Huw Edwards Admits to Having Sexual Images of Seven Year-Old Boy on Phone
Huw Edwards, the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader – he earned between £475,000 and £479,999 in 2023-24 – is facing 10 years in jail after pleading guilty to making indecent images of children, which included two sexual videos of a boy under nine. The Mail has more.
The disgraced BBC News star, 62, kept seven category ‘A’ images of the very worst kind on his phone after being sent them on WhatsApp by another paedophile.
The sick stash of 41 child porn images showed youngsters aged between seven and 14, Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard.
He remained emotionless as he pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children, between December 2020 and August 2022.
His admission now leaves the former news star’s glittering four-decade career in tatters – and he faces up to 10 years in jail.
Edwards was arrested on November 8th last year and charged on June 26th. He resigned from his £475,000-a-year role at BBC three months ago having kept news of his arrest a “secret” from pals, former colleagues said.
The father-of-five moved out of the family home in Dulwich after separating from his TV producer wife, Vicky Flind.
Surrounded by eight police officers, Edwards arrived at Westminster Magistrates’ Court wearing black sunglasses, a blue tie, white shirt and navy-blue suit.
There were scenes of pandemonium as he made his way through the media melee to the court building, with photographers tripping to the floor to take photos of the sex predator – while protesters yelled at him.
Edwards, of Wandsworth, southwest London, spoke to confirm his date of birth, address and admit the three charges.
After entering his pleas, the disgraced newsreader sat staring into the distance, with his head tilted slightly upwards, and adjusted his tie as Ian Hope, prosecuting, laid out the case against him.
The court heard that Edwards had been involved in online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 44 were indecent images of children.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Real justice or victim of some kind of compromat? Hard to know…
In my limited experience of becoming involved with cases like this, I have found that the background is often much more complex that the headline, especially when it involves high-profile people, or people with mental health problems (whether as accusers or accused) and politicians. The background in some cases I am aware of involved all manner of cover-ups, blame diversion, scapegoating, false allegations, stings, entrapment, and even false, forced or delusional confessions. Whatever the real truth behind this case turns out to be, if it ever emerges from the media smoke, there will be plenty of material for conspiracy theorists, victimhood charities, vocal fantasists and lawyers for a long time.
To be fair, it doesn’t seem like Huw Edwards asked the person he was having WhatsApp communications with to send him those illegal pictures. However, he should have reported that person to the police immediately.
I’m genuinely puzzled by the law on this. The report states that “he pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children, between December 2020 and August 2022”. That seems a bit more than just being a casual recipient of photos from another deviant.
I may be wrong here, but I think that actually keeping those images on his phone, rather than immediately deleting them and informing Plod, counts as “making” said images.
On the other hand, one has to wonder why he was sent them in the first place.
From the article:
‘Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.’
I vaguely recall a bizarre case (which I recall as the “Forest Gate Scandal”) from twenty years ago in which some suspect was “found to have” something like 65536 illegal images when visited by the police, but there were strong suspicions that a malefactor, or even the police, had hacked his computer and dumped a single incriminating ZIP file (it would take barely seconds). However, I cannot recall the outcome: conceivably this was a fanciful contrived but totally untrue defence; conceivably the police had a weak case against a genuine offender and needed to “sex up the dossier” a bit.
My daughter worked for a company that did farmed out police work. Her job was to take material from hard discs and forward to analysts in the same company who would trawl through to find evidence for cases against paedophiles. In one such case, there were multiple images of children being exploited. Ironically, these were used to clear the name of the owner of said hard disc. The images had been downloaded to his desktop computer at a time he couldn’t possibly have done it himself, he was out of the country at the time. His wife had been trying to discredit him and prevent him from having access to their children in their divorce case. She was jailed, hopefully still serving time I hope. The final irony was these analysts who were ex military or ex police and one of them, in his 50s made vile remarks to my daughter who was 25 at the time, IN FRONT OF DURECTIRS IF THE COMPANY who did nothing about it. She was left to deal with this despicable individual herself which she, with wisdom far in advance of her years, attempted to do with the use of humour, mockery and just… Read more »
Please excuse the typos
50 year old men flirting with 25 your old women is not “paedophilia”.
Did I say that it was? And you call that flirting?:Sheesh
At least, you’ve linked this in the way the Age difference!!1 jockeys usually do, despite this was clearly a perfectly normal and perfectly legal case of $man feeling sexually attracted to $women. And there’s a hell of a qualitative difference between some oaf making lewd remarks in the vain attempt to impress a sexually experienced women¹ with his own greatness and sexually torturing pre-teen boys.
[I call this ‘flirting’ because I’m using the term for all human – human communication intended to lead towards ‘something sexual’.]
¹ While I obviously don’t know anything about your daughter, the typicial 25 year old will be in her second of third ‘relationship’ and likely, also have had some more ad hoc sexual encounters in between.
Are you wilfully missing the point here? Vile man with very poor judgement, not flirting but attempting to humiliate a woman half his age in some perverted power game, chooses a career in which he gets to look at images of children being sexually assaulted and raped. My question is WHY would a man like that choose a career like this? Because he’s a good man and wants to put away criminals who treat children this way OR because he’s a BAD MAN who gets off on humiliating others and likes to spend all day looking at those kind of images, get paid for doing so and freedom from prosecution
Do you get it now?
And your unwelcome speculation about my daughter’s private life and sexual history makes you look like a pervert yourself as well as outing yourself as the village idiot of the DS
I think opening an image in a viewer is considered with respect to the legislation, to be ‘creating’ an image as would be copying an image.
Assuming making is another word for downloading. Personally I couldn’t give a toss what people look at Online, as long as they can control themselves in the real World. “every time an image of a child gets viewed again, the child is abused over and over. Oh come on, this is the DS and that is Voodoo logic.
The fact he’s a father of 5 and now he’s been found guilty of this though. How his kids ( not sure of their ages ) and wife must feel, I can’t begin to imagine. It must be complete and utter disgust mixed with the realization that they’ve been living with a stranger all their lives. And if he had these urges nobody’s going to tell me that he didn’t have the same feelings or urges towards his own kids, which is just absolutely gross and nasty. I want to be sick just thinking about it.
“…which would be absolutely gross and nasty…”
It’s obviously not that simple, however, such images and also, the video which was mentioned, need to be made/ produced and they wouldn’t be being produced if there wasn’t a market for them. Hence, this is not exactly an ‘innocent’ pleasure. The people seeking this kind of material typically simply won’t ask it had just been created especially for them. While this likely won’t usually be the case, it’s entirely possible.
That is the best argument against it but it is still a computer crime insofar as ‘looking’ at an image of a ‘crime scene’ is. And the discussion of consent follows when you consider different agas of consent in different countries. Of course the UN definition of a child is anyone under 18 so many teens get caught up in this including making ‘abuse images’ of themselves and putting it on the internet.
That is what’s so hard for me to understand: the depth of society’s brainwashing of children and teenagers to actually put indecent images of themselves on the internet !!
What kind of parents must they have, not to have instilled any kind of morality in their own children?
And it’s not even poverty, because many are from wealthy, upper middle-class families, like that porn slut who attacked Nigel Farage.
To paraphrase a former boss of mine: The UN can go f**k itself. And the same courtesy is hereby extended to the age of consent/ age difference jockeys forever trying to weaponize paedophilia by alleging all kinds of impropriety in situations were non exists (“She was only 18! And he was already 19½, 34¾, 55½ or 69⅐!” and stuff like that).
Paedophilia means being sexually attracted to biological children, ie, sexually immature humans. That’s deviant behaviour for humans for the simple reason that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction which cannot happen in such a situation. It also usually involves a grossly asymmetric physical and mental power distribution with the adult being much stronger, much more imposing and much more cunning, making this inherently an abusive situation.
Performing paedophile sex acts is a crime. And watching recordings of such performances is – for good reason – also a crime. Arguably a lesser crime, but that’s a sentencing issue.
You are absolutely spot on, in pointing out that anyone who views child porn is participating in the “market” for them, instigating further horrific torture of helpless children for the depraved amusement of perverts.
The same goes for viewing ANY porn— it is participating in the “market”, encouraging the kidnapping and sex enslavement of millions of men, women & children. For example, in southern China, local village leaders are notorious for accepting bribes from Shanghai kidnapping gangs for facilitating the capture of village women and children, who are taken to Shanghai for porn and prostitution.
The way law enforcement sees it, when you receive a sequence of bits you become guilty of “making” an image the instant that some software you have decodes the bitstream and displays it in a visual manner. If the image is proscribed then you have committed a strict liability offence. This approach was used because it means that every person who has such an image and has accessed it is guilty of making a new copy of the image (which is useful for making statistics look worse than they are), they can’t tell what it is until they open it but having done so strict liability means they are automatically guilty. This can also be used to demonstrate that people who have been unable to look at an image because the bits in question were in a browser cache or in an email that they had not opened cannot be guilty of any offence. No doubt how Huw Edwards dealt with what he was sent will affect sentencing, the person who sent them to him appears to have been given a suspended sentence so one would think that an unwilling recipient would not be given a custodial sentence, but heaven… Read more »
Farage accused by the ex of Cox of “inciting a riot”.
Nigel Farage condemned for response to Southport stabbings as Reform MP accused of ‘inciting a riot’ (msn.com)
What a bunch of cnuts. They don’t care about anything related to this, it’s only important to them because they can weaponize it to attack Farage.
He’s a horrible excuse for a man that Cox guy.
Saw that, outrageous. Farage did or said nothing wrong. Another case like Matt Hancock branding Andrew Bridgen an anti Semite when he’d actually quoted an Israeli doctor. Deflect, deflect when it’s your only defence
Off topic, apologies.
“Yvette Cooper looks at prescribing the EDL as a terrorist organisation following the Southport riot”
So what?, they didn’t cause it and they haven’t been anything like active since 2013!
It’s another close your eyes,fingers in ears, hum loudly.
Doesn’t this thicko know that this kind of pretend ignorance is whats causing this?
A child knows that behind all this is an absolute policy not to talk about immigration, government silence is the cause, by both parties, the vote has made not a jot of difference to immigration policy, so, what to do when the vote is meaningless and the new government STILL will not listen?
The country will find out over the coming months!
She is the terrorist not Farage with her sign about letting in migrants. As Mark Steyn said, diversity is where a Nation goes to die.
👍 👍 👍
No requirement to apologise for OFF-T posts Dinger. There is little traffic on the News Round Up BTL after about 10 am so OFF-T ‘s are best posted on the latest thread for maximum exposure.
Just be mindful that an intemperate and rude subscriber might come along and tell you off for being a naughty boy but ignore him.
That’s from the king of Off-T posts, by the way.
Can be irritating, in fact.
Oops, wrong post
I have a video that Tommy Robinson posted this morning stating that the EDL has not existed for “a decade” – his words.
Hey hux, I found this short one. Not watched it all. Is it the right one?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2pTjbqM5zyLp
It isn’t. I think you should watch it. I tought about writing something about the justified anger myself but didn’t really know how to word it. He did this much better than I ever could. I’m only happy that I’ve been here for long enough to actually understand this¹.
¹ When I was new here, in 2011, I listened to announcements in supermarkets and couldn’t distinguish them from Chinese. And that despite I had been working for and with Americans for about 7 years at that time.
”Home Secretary ‘will be looking at whether to ban’ English Defence League after riots on the streets of Southport in the wake of horror knife attack at Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
The EDL hasn’t existed for a decade.
Idiots!”
https://x.com/sammywoodhouse1/status/1818674876615454862
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13693737/Home-Secretary-English-Defence-League-riots-Southport-knife-attack-dance-class.html
Reading man had almost 2,000 child abuse images on phone | Reading Chronicle -“Shekeil Iqbal, 34, from Reading, was sentenced to three years and four months in prison. He previously pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in sexual activity with a child, attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity, and three counts of making indecent images of children. Reading Crown Court heard how Iqbal amassed a vast library of child abuse images. Overall, police found 1,868 indecent photos and videos on his phone. Judge Sarah Campbell suggested this could be the tip of the iceberg, as a further 31,000 images on Iqbal’s device were never analysed.” Anger as appeal judges cut child porn sentence | The Herald (heraldscotland.com) Former church volunteer sentenced for downloading 165 child porn images | East Anglian Daily Times (eadt.co.uk) Police find 60,000 child porn images and videos on Suffolk man’s devices | East Anglian Daily Times (eadt.co.uk) Man jailed for possession of child porn images after former sex offence convictions | Oxford Mail Man who deleted child porn images off phone avoids jail | Stroud News and Journal Oxford man, 24, spared jail over child sex abuse images | Oxford Mail These news stories are… Read more »
This is very unpleasant. A seven year old? I mean at that age you have no sexual identity whatsoever and that an adult would make you suffer pain and humiliation and damage for the rest of your life. That anyone could be that callous and yet pretend to deliver a moral message from the hallowed BBC. This is high level evi;. Of course it is systemic and insitutional. It is mostly only early boomers and pensioners that bother with the BBC these days. I hope this revelaton might even challenge their loyalty. Such a man deserves the ultimate penalty.
I wonder what the ‘category A’ images are like. I suspect that they show the worst violation of a child imaginable. To be frank in most sane societies if you get off on that then you are swiftly removed for obvious health and safety reasons. And such perpetrators do not lose their proclivities. Imagine that eh, jerking off whilst looking at a child being raped. You can’t really get any lower.
So two very high profile highly-paid paedos employed for years by the BBC.
I wonder how many more they’re sheltering?
As someone said last night, Edwards looked like butter wouldn’t melt but at least Savile had the decency to look dodgy
Whatever the ins and outs, rights and wrongs of this case, you don’t happen to stroll into a WhatsApp group like you might a bar full of gangsters in Hollywood. Even less so when you are looking for Kids R Us groups: they are surely highly secretive.
You look for it and join it. He was being sent images between December 2020 and August 2022. Did he not know how to block a person?
Now, okay, he may have inadvertently wandered into a Kids R Us Bar and taken a seat. He may not have asked for the pictures. He may be thicker than one of his nations Welsh Leeks. He may be guilty of nothing more than being stupid but that does not excuse him from what most of us would, surely, do: take your phone to the Police.
Indeed, he could have been a national hero for uncovering a Paedo group and causing the arrest of one or more predators. Hell, he could even have written and presented it himself. Instead he collected them. For two years. He kept them for four years.
Out of interest, if you received a similar photo or photos what would you do? I’d go straight to the Police and explain what happened. I wouldn’t block the person, I wouldn’t delete the images. I’d seek advice from the Police much as I mistrust their upper management.
I wouldn’t trade gay porn with people I met online.
Delete it immediately then block the sender. You invite the police into your life at your peril and as a rule you should put maximum distance between yourself and any situation where the police could get involved. They are NOT bright people.
I say this from experience. A friend of mine was arrested on suspicion of fraud many years ago (his boss had stolen client money then absconded abroad, never to be found). It took a year of depression and anxiety for him to be ‘de-arrested’ (not sure if I have the right word here). I did what I could to keep him cheerful but it was a torrid year for him.