Huw Edwards

He's a filthy disgusting nonce
Guilty plea entered.. images of a child under 9
Sweet jesus.
Edwards if you were to top yourself that would be a more fitting closure here.

At least that way we don't have to pay for your imprisonment

Our judicial system needs overhauling in terms of sentencing for child abuse related offences

Chemical castration and very lengthy jail sentences so they are too old to want to masturbate over poor little kids being abused.
Those poor little victims out there breaks my heart
Another reason why I often feel the earth is inhabited by the.most undeserving of occupants
A nice purge of society will do nicely
And it looks like it's coming
 
Without wishing to sound like I'm in any way defending him, if you specifically ask someone not to send you anything illegal, but they do anyway, is it fair that you are then guilty? Or is the argument that he should have blocked the person immediately and didn't, hence that's why he's a nonce?
 
atypical_boro said:
Without wishing to sound like I'm in any way defending him, if you specifically ask someone not to send you anything illegal, but they do anyway, is it fair that you are then guilty? Or is the argument that he should have blocked the person immediately and didn't, hence that's why he's a nonce?
Click to expand...
I read that. Seems he made multiple requests not to be sent anything illegal. I wonder if he never deleted them straight away .. or maybe had a duty to report it, but didn't .. and therefore is seen as being complicit
 
Rauko said:
I read that. Seems he made multiple requests not to be sent anything illegal. I wonder if he never deleted them straight away .. or maybe had a duty to report it, but didn't .. and therefore is seen as being complicit
Click to expand...
Yes I suppose that could be it. It does seem like he continued interacting with this bloke after he'd sent him the images, which is definitely not ok.
 
atypical_boro said:
Without wishing to sound like I'm in any way defending him, if you specifically ask someone not to send you anything illegal, but they do anyway, is it fair that you are then guilty? Or is the argument that he should have blocked the person immediately and didn't, hence that's why he's a nonce?
Click to expand...
The legislation provides three defences the one possible relevant is reproduced below;

(2)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—



(c)that the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.


He kept the images it would seem and kept receiving them when it was clear that some of what he was being sent involved children.

Potentially he may receive a suspended term of imprisonment, immediate custody is not inevitable for a first time offender.

He is now a registered sex offender and his interaction with children and the internet likely to be regulated and supervised for years but that will be done as and when he is sentenced.
 
I have little confidence in the BBC’s management of the when you consider their failings with Saville and Stuart Hall.
 
He's obviously got a thing for looking at pictures of pubescent boys/lads, but has also strayed on the wrong line of the law, hence his guilty plea. As mentioned above, may get a suspended sentence, but also may be used as an example to others, and equally likely to get a custodial sentence.
 
Last edited:
MVBoro said:
He's obviously got a thing for looking at pictures of pubescent boys/lads, but has also strayed on the wrong line of the law, hence his guilty plea. As mentioned above, may get a suspended sentence, but also may be used as an example to others, and equally likely to get a custodial sentence.
Click to expand...
I think by having a thing for looking at pictures of boys he had long since strayed on the wrong side of the law
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDG
Matlex71 said:
I think by having a thing for looking at pictures of boys he had long since strayed on the wrong side of the law
Click to expand...
Without knowing the exact laws, I guess it's legal to view pictures of over 16s? From what has been reported, he had viewed a lot of those sorts of pictures/images as well.
 
If he's been asking for and viewing pornographic photos of boys since 2020 - he should at least pay back his salary when he was not working, but been paid. He was partaking in illegal activities or had done by this time. He supposedly said he didn't want underage photos, but if the boys are clearly under 18 he should know there is an issue, from their appearance.

It will be interesting to see what sentence he gets. His career is now completely finished, but because of his age it was coming to an end anyway.
 
Reading the story on the BBC site - the guy who sent him the child porn got a 12 month suspended sentence, I can't see Davies getting any more that.
 
Ian Bairds Ears said:
He's a filthy disgusting nonce
Guilty plea entered.. images of a child under 9
Sweet jesus.
Edwards if you were to top yourself that would be a more fitting closure here.

At least that way we don't have to pay for your imprisonment

Our judicial system needs overhauling in terms of sentencing for child abuse related offences

Chemical castration and very lengthy jail sentences so they are too old to want to masturbate over poor little kids being abused.
Those poor little victims out there breaks my heart
Another reason why I often feel the earth is inhabited by the.most undeserving of occupants
A nice purge of society will do nicely
And it looks like it's coming
Click to expand...
"A nice purge of society will do nicely
And it looks like it's coming"

Care to elaborate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top