Huw Edwards

Angus said:
No but he was arrested I believe in November so I presume they had knowledge of the investigation from then.

He is of course presumed innocent until convicted.
Click to expand...
Which is around what I thought. Somewhat of a leap at this stage to claim some kind of massive cover up . There are processes etc.
 
The BBC are saying he was one their best paid employees - what was he on - £400k a year?

Edit - Just found out he was on around £475,000 a year and the BBC paid it till he resigned in April 2024. Even though they knew he had been arrested in November 2023 for these offences an he was suspended at the time by the BBC.
 
Last edited:
boringblock_21 said:
It absolutely is despicable. But I always find the wording of this odd, because technically, the “making” part of this in law often refers to the creation of a digital file rather than the creation of the event depicted in the image, which is defined by law as “production” of indecent images I believe.

For clarity - any child sexual abuse constitutes a despicable act, I just wonder if the language couldn’t be made clearer so the general public can truely appreciate/understand the crime that has been committed
Click to expand...

I was thinking exactly the same thing last night. I read an article that said even if a person unknowingly downloads an image from a pop up on a website that legally constitutes making an indecent image. A person could be changed if it could be proven that they knew there was a strong chance that images could be downloaded without consent, before visiting the website.
 
I’m presuming committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

He will now have to register as a sex offender with the police.

Starting point is 12 months custody for class A images on the sentencing guidelines.The probation service will do a report on him.

For a first time offender sentence may well be suspended.


Highly likely in due course to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order which will potentially regulate his access to the internet and children under 18.
 
sherlock said:
How would him being castrated have affected his ability to commit these crimes?
Click to expand...
I assume it would remove his sexual urges and therefore his desire to commit the crimes. Aren’t there places where they use chemical cat ration for these purposes.
 
Scrug said:
Where did I say it was?
Click to expand...
You didn’t, but you said he needs castrating. I just questioned how castrating him now would have affected his crimes.

It wouldn’t have. It is just a desire for violent retribution. It might affect his potential for future crimes, but that can and should be done in a more lawful and less violent way 👍
 
sherlock said:
I’d wager Scrug wasn’t talking about chemical castration, the tone of his posts suggests he wants the violent, bloody kind.
Click to expand...
I didn’t read it that way. I’ve just looked at a list of countries that have legalised chemical castration and I have to say they don’t look the most savoury bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top