Huw Edwards

[Donny osmond]

Given that I don't read the Sun can someone enlighten me as to:

a) what he is alleged to have done

b) what he is **known** to have done that is in some way (legally and or morally) unacceptable

c) why we have decided to arbitrarily believe what was written in the Sun?

[Puja]

Given that I don't read the Sun can someone enlighten me as to:

a) what he is alleged to have done

b) what he is **known** to have done that is in some way (legally and or morally) unacceptable

c) why we have decided to arbitrarily believe what was written in the Sun?

I don't read the Sun either, but this is what I've gleaned from ancillary reporting:

The Sun alleged that he paid money to someone who was 17 for pornographic photos (which is illegal because you have to be over 18 for spicy pictures) and that he knew that person had a drug problem and he was fuelling that. Heavy implications of grooming and paedophilia.

Their source appears to be the young person's estranged parents - there appears to be little else in the way of corroboration. The young person has come out through a lawyer saying they flatly deny their parents' version of events and everything that appeared in the Sun is wrong. The Met have said that they don't believe there are any grounds for a criminal investigation (so no underage photos).

I am reluctant to take any kind of position on this, as there are so few facts and there is a distinct possibility that further information comes out which will change the situation massively. But on current viewing it appears that Edwards may have been exceptionally creepy (a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong, but it often is) and possibly immoral (depending on whether his marriage is set up as monogamous), but nothing illegal. It also appears that the Sun is a shit-stirring disgusting rag that gets its kicks from hunting celebrities for entertainment, but that's not exactly new information.

Puja

[J Dory]

"a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong" - yeah, nah. Not commenting on this one either, but in general, older dudes with young girls is at best sad and at worst predatory, and, well, gross. What's the rule, half your age plus 7?

[Donny osmond]

But, if the young person flatly denies that there's any truth to the allegations made in the Sun, why are we even thinking that HE has even been creepy? Surely, in order to believe that's he's been either creepy or immoral we have to believe at least some of what was written in the Sun which has been categorically denied by the young person involved? Point c) in my question above.

[Puja]

"a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong" - yeah, nah. Not commenting on this one either, but in general, older dudes with young girls is at best sad and at worst predatory, and, well, gross. What's the rule, half your age plus 7?

We're agreeing with each other here. I'm aware that every situation is individual, so I'm not willing to say *every* 58/17 relationship is weird, but the vast majority of them are.

Hells, I'm 38 and I wouldn't want anything to do with a 17 year old. The gap in life experience and outlook would just be a chasm.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

But, if the young person flatly denies that there's any truth to the allegations made in the Sun, why are we even thinking that HE has even been creepy? Surely, in order to believe that's he's been either creepy or immoral we have to believe at least some of what was written in the Sun which has been categorically denied by the young person involved? Point c) in my question above.

Agreed. In the absence of evidence, and knowing the sewer-level standards practiced by the Sun, I'm assuming he's innocent at this time. Hope he sues.

[Donny osmond]

"a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong" - yeah, nah. Not commenting on this one either, but in general, older dudes with young girls is at best sad and at worst predatory, and, well, gross. What's the rule, half your age plus 7?

We're agreeing with each other here. I'm aware that every situation is individual, so I'm not willing to say *every* 58/17 relationship is weird, but the vast majority of them are.

Hells, I'm 38 and I wouldn't want anything to do with a 17 year old. The gap in life experience and outlook would just be a chasm.

Puja

But how do we know Edwards has had anything to do with a 17yo? Because the Sun said so?

[Which Tyler]

Having only read Puja's summary - was it an actual relationship? or "just" pornographic photos of a consenting adult?
For me, there would be a huge difference in the ick-factor between the two.

I'd also ask if there was a power differential between the two (I don't mean age and wealth, but... working in the same company/industry etc) as that would also up the ick-factor.

I'd also note the icky isn't remotely the same as illegal.

For now, I'm largely disinterested in the story, and wish it would go away so that we could concentrate on more important things (covid inquiry, influencing parliamentary standards committees, small boats, etc)

[Puja]

"a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong" - yeah, nah. Not commenting on this one either, but in general, older dudes with young girls is at best sad and at worst predatory, and, well, gross. What's the rule, half your age plus 7?

We're agreeing with each other here. I'm aware that every situation is individual, so I'm not willing to say *every* 58/17 relationship is weird, but the vast majority of them are.

Hells, I'm 38 and I wouldn't want anything to do with a 17 year old. The gap in life experience and outlook would just be a chasm.

Puja

But how do we know Edwards has had anything to do with a 17yo? Because the Sun said so?

Fair point. I am assuming that there was at least something that occurred rather than nothing at all, because the BBC have suspended him and his wife's statement on his behalf didn't include a blanket denial of "Absolutely nothing happened whatsoever." But given that there are bog-all details outside of the shit-stirring in the Scum (which was all provided by estranged parents), I'm leaning towards Which's position of wishing the whole thing would disappear from public discourse until something actual is known (and possibly not even return then).

Thinking that all of this came from estranged parents makes me think that there's a decent chance that the young person is an adult sex-worker making an honest living (in person or online), whose parents disapprove and this is part of a prolonged campaign of harrassment to get them to change their ways. In which case, all that Huw Edwards may be "guilty" of is paying for porn.

As you say, could be complete bollocks from start to finish. But I'm mostly staying away from having a definitive opinion because there are so many unknowns.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'd love it if the Welsh join Liverpool's boycott of the Sun as a result of this treatment of a prominent Welshman.

[Sandydragon]

"a 58 year old and a 17 year old together isn't necessarily always wrong" - yeah, nah. Not commenting on this one either, but in general, older dudes with young girls is at best sad and at worst predatory, and, well, gross. What's the rule, half your age plus 7?

We're agreeing with each other here. I'm aware that every situation is individual, so I'm not willing to say *every* 58/17 relationship is weird, but the vast majority of them are.

Hells, I'm 38 and I wouldn't want anything to do with a 17 year old. The gap in life experience and outlook would just be a chasm.

Puja

Isn’t this the same Sun newspaper that often highlighted older men in relationships with younger women? I don’t recall any criticism of such other celebrities over the years.

I suspect that this is more about hurting the BBC, and the sun is rowing back hard on its original reporting.

Like you I find the age gap to be dubious, but I will maintain that for male female and male/male relationships. I’m not sure the Sun would have been quite so keen to report of this had been Mick Jagger with a younger woman.

I also find it disgusting that the Suns original story didn’t mention that the teenage man involved had denied his parents version of events. If the story were in public interest, and I can just about see how it is, then balanced reporting would demand that all viewpoints known at the time were aired.

And most importantly of all, somewhere there is a teenage man whose life has been turned upside down by something he denies happened. How many tabloid investigators are trying to find him right now? After all it’s public interest we know who he is so we can properly enjoy the soap opera and truly make his life miserable. I hope to Christ that doesn’t happen by the way because I fear the outcome of a vulnerable person subjected to that level of scrutiny.

[Zhivago]

The law is a mess. Age of consent is 16, but it is illegal to 'sext' (i.e. sexual texting) with someone under 18.

I echo the points already made:
-it's the Sun, let's ignore the whole thing
-police said no crime
-creepy behaviour given age gap

[Sandydragon]

Many of the opinions I’ve read or have listened to by seasoned journalists suggest that the Sun really wanted to land a punch on the BBC.

Consider that for a moment. To score a point they have ruined at least 3 lives on evidence that may not have been accurate.

[Which Tyler]

[Which Tyler]

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/28/mail ... d-the-bbc/

MailOnline and The Sun Hid Serious Dan Wootton Claims – While Attacking Huw Edwards and the BBC

In the fifth part of our three-year special investigation into the private and professional conduct of GB News star Dan Wootton, Byline Times can reveal how The Sun and MailOnline have been protecting their star celebrity journalist

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Sandydragon]

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/28/mail ... d-the-bbc/

MailOnline and The Sun Hid Serious Dan Wootton Claims – While Attacking Huw Edwards and the BBC

In the fifth part of our three-year special investigation into the private and professional conduct of GB News star Dan Wootton, Byline Times can reveal how The Sun and MailOnline have been protecting their star celebrity journalist

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

So they won’t report on it because Wooton is an employee, but how about promising to investigate a serious allegation concerning a member of staff?

This was the Sun wanting to hurt the BBC. Nothing more.

[Which Tyler]

This was the Sun wanting to hurt the BBC. Nothing more.

With a side-issue of providing a distraction from Johnson's Whatsapp messages, and failure to meet the deadline for handing his phone in.

[Zhivago]

The court heard that Edwards had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021 who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.

The bulk of these, 36, were sent during a two-month period.

On 2 February 2021 the man asked whether what he was sending was too young, in response to which Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard.

The indecent images that were sent included seven category A (the worst), 12 category B, and 22 category C.

Of the category A images, the estimated ages of most of the children were between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine, the court was told.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards that the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images, the court was told.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

Edwards could receive a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

Since Edwards asked the guy not to send underage or illegal images, I don't quite understand why he's pleading guilty. Is it because he didn't delete them? If a one person sends illegal content to another person against their wishes, how is it the receiver's fault?

[Puja]

The court heard that Edwards had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021 who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.

The bulk of these, 36, were sent during a two-month period.

On 2 February 2021 the man asked whether what he was sending was too young, in response to which Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard.

The indecent images that were sent included seven category A (the worst), 12 category B, and 22 category C.

Of the category A images, the estimated ages of most of the children were between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine, the court was told.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards that the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images, the court was told.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

Edwards could receive a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

Since Edwards asked the guy not to send underage or illegal images, I don't quite understand why he's pleading guilty. Is it because he didn't delete them? If a one person sends illegal content to another person against their wishes, how is it the receiver's fault?

I'd imagine it depends on how genuine his protests were. If someone sent me that kind of thing, I wouldn't be "Haha, make sure no illegal stuff {wink}" and carry on sharing porn with them for another year. That's not to mention that you have to be fairly well down the rabbithole to even be on a WhatsApp with someone willing/able to share those images with you. Plus, saying "nothing illegal, please" doesn't abrogate your responsibility to ensure that your porn is child-free. If he'd been getting them from a mainstream site which actively misled him as to the age, then I'd have sympathy, but it's hard to believe that he didn't know what he was getting.

Presumably there are also other chats which don't have even this figleaf on them, cause no-one is going to plead guilty and go to jail as a paedophile if they think they've got a chance of getting away with it in the courts.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Fair.
Also worth noting that "he deleted the images" doesn't give a time frame - did he do so the instant he realised they were siling close to thw wind? Or once it all blew up last year?
He also pleaded (pled?) guilty, presumably under the advice oh his barrister.

Then factor in the rest of plausible deniability - surely there's enough porn out there, legal and free, that you don't need a dodgy guy on WhatsApp to supply it. He was obviously aware that things were sailing close to the wind.
And TBH, once offered explicitly illegal stuff, personally, I'd be handing that conversation over to the cops, so that they can get enough details to go after the provider. Of course, everyone would react differently in that situation, and I'm not a media personality.

[Donny osmond]

How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?

[Zhivago]

How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?

The law is always fascinating when it gets close to blurred lines. Not that I'm saying the lines are blurred in this case, but it does make you think about hypothetical circumstances, like if someone can get done under explicit content laws more due to negligence and irresponsibility than actual current sexual interest.

For exmple hypothetically if there was group chat with lots of pictures almost all very legal, totally arousing, and totally up your street in terms of your particular predeliction, but a tiny minority crossed the line.

I mean how many of us have browsed porn websites in the past when it was less corporate and sometimes there was content that was on the line. Like she could be 18 or 19 years old, but also could be 17 theoretically. That sort of thing.

When I was younger I had a phase when I was into voyeur pictures, things like accidental exposure, that sort of thing. Back then that was totally legal, hell, paparazzi were doing upskirt shots and they went in the newspapers, but these days it gets closer and closer to being illegal (due to maybe counting as non-consensual). Now imagine if the police got hold of my devices and found something from a while ago that used to be legal but has since become illegal technically. Maybe I would be technically guilty, who knows.

The interest can sometimes be about when what you're doing used to be legal and you didn't keep up-to-date with the latest law. Like I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.

[Puja]

How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?

I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

[Zhivago]

How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?

I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

I would argue that cannot be proven. I think the main point is that he posessed them at some point.

[Sandydragon]

How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?

I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

I would argue that cannot be proven. I think the main point is that he posessed them at some point.

The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).