Huw Edwards arrives at court this morning

Anniebach

Didn’t report because he did want to go public ?

Well I expect so but my sympathy is still zilch ...if he asked not to receive illegal photos then he knew they were illegal. And he knew that a paedophile was distributing illegal real photos of young children being seriously abused. So he let that continue to save his own skin.

I do get how hard it would be to report in his circumstances but it doesnt change the fact that saving his career totally trumped helping to catch abusers of children!

Didn’t report because he did want to go public ?

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

But people CAN report someone who is distributing shockingbphotos of children as young as 7 being abused! He didn't!

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.

Its hard to explain to younger ones the way some of us might feel about broadcasters. They were part of the fabric of our lives.

He often had very serious news to impart. Now he has reason to look very serious on his own account.

He always looked so miserable to Me but In certainly not going to say that I knew he was upto something …

Yes, pleaded guilty, found guilty yesterday

But we do know. He has admitted it.

I have not excused him, I don’t agree with the vast majority here, re mental illness but unlike you PaddyAnne I have an open mind. I do not know.

Annie he had vile images of children as young as 7 being abused.There is no excuse for that inmost people,s opinions.Mental health or a bad relationship with his father…neither is a reason why accessing and forwarding child abuse is acceptable….even by people who know him.

I am sorry too. I know you have a lot to contend with, which is why I was trying to understand your posts.

I'm sorry for your situation Annie and I'm sorry if the news about HE has upset you.

Doodledog my posts ? Ok, I have said in this form I now live
in a nursing home, my body is racked with pain ,I chose to live here because I have very little use of fingers, wheelchair for some years. Writing these posts now means injections for pain

Yes I believe he suffered with depression, I know his relationship with his father troubled him so

There was an attempt to discuss paedophilia and what, if anything, can be done about it on this very thread.

I was just asking - there's not need to be so confrontational. It doesn't really matter. He's guilty and that's an end to it. I was simply trying to understand your point of view, but it doesn't matter.

What evidence ? evidence not hearsay, he pleaded guilty , was found guilty, I do not know what his terms of employment was.
I have not once said ‘I believe him innocent,

Unlike ,it seems, many here, I know little of pedophilia , is it from puberty as is homosexuality. But it’s not permitted to be discussed on this forum, there was a time it could have been.

I rarely quote the DM and I posted this on page 3, but it shows what the situation was and how it was viewed at the time of his suspension and what the BBC knew

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12296291/Huw-Edwards-spoke-openly-20-year-battle-depression-left-bedridden.html

ie "Depression plus report from mother of young man he was apparently involved with"

Which didn't include all the information as regards all the images he was using that we now know of. So I'm not defending him but understand why the BBC only suspended not sacked him and were contract bound to pay him effectively sick pay.

As regards his pay levels well I dont think anyone should be paid at this level and am sure there are adequate presenters paid less. I dont know what people earn on other major Tv channels.

You are right that a rumour alone shouldn't have someone fired, but there was a lot of evidence at the time. What do you think the BBC should have done?

Your posts aren't annoying me, I just struggle to understand your point of view. At times it seems as though you are determined to support him, but I don't know why, when he has admitted his guilt.

Doodledog can a person be fired because of a rumour ? many
could lose their jobs if so.

Sorry my posts confuse and perhaps annoy you,.

My post you criticise was a response to ‘bbc harbouring pedophiles, they employ over 21.000

Anniebach

When someone starts employment they should ask , ‘are you a
pedophile ?’ problem solved

Annie I am very confused by your comments. Some read like telegrams, and others seem very sarcastic.

What do you think should have happened when the accusations started, and what should happen now that he's pleaded guilty?

Callistemon213

I must admit I was very shocked.
Frankly I don't care too hoots about his mental health.
What about the mental health of those abused children in the pictures?

Quite right about dismissing the "mental health' issues. At least his £300,000 pa pension will give him some comfort

When someone starts employment they should ask , ‘are you a
pedophile ?’ problem solved

Yet again the bbc harbours another pedophile why do we continue to give them our cash so they can pay them ridiculous sums

Iam64

Cath9, that sounds more like some kind of early onset dementia

That's what I thought too.