Huw Edwards arrives at court this morning

Callistemon213

^Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet^

Yes.

Some people are very clever at covering their tracks and don't get found out. I know from experience and it rocked me to the core! Destroyed that person's family too.

Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet

Yes.

Entitlement and vulnerability is at the root of so many abhorrent behaviours
Mental ill health, well I guess some paedophiles might have cancer or diabetes, but nobody would say that the cancer or diabetes caused the paedophilia
Someone I knew worked with such offenders. He spoke of one such man who had ended up in a wheelchair, dead from the waist down. He still has a tendency to b*gger little boys with a chair leg.
The BBC breeding paedophiles...maybe they are known to us because of being high profile, and because of the attitudes to it in the past, that children were lying or making it up, that the best thing to do was sweep it under the carpet and just make sure they were not left with children
Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet

Callistemon213

mokryna

It was said he had received certain unrequested photos and he may have deleted them but they were still on his phone because we can never delete completely. It was said that he asked that no illegal photos be sent to him. I have no other comment to make on his other illegal dealings. However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

This has made me think back to the early 90s, the beginning of the web revolution for me, we were living in Beijing. Someone we barely knew from Germany sent my exh a photo of a scantily dressed woman, not even UK page 3 level, we deleted it. We thought it was weird to have been sent it but the imprint was on our computer even though it had been deleted.

However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

Surely you have some control over what is sent to you?

To receive such pictures you must knowingly be in a group or in touch with even one such person who would send photographs of small children being abused.

I think the point made was that he opened them.. ie he was aware what they contained

mokryna

It was said he had received certain unrequested photos and he may have deleted them but they were still on his phone because we can never delete completely. It was said that he asked that no illegal photos be sent to him. I have no other comment to make on his other illegal dealings. However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

This has made me think back to the early 90s, the beginning of the web revolution for me, we were living in Beijing. Someone we barely knew from Germany sent my exh a photo of a scantily dressed woman, not even UK page 3 level, we deleted it. We thought it was weird to have been sent it but the imprint was on our computer even though it had been deleted.

However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

Surely you have some control over what is sent to you?

To receive such pictures you must knowingly be in a group or in touch with even one such person who would send photographs of small children being abused.

Galaxy

I am not sure that's a wise decision from the BBC, I actually think that makes it worse by deleting things, you cant pretend something didnt happen.

I agre. He presented in huge historical events. Those events and the records of them remain important as part of history regardless of his involvement.

I am not sure that's a wise decision from the BBC, I actually think that makes it worse by deleting things, you cant pretend something didnt happen.

Anniebach

So you want to talk about the future ?

I just feel sad about. a lot of things at the moment, this being one of them.
Perhaps it reminds me of a bygone era.

Anniebach

Madgran thank you for not making personal digs.

My comments always relate to what has been said AnnieBach

You are right ofcourse, his lack of reporting is for "flipping obvious reasons". It remains inexcusable for me.

I see the BBC is in the process of deleting certain items featuring Huw Edwards from their archives.

I hope things like the announcement of the death of the Queen aren’t included. This is history, likewise if he fronted other major occasions. Whatever he’s done, things like that should still be available to view, surely?

So you want to talk about the future ?

Anniebach

Cadeby let what drop ?

The past.

Madgran thank you for not making personal digs.

Iam If you must control a thread could you not try to do so
fairly.

Yes I said ‘he forwarded them ?

? This means I asked a question of the poster I was replying to.

‘He didn’t want to go public’. Ok, he didn’t want to report to the police for flipping obvious reasons’

Kate1949

Of course he didn't want to go public! He hasn't just been charged with receiving pictures though has he?

If you receive a photo and it is automatically saved on the phone it is described as "making". It does not mean actively making them per se. But it is illegal if on the phone.

I have not seen a single report that he forwarded them on. If he had I would expect there to have been a fourth charge of distributing illegal pictures!

There is NO excuse for him allowing a paedophile to continue distribution.

As he asked not to receive illegal pictures I assume he wanted over 16 years! Sleazy but on the basis of the previous investigation into his paying money for explicit pictures to a 17 year old then I assume what he apparently wanted is not technically illegal. 😳

Still no excuse for him. He received those photos. He did nothing about them.

I’m trying and failing to understand the points you’re making Annie. I may be misunderstanding but my impression is you’re minimising the actions `Edwards pleaded guilty to. Eg ‘yes he forwarded them on after he received them ‘.
You also suggested he didn’t tell the police when he received the images ‘because he didn’t want to go public’.

People who share images of children being sexually abused support the sexual abuse of children even if they don’t actively abuse. It’s also often the case that once the sexual satisfaction of viewing images no longer satisfies, the abusive behaviour escalates.

Cadeby let what drop ?

Let it drop Annie. Its hurtful for sure.

It's illegal to send these images on.
As far as I know, even the police don't do it.

Anniebach

Yes, he forwarded them on after he received them

I guess you have to ask what kind of person would do that?

Yes, he forwarded them on after he received them

Three charges of making indecent images. No it's not from The Daily Mail.

What other charges ?

Of course he didn't want to go public! He hasn't just been charged with receiving pictures though has he?

i wonder how he felt reporting on similar crimes by well known people.