sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 18 hours ago, KentVillan said: I would guess the problem is that most of us would be blocking the sender of said images and reporting him to the police, and so it’s pretty hard to argue that you weren’t in some way conflicted. The prosecution could argue that continuing the dialogue with someone distributing this stuff was a kind of signal of interest. And presumably some of the stuff being sent was legal but looked near enough the same as illegal stuff, and Huw wasn’t fussed about that. I don’t know. I agree with @Davkausthat people *do* plead guilty for crimes they haven’t committed (see Post Office scandal for example), often due to legal advice and sentencing incentives. At the same time, I’d be amazed if someone with Huw Edwards’ resources would be pleading guilty on a charge like this unless the evidence was damning in some way, because it’s such a horrendous charge to have next to your name, and surely an innocent person would want to fight. Very peculiar case, and the guilty plea probably means a lot of evidence will never really see the light of day. Maybe that’s a good thing for everyone tbh. End of the day, you can understand the worry people have about accidentally receiving something like this, but don’t think there have been many (any?) cases of someone getting convicted through sheer bad luck. I noticed the obligatory "Mental health issues" was part of Edwards mitigation. For once, can't someone accept the responsibility of their wrongs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 He has spoken about his acute episodes of depression and anxiety for years, and have a documentary about it a few years ago, so I don't doubt it's true. Not sure it's much of a mitigating factor though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 3 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: I noticed the obligatory "Mental health issues" was part of Edwards mitigation. For once, can't someone accept the responsibility of their wrongs. I thought it was his wife that made the mental health case rather than him , though she may have just done it on his behalf ? I don't know enough about mental health to really comment on if its an excuse used that diminishes genuine mental health issues , but to me it looks more like he has some form of addiction issue , some people are addicted to drink , some to VT and some to porn ..and some to all 3 perhaps he seems to like the thrill , some people can repress those feelings and some can't I guess .. I don't know the whole story , but at face value I don't think he's a paedophile and I do have some amount of sympathy for him , but don't quote me on this when it turns out he's worse than Gary Glitter etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post GarethRDR Posted August 2 Author Popular Post Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, tonyh29 said: some people are addicted to drink , some to VT and some to porn Thank you @tonyh29, I've never felt so seen. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I thought it was his wife that made the mental health case rather than him , though she may have just done it on his behalf ? I don't know enough about mental health to really comment on if its an excuse used that diminishes genuine mental health issues , but to me it looks more like he has some form of addiction issue , some people are addicted to drink , some to VT and some to porn ..and some to all 3 perhaps he seems to like the thrill , some people can repress those feelings and some can't I guess .. I don't know the whole story , but at face value I don't think he's a paedophile and I do have some amount of sympathy for him , but don't quote me on this when it turns out he's worse than Gary Glitter etc I'm not one for shouting "Kill all paedophiles" but there can be no excuse for looking at indecent images of children. The fact that he looked almost arrogant on his walk to the court, didn't help matters at all. Mental health is no reason for being sexually gratified by the images of naked children. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 9 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: I'm not one for shouting "Kill all paedophiles" but there can be no excuse for looking at indecent images of children. The fact that he looked almost arrogant on his walk to the court, didn't help matters at all. Mental health is no reason for being sexually gratified by the images of naked children. I haven’t followed too closely but I thought he wasn’t interested in the pictures and told the guy not to send them to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, sheepyvillian said: I'm not one for shouting "Kill all paedophiles" but there can be no excuse for looking at indecent images of children. The fact that he looked almost arrogant on his walk to the court, didn't help matters at all. Mental health is no reason for being sexually gratified by the images of naked children. again I'm not in possession of all the facts , but we know he was sent them and I believe we know he looked at them , possibly in the same way you'd look at something a mate sent you on WhatsApp in amongst lots of images ( there were 41 suspect ones in amongst 377 images) .. he then asked no more be sent that said reading a little bit more just now , it would appear that police discovered Edwards , not by Williams who sent him the 377 images , but by finding his phone number on a phone belonging to another paedophile , that itself doesn't make him guilty , but equally I may be starting to regret trying to give him the benefit of doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 10 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I haven’t followed too closely but I thought he wasn’t interested in the pictures and told the guy not to send them to him? So why plead guilty. Also, why even be in a conversation about underage images. Let's be real, he pleaded guilty for a reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: So why plead guilty. Also, why even be in a conversation about underage images. Let's be real, he pleaded guilty for a reason. I believe the crime is them being in his possession even if they were unsolicited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 12 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I believe the crime is them being in his possession even if they were unsolicited indeed .. it sounds as though receiving them and then reporting them to the police it isn't a crime and you wont' be prosecuted receiving them and not reporting it automatically becomes a strict liability offence, meaning that the prosecution is not required to prove any intention or knowledge of criminal wrongdoing , hence i guess why he was advised to plead Guilty ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 There basically isn't a defense he can offer therefore he can only plead guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 4 minutes ago, Chindie said: There basically isn't a defense he can offer therefore he can only plead guilty. I'm sensing a inkling of defence on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Defending, or simplify trying to understand and discuss how our legal system works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I'm sensing a inkling of defence on here? I'm talking from a purely legal perspective. In the eyes of the law there's very few defences that can be offered, and Edwards meets none of them. You can attempt to mitigate it, and I think Edwards probably does merit mitigation, but he's not 'not guilty' and there's no avenue for him to realistically claim he is, because of the way our laws are worded in this area. And that may be an interesting discussion point for some. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) I was just reading that the nonce who sent the pictures to Edwards got a 12 months suspended sentence. Absolutely **** disgusting. Edwards is much more high profile so he's likely to have people clamouring to lock him up and make an example, but it'd be absurd to lock him up for receiving unsolicited images while letting the scumbag who sent them walk free. Edited August 2 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, Chindie said: There basically isn't a defense he can offer therefore he can only plead guilty. I don’t think that’s right. You can’t just get locked up for receiving unsolicited images and immediately deleting them. His lawyers must believe there is evidence that he did something beyond that. Either he was more receptive to it than is being claimed or he failed to act responsibly when confronted with it. And then they just get him on the charge that will stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 (edited) 20 minutes ago, KentVillan said: I don’t think that’s right. You can’t just get locked up for receiving unsolicited images and immediately deleting them. His lawyers must believe there is evidence that he did something beyond that. Either he was more receptive to it than is being claimed or he failed to act responsibly when confronted with it. And then they just get him on the charge that will stick. It appears our laws on this are worded in such a way that, yes, you could be done for receiving unsolicited images, and viewing them. The only defences seem to be 'I had no way of knowing this could be sent', which Huw doesn't have because he received the images over a period of time and after the first one was received he should have been aware that that was a risk when engaging with this person, or that you have a good reason to have accessed them, which seems to boil down to law enforcement, reporting, or if you've got a very good lawyer the Townshend defence. Huw has none of these, so he's ****. Edited August 2 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 BBC claiming they want to claw back some of Hews salary that he was paid while off work. They are the ones who knew about the dodgy pictures and continued to pay him. Have they learnt nothing. Such a poor organisation, makes you think who else is up to no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: BBC claiming they want to claw back some of Hews salary that he was paid while off work. They are the ones who knew about the dodgy pictures and continued to pay him. Have they learnt nothing. Such a poor organisation, makes you think who else is up to no good. Lisa Nandy has weighed in with some populist rhetoric insisting he should simply return the money of his own accord. Edwards ought to give it back, think of the harm to his reputation if he doesn't 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, Chindie said: It appears our laws on this are worded in such a way that, yes, you could be done for receiving unsolicited images, and viewing them. The only defences seem to be 'I had no way of knowing this could be sent', which Huw doesn't have because he received the images over a period of time and after the first one was received he should have been aware that that was a risk when engaging with this person, or that you have a good reason to have accessed them, which seems to boil down to law enforcement, reporting, or if you've got a very good lawyer the Townshend defence. Huw has none of these, so he's ****. But that’s what I mean, the defence hinges on whether they were genuinely unsolicited / unexpected / unwanted etc. So for example if some random spammer just sent you something like this you could accidentally view it, delete immediately, block sender, report etc and you would be on legally solid ground. His behaviour has clearly taken that defence out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts