Huw Edwards' BBC pay increased by £40,000 last year

[Chippy_Tea]

WTF


Former BBC news presenter Huw Edwards, who resigned from the BBC on medical advice in April, saw his salary increase by £40,000 last year.

Edwards was suspended in July 2023 over allegations in The Sun newspaper of paying a young person for sexually explicit photos.
Police did not take any action against him, saying there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed.
He received between £435,000 and £439,999 in the year 2022/2023, which rose to £475,000 - £479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, the BBC's latest annual report shows.
Edwards remained on the payroll while suspended, which is normal BBC policy.
Edwards' departure came nine months after his wife said he had been admitted to hospital with "serious mental health issues"

He was the corporation's highest-paid newsreader last year.
The BBC confirmed when Edwards resigned that the presenter had not been paid off as part of his departure.
Speaking on Tuesday, the BBC's director general Tim Davie said: "No-one wants to waste a pound but we need to act proportionately and fairly and I think that's what we did.
"Prior to any breaking of the (Edwards) story, people do get pay rises for extended responsibility and more hours' work. So that's fairly normal, and that's what resulted in the change."

Full article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng8glnljyo

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Former BBC news presenter Huw Edwards, who resigned from the BBC on medical advice in April, saw his salary increase by £40,000 last year.

Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children.

The offences are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022 and relate to 37 images that were shared on a WhatsApp chat, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The broadcaster was arrested last November and charged last month, the force revealed on Monday.

He is due to appear in court in London on Wednesday.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “Huw Edwards, 62, of Southwark, London has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children following a Met Police investigation.

“The offences, which are alleged to have taken place between December 2020 and April 2022, relate to images shared on a WhatsApp chat.

“Edwards was arrested on 8 November 2023. He was charged on Wednesday, 26 June following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“He has been bailed to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, 31 July.

“Media and the public are strongly reminded that this is an active case. Nothing should be published, including on social media, which could prejudice future court proceedings.”

Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, the most serious classification of indecent images, on a phone. He is also accused of having 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs.

If found guilty, he could receive a sentence of up to six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

Mr Edwards left the BBC in April.

He was previously the corporation’s most high-profile and best-paid news anchor, one of the main presenters on BBC One's Ten O'Clock News, and was often chosen to front coverage of major national events.

 

[The Baron]

Why does it take over a month to tell us he has been charged on the 27th of June?
Asking for a friend

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Does this mean he has been on full pay for 12 months?

Edwards was suspended in July 2023 over allegations in The Sun newspaper of paying a young person for sexually explicit photos.

“Edwards was arrested on 8 November 2023. He was charged on Wednesday, 26 June following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“He has been bailed to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, 31 July.

 

[The Baron]

I understand he was on full suspended pay up until he resigned from the BBC

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Huw Edwards' broadcasting career ends in disgrace

Huw Edwards was one of the most familiar and respected faces on British TV, but is now in disgrace after pleading guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.

The former BBC News presenter's admission at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday came three months after the former anchor resigned from the BBC on "medical advice".

The presenter had been off air since July last year, when he was named as the star at the centre of different allegations, also involving explicit images.

His guilty plea marks the end of a career in broadcasting which has spanned more than 40 years.

He was known for his calm delivery of major news stories and was trusted by viewers.

Until last year, Edwards had been the BBC's first choice to front coverage of major national events, including the 2019 general election and the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II.

Professor Tim Luckhurst, a former BBC executive, said there had been "the revelation of a dark side", which had been "extremely well hidden".

"We've seen the downfall of a national figure, and we must recognise that dark side has been responsible for his fall."

FULL ARTICLE BBC NEWS

 

[Clint]

Peado.

 

[Alastair70]

To borrow one of my brother’s exclamations of surprise….

“Stoat the Ba!”


(He’s a very bad man, but admittedly not in Huw’s league)

 

[Leon103]

Why does it take over a month to tell us he has been charged on the 27th of June?
Asking for a friend

Do the police/CPS post details about every case they charge

 

[Stu]

He's guilty as charged and I'm certain he will receive a suspended sentence and community service.
There are a number of issues with this case.

As someone who works in IT, I don't understand the "Making indecent images". In every way I can think of the way a computer program works, the receiver of images on Whatsapp, Facebook, Insta, Snapchat or whatever other social media of your choosing is not "making" anything. They're receiving.

"Making indecent images" for me, is as a minimum SENDING them. If not actually filming them.

Now, two wrongs here do NOT make a right. We were talking about this at work today. I've received some "questionable" images and videos in the past. Not in any way paedophile, but would look awkward if my work were to see them. Uncomfortable in terms of race or sexism, for instance. Not illegal per se, but morally questionable and yes, they made me uncomfortable and I told the people sending that I didn't much like them. And on Facebook a group I was in were definitely on the edge of the law with some stuff. I left very swiftly.

If you have no idea what I mean, lookup Miserable Zippy on Facebook and join the one with 107,000 members.

So what if you received something that was the wrong side of the law? What should you do? Turn a blind eye? Ask the person not to send them? Report straight to the Police? If so, at what stage? When it's erring on the wrong side or when it's blatantly illegal?

The other question was who was sending them? This was a 2 month period (December 2022 -> Feb 2023). They were asked to top sending them within 2 months and they did. But the sender clearly has access to way more than were ever sent. And possibly did video or photograph said acts. This person is way more dangerous in my eyes and needs to be found and stopped (and be castrated).

 

[Chippy_Tea]

As someone who works in IT, I don't understand the "Making indecent images". In every way I can think of the way a computer program works, the receiver of images on Whatsapp, Facebook, Insta, Snapchat or whatever other social media of your choosing is not "making" anything. They're receiving.

I am glad you asked I wondered the same, according to the news this morning it's a general term they use for people having, sending and receiving illegal images etc, which brings me to -

So what if you received something that was the wrong side of the law? What should you do? Turn a blind eye? Ask the person not to send them? Report straight to the Police? If so, at what stage? When it's erring on the wrong side or when it's blatantly illegal?

This was also covered, you should delete it, block the sender and and report it the sender to the police you have then covered your back.

 

[Clint]

Poster in the background...I'd say that is "making" an image.

 

[Stu]

This was also covered, you should delete it, block the sender and and report it the sender to the police you have then covered your back.

And this is kinda the point. If it's a mate sending you something that's morally wrong, errs slightly on the wrong side of the law, are we saying you should stitch them up?

I've been sent videos that in my mind are casually racist, mysoginist or homophobic before. So that's illegal. I'm happy to respond and say "Hey, that's not OK" to a mate, but I'm hardly going to go marching down the Police station.

We're also making an assumption that people who aren't au-fait with technology are able to do this. Not to mention that if you're in a group, even if you leave the group, if said image was there when you were a member, you're party to it.

The coppers that were done last year had this problem. Some of them were disgusted and left the group. But they were still party to the images that were posted. They can't delete the images, because they're in the group and they didn't post them.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

And this is kinda the point. If it's a mate sending you something that's morally wrong, errs slightly on the wrong side of the law, are we saying you should stitch them up?

If a mate of yours sends you a Bernard Manning video i wouldn't expect you to grass him up if he sends you a video of child abuse i would.

We're also making an assumption that people who aren't au-fait with technology are able to do this. Not to mention that if you're in a group, even if you leave the group, if said image was there when you were a member, you're party to it.

How difficult is it to leave the group and send a link to the illegal stuff to the police so they can deal with it?

As i said above this covers your back.

 

[MashBag]

I see where you are coming from with this, and agree it is complicated. I have received racist/sexist stuff that is close to the wire.. but I do know what is and isn't reportable. And if I did I probably wouldn't. But I might have a word.

A mate lost his job years ago for a spicy email "misuse of a business system"... An ex girlfriend bated him.

 

[Stu]

How difficult is it to leave the group and send a link to the illegal stuff to the police so they can deal with it?

As i said above this covers your back.

And therein lies the issue. You don't know. And you're clearly internet savvy.
So someone who isn't so internet savvy definitely isn't.

FTR, you can't. Once you leave a group, you can't see any content. But it's still there. And still shows you being in the group at the time, so you know about it. And anything you said (or didn't say) will still be there for everyone to see.

I see where you are coming from with this, and agree it is complicated. I have received racist/sexist stuff that is close to the wire.. but I do know what is and isn't reportable. And if I did I probably wouldn't. But I might have a word.

A mate lost his job years ago for a spicy email "misuse of a business system"... An ex girlfriend bated him.

Yup, years ago I was an email admin. Just in the days as the law changed about being able to read people's emails without having to justify and go via HR.

As an aside, the worst one I saw was someone using their work email to run a betting syndicate. Early days of the internet and they literally had thousands of emails coming in every hour. In those days, we didn't get that many emails (think around 1998) as people still liked to phone each other and have physical meetings.

We couldn't understand why we were getting so much traffic until we looked.......

 

[Chippy_Tea]

And therein lies the issue. You don't know. And you're clearly internet savvy.

I have left many FB groups over the years its a simple case of click leave group its not rocket science!

FTR, you can't. Once you leave a group, you can't see any content. But it's still there. And still shows you being in the group at the time, so you know about it. And anything you said (or didn't say) will still be there for everyone to see.

So you are in a Home Brew group and you read a post titled "Free Stuff" where someone has posted a picture of child abuse you report it to the moderators who will ban them and remove all their posts from members and guests view and then give the persons email, IP and pictures etc to the police, there is no way you are going to be prosecuted for accidentally finding this stuff.

 

[Stu]

I have left many FB groups over the years its a simple case of click leave group its not rocket science!

View attachment 102361


So you are in a Home Brew group and you read a post titled "Free Stuff" where someone has posted a picture of child abuse you report it to the moderators who will ban them and remove all their posts from members and guests view and then give the persons email, IP and pictures etc to the police, there is no way you are going to be prosecuted for accidentally finding this stuff.

Oh absolutely.
I struggle to see how he thought he was going to get away with it.

Back to your Facebook group, we're talking about Whatsapp groups. Once you leave the group, you've left. Anything that was still in that group whilst you were in it is still there. It's not so easy to report either. And if you did, the Police may well think you're a complicit crank in the first place. Not to mention the photo is still on your phone (and if you're an iPhone user, it just gets muddled up with all the other thousands of photos - at least Android puts it in a separate folder)

But it's like anything. We're focusing on the effect, because he's famous rather than the cause.

I'm trying to say we need to focus on WHO made those videos or photos. WHO distributed those videos or photos.
WHO received them is also important, particularly if they just did nothing.

It's like a murder. If someone is a murderer, and someone else houses them, then the person housing them will get in trouble. Could get prison time, although it's more likely a suspended sentence.

The murderer is still getting a life sentence, whatever happens. And frankly, the person housing them is insignificant in the bigger picture of the crime.

I'm hoping that we'll find out that by getting into his Whatsapp and pictures, the Police will be able to find out who sent them. And hopefully work their way backwards unpeeling the onion to get to the root of this evil.

 

[Stu]

To add, I haven't really checked the news today and noticed the fella is now known
https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-t...-who-sent-huw-edwards-illegal-images-13188554

Interestingly, it was Edwards downfall - the Police weren't actually investigating Huw Edwards. It was by complete chance they spotted his number having this stuff sent to him. Which is probably why the Police played it down - sounds like he's 1 of many. And as above, being famous means that you're an easy target. I mean, they probably know about John Smith having thousands of these, but because John Smith is a call centre worker, it's not really news.

Now this scumbag knew EXACTLY what he was doing and needs to be sent down for a long time. And I genuinely have no issue with him being chemically castrated.

 

[Leon103]

He's guilty as charged and I'm certain he will receive a suspended sentence and community service.
There are a number of issues with this case.

As someone who works in IT, I don't understand the "Making indecent images". In every way I can think of the way a computer program works, the receiver of images on Whatsapp, Facebook, Insta, Snapchat or whatever other social media of your choosing is not "making" anything. They're receiving.

"Making indecent images" for me, is as a minimum SENDING them. If not actually filming them.

Now, two wrongs here do NOT make a right. We were talking about this at work today. I've received some "questionable" images and videos in the past. Not in any way paedophile, but would look awkward if my work were to see them. Uncomfortable in terms of race or sexism, for instance. Not illegal per se, but morally questionable and yes, they made me uncomfortable and I told the people sending that I didn't much like them. And on Facebook a group I was in were definitely on the edge of the law with some stuff. I left very swiftly.

If you have no idea what I mean, lookup Miserable Zippy on Facebook and join the one with 107,000 members.

So what if you received something that was the wrong side of the law? What should you do? Turn a blind eye? Ask the person not to send them? Report straight to the Police? If so, at what stage? When it's erring on the wrong side or when it's blatantly illegal?

The other question was who was sending them? This was a 2 month period (December 2022 -> Feb 2023). They were asked to top sending them within 2 months and they did. But the sender clearly has access to way more than were ever sent. And possibly did video or photograph said acts. This person is way more dangerous in my eyes and needs to be found and stopped (and be castrated).

Because he has saved them. If he had viewed them and instantly deleted them then no issues.