WHEN people talk about “indecent images” in a case like this, it can be easy to forget an actual child is being abused.
The pictures in this case are essentially forensic evidence of a crime being committed against a child.
Huw Edwards has admitted being sent 41 indecent images of children.
One video shows a boy as young as seven to nine.
I am stunned a respected news anchor who knows the law and has reported on all kinds of major crimes would not report this kind of image immediately to the police.
That is the very minimum he should have done.
I think many people who have watched Huw on the BBC over the years will feel shocked and let down.
There is sometimes talk that abuse images are “just pictures” and looking at them doesn’t mean you touched a child.
But they are never “just pictures”.
Sharing heinous images of this nature facilitates abuse.
I am dismayed the BBC, with the history around its presenters, would not be more vigilant or act quickly.
Huw seemed like a figure of moral authority who held a position of power.
It shows there is no such thing as a typical abuser.
Even in message trails with older teenagers, which may not be illegal, it is still morally wrong.
We have seen victims and families discredited.
Just like in the Rotherham grooming scandal, those who spoke up were ignored because of their backgrounds.
Yet those who are most vulnerable are often in the greatest need of protection.
