to go to the Sun in the first place, a paper who are a fucking disgrace but who coincidentally pay the most for stories from the public?

2) Why have the family (allegedly) nowsigned up to TalkTV, the sister TV station of The Sun, in a financial deal that is due to net them a nice financial reward?

3) Why, in the first instance, is all this going on when the original complainant contacted the Sun before they first printed and denied the whole back story?

It’s all a bit fishy, and a lot of the facts aren’t there yet. But you seem to be ignoring some of the actual facts that are out there. When you say the case was ‘not properly investigated’, what more did you expect? The BBC tried to get in contact twice and got no response. Or do you think it’s right that, instead of getting back in contact with the bbc, the family went to The Sun instead?

The BBC's investigation seems to have been to send an email and a phone call that 'did not connect'. They did not even speak to the presenter. Do you think that was thorough?

 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't think anyone, at any point, has made any denial that the 'story' isn't true.

The 'story' isn't as glamourous as the Sun made out though, but I guess 'man buys porn, legally' doesn't have the same headline grabbing strength as the one they printed.

Its about perspectives, I think the story is about a very high profile figure at the BBC paying £35K to a crack addict and the when understandably his parents contact the BBC to get him to stop the BBC does not even bother to speak to him.

[Smirking_Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Its about perspectives, I think the story is about a very high profile figure at the BBC paying £35K to a crack addict and the when understandably his parents contact the BBC to get him to stop the BBC does not even bother to speak to him.

Reading between the lines I think there is an area of truth in that narrative but, in part, the whole situation has been blown up by social media platforms for clout and by the Sun to sell the news

His legal innocence hasn’t had anywhere near the level of exposure the ‘scandal’ had to begin with, and the BBC literally had to be seen to do something I think and unfortunately Huws position is probably now untenable whatever the outcome

FWIW it’s difficult, you should be able to do as you please in your own time but as a senior employee on a platform as large as the BBC its hard to argue that they would not be best pleased once he’d been found to have had an extra marital affair, with a person of the opposite sex to his partner and mother of his kids, who was considered under the age of adulthood and he had ‘apparently’ been funding his drug habit

[CB Fry]

46 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

You don't think that there is a legal process before this happens?

I thought "it used to be called standards in public life"?

On 14/07/2023 at 22:30, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I think we used to call it standards in public life. If it was a politician then they would be out on their ear. Sadly there are no winners but I don't think that you can read the news to the nation and then behave like that even if it is legal or not.

 

 

 

So you can't "read the news to the nation" based on a few vague allegations that the Sun trumped up ignoring the victim's denials and the police have already dismissed, but you can be an Conservative MP and a lawmaker for a year with a multiple sexual and misconduct charges hanging over you.

Would have been nice for Edwards to have the opportunity to go through a "legal process" before being on the front page of national newspapers, being that we now already know that he didn't do anything illegal. 

Absolutely crystal clear.

Edited 16 July, 2023 by CB Fry

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

12 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I thought "it used to be called standards in public life"?

So you can't "read the news to the nation" based on a few vague allegations that the Sun trumped up ignoring the victim's denials and the police have already dismissed, but you can be an Conservative MP and a lawmaker for a year with a multiple sexual and misconduct charges hanging over you.

Would have been nice for Edwards to have the opportunity to go through a "legal process" before being on the front page of national newspapers, being that we now already know that he didn't do anything illegal. 

Absolutely crystal clear.

Neil Parish was out on his ear for not meeting the standards of public life there was no legal process to undergo because he did not break the law.. Rosindell is being investigated by the police, no doubt when that is concluded he will be 'out on his ear'.

[CB Fry]

6 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Neil Parish was out on his ear for not meeting the standards of public life there was no legal process to undergo because he did not break the law.. Rosindell is being investigated by the police, no doubt when that is concluded he will be 'out on his ear'.

If Huw Edwards was watching porn when he should be presenting news at ten I'd expect him to be binned off as well. 

Those MPs deserved to be sacked for doing things you should obviously be sacked for, it's some gold standard of proberty and standards we should all be saluting. Jesus wept.

Boris fell over himself to keep Pincher in a job having a bloody good laugh about it all when he thought he was getting away with it.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Its about perspectives, I think the story is about a very high profile figure at the BBC paying £35K to a crack addict and the when understandably his parents contact the BBC to get him to stop the BBC does not even bother to speak to him.

There's too much emphasis on what the other person did with the money. If you paid someone some cash on only fans, I can guarantee that you wouldn't ask what the cash was being spent on, or care less.

Would you have a different perspective if the person didn't use crack? How about if Huw didn't know about the drug use? 

Edited 16 July, 2023 by egg
Can't type for shit.

[Weston Super Saint]

21 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Its about perspectives, I think the story is about a very high profile figure at the BBC paying £35K to a crack addict and the when understandably his parents contact the BBC to get him to stop the BBC does not even bother to speak to him.

The truth is out there, you just need to open your eyes....

In depth article here

Statement from BBC here - including full time line of who made contact and when and the outcomes

[Draino76]

I cannot believe anyone pays for porn.  Some granny's (internet) tits is good enough for me.

[hypochondriac]

This topic totally died a death. Was there ever any update? 

[whelk]

Maybe not so much the non-story

Huw Edwards charged with making indecent images of children https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgr49q591go

[Lighthouse]

Does this mean we’re not allowed to rewatch the Queen’s death announcement anymore, like old episodes of Animal Hospital or listening to R Kelly?

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Does this mean we’re not allowed to rewatch the Queen’s death announcement anymore, like old episodes of Animal Hospital or listening to R Kelly?

That might explain why I can’t seem to shift my Jim’ll Fix It box set

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Does this mean we’re not allowed to rewatch the Queen’s death announcement anymore, like old episodes of Animal Hospital or listening to R Kelly?

Top of the pops 2 died a swift death on bbc4. 

[HedgeEnder]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Does this mean we’re not allowed to rewatch the Queen’s death announcement anymore, like old episodes of Animal Hospital or listening to R Kelly?

Or listen to Gary Glitter

[Jonnyboy]

On 14/07/2023 at 14:36, whelk said:

Who would you rather go on the piss with? Edwards or Schofield? Edwards for me

Ever the good judge of character.

[skintsaint]

How the hell could the BBC justify giving him a 40k pay rise last year...

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

How the hell could the BBC justify giving him a 40k pay rise last year...

Additional publicity?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

How the hell could the BBC justify giving him a 40k pay rise last year...

Some HR bod has undoubtedly decided that they couldn't prejudice him when nothing was proven against him. 

[Turkish]

Owen Jones made himself look a cock again over this.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Owen Jones made himself look a cock again over this.

He’s not the only. 
 

 

[AlexLaw76]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He’s not the only. 
 

 

LOL

[CSA96]

Huw Edwards has this morning chosen to plead guilty to three counts of making and sharing indecent images of children

The charges relate to 41 images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat between 2020 and 2022. Edwards was charged with having six Category A images, the most serious classification of indecent images, on a phone. He was also accused of having 12 Category B pictures and 19 Category C photographs

One Category A photo involved a child who was aged between 7-9 years old, while all other photos involved a child between 12-14 years old

Edited July 31 by CSA96

[Weston Super Saint]

Should be dying down any day now.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

On 16/07/2023 at 09:39, whelk said:

I help pay this fucker’s salary. I demand to see his text messages 

Are you sure about that?