Huw Edwards, the BBC’s former top news presenter, pleaded guilty Wednesday to three counts of making indecent images of children.
The offences he pleaded guilty to at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in central London during a 26-minute hearing involved images shared on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021.
Edwards has been remanded on bail until a sentencing hearing on Sept. 16. He could face up to 10 years in prison.
The court heard that Edwards, 62, was involved in an online chat with an adult man on the messaging service who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
I’m curious exactly how many people have been on HIGNFY who have also been involved in some sort of sex scandal. Because more than in a lot of shows.
What’s hignfy? It sounds like a type of Welsh ham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_I_Got_News_for_You
Not as good as it used to be, but I’ll watch watch it for Paul Merton and Ian Hislop.
I brought it up because, along with a lot of later-disgraced politicians and celebrities on the show, the original host himself got fired after it turned out he was doing coke and having sex with prostitutes. (Most people didn’t give a shit about that one to be fair.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Deayton#Have_I_Got_News_for_You
I think it’s just the nature of a comedic political live panel show combined with the nature of British politicians and comedians
Probably so, but I’d still be curious how many have over the years.
Welsh ham? Now there’s a search phrase for pornhub
🍖 ;)
CTV News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
CTV News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: Canada
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ctv-news/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.This is the first one I’ve seen that doesn’t display the left/right bias
You kinda have to shift everything they put slightly to the right - if AP is center-left, then I don’t know what to say anymore.
You just have to discard the entire thing. It’s just the opinion of a single zionist dude
If that’s really your complaint, then if it’s not about Israel or Hamas, then I don’t see why we can’t use it.
You don’t see the issue with attaching the political opinion of a single, far- right, pro-zionist guy to every single news story posted?
Again, the only non-rambling concern I’ve seen about MBFC is that they are staunchly pro-Israel. What evidence do you have that they’re “far-right”? Calling AP center-left is a slight bias shift, but certainly not enough for me to call them far-right.
I’m assuming that you’re American? This is world news. Calling mainstream US media outlets anything approaching left-wing is absolutely farcical.
The court heard that Edwards, 62, was involved in an online chat with an adult man on the messaging service who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
The images that were sent included seven of what are known as “category A,” which are the most indecent. Of those, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between 7 and 9, the court was told.
The court also heard that the unnamed male asked Edwards on Feb. 2, 2021, whether what he was sending was too young. Edwards told him not to send any underage images. Five more, though, were sent, and the exchange of pornographic images continued until April 2022.
Speaking in Edwards’ defence, his lawyer Philip Evans said there is “no suggestion” that his client had “in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
Edwards, he added, "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”
what does “making” mean? how do you make those images without committing other crimes at the same time
In the UK, if you download an image, or you receive it into any kind of electronic device, it’s considered to be “making” it, because you’re creating a copy of it (digitally).
It’s an outdated law written for like, you know, someone developing film to distribute photographs, I suppose? But it has followed us into the digital age and no longer makes much sense.
He didn’t take any of the photos himself, he didn’t print them out or distribute them or anything. He just received them on his phone.
thank you.
I’m confused by that as well. Someone sent him the images and he asked the person to not send any more photos of underage children, but they did.
I wonder if it was something they agreed to do in another communication channel, in the hope of protecting Huw.
Like “ask me on Whatsapp wether I want underage nudes, I’ll say no, and when you send others, I’ll have this as a defence if I get caught”
deleted by creator
It seems like the story updated over time. Originally the bbc said making and then the article content updated to say received. Maybe they jumped the gun, I don’t know.
If it was received, doesn’t excuse the fact a person in his station should have reported it to the highest level. Who the fuck uses WhatsApp to view porn? Definitely sounds dodgy.
Check my reply to the parent comment
Of allllll the BBC folk you weren’t expecting to be a nonce :(
