Paedophiles: A Protected Class

The story of BBC journalist Huw Edwards, and the apologists defending paedophiles as victims or “minor attracted persons”.

Originally published via Creed Speech Substack.

Let’s dive straight in by quoting from some mainstream outlets.

Via The Guardian (31st July 2024):

As it faces accusations of being caught out, corporation has decisions to take on pay and use of archive footage.

Mark Sweney

Wed 31 Jul 2024 17.14 BST

The former BBC presenter Huw Edwards’ guilty plea to charges of making indecent images of children has sent the corporation into damage limitation mode, raising questions about management’s handling of the scandal and the impact on its reputation.

“The BBC is shocked to hear the details which have emerged in court today,” said a spokesperson for the corporation. “There can be no place for such abhorrent behaviour and our thoughts are with all those affected.”

The 62-year-old, the face of the BBC’s coverage of national events including the funeral of the late queen and the coronation of King Charles and a main presenter on BBC One’s News at Ten, admitted to having 41 indecent images of children that had been sent to him at his request by another man on WhatsApp.

They included seven category A images, the most serious, showing abuse including penetrative sexual activity, two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.

Edwards, who is facing a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and will be sentenced on 16 September, was the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, pocketing between £475,000 and £479,000 in the year to 31 March.

He continued to be paid, including receiving a £40,000 pay rise, despite not working for most of that time, having been suspended by the BBC since last July.

It is just unreal. Edwards continued to get paid the whole time throughout his suspension. With British taxpayer money. Should the British Broadcasting Corporation be renamed as the ‘Paedophile Broadcasting Corporation’ aka PBC?

Via SkyNews.Com:

Huw Edwards has been spared jail for accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.

The former BBC presenter was sentenced at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London after he pleaded guilty to three counts of “making” indecent images of children.

The court heard how he paid up to £1,500 to a paedophile who sent him 41 illegal images between December 2020 and August 2021, seven of which were of the most serious type.

Live updates from court as Huw Edwards is sentenced

Huw Edwards Pic: Met Police — Image: A mugshot of Huw Edwards has been released by police. Pic: Met Police

Of those images, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine.

Sentencing him, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring told Edwards his “reputation is now in tatters” and called his crimes “extremely serious offences”.

The disgraced broadcaster held his hands together and leaned forward throughout the hearing as he was handed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

As part of his sentence, the 63-year-old must attend a sex offender treatment programme and 25 rehabilitation sessions.

He is also required to sign the sex offenders’ register for seven years and pay £3,128 in costs and a victim surcharge.

Following the sentencing, a BBC spokesperson said: “We are appalled by his crimes. He has betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him.”

Edwards offered ‘naughty pics’

Prosecutor Ian Hope told the court Edwards had been assessed as posing a “medium risk of causing serious harm to children”.

The newsreader was sent the illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy, with Williams telling Edwards the child was “quite young looking” and that he had more images which were illegal.

The images involved in Edwards’ case included seven category A images, 12 category B images, and 22 category C images.

The court heard that Edwards had told his probation officer that his offending arose out of his fixation on online communications of a sexual nature, his poor mental health, using alcohol and the deterioration of his marriage.

Former BBC broadcaster Huw Edwards arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court. Pic: PA — Pic: PA

The hearing was told of Edwards’ “long-standing mental health struggles” and how he had been diagnosed with arteriosclerosis – a vascular disease which causes the gradual hardening of arteries – last December.

Mr Hope noted “the effect of these conditions includes impact on and impairment of mood, behaviour and judgement”.

The court heard Edwards is an in-patient at a private hospital.

A ‘betrayal’ of trust

Edwards’ barrister Philip Evans KC had made submissions on the ex-newsreader’s behalf, saying his client did not get any gratification from the indecent images.

Mr. Evans said money sent to Williams by Edwards was “certainly not” for indecent images and pointed out that Williams “sought out” Edwards rather than the other way around.

The barrister said the former newsreader had “no memory of viewing any particular images”.

Calling the media coverage of the case “extraordinary,” Mr. Evans said Edwards wanted to apologise to the court and express “how profoundly sorry he is”.

Huw Edwards — Image: Edwards arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his sentencing

Williams was charged in relation to his WhatsApp chat with Edwards and was convicted of seven offences following an investigation by South Wales Police – receiving a 12-month suspended sentence.

The court heard one WhatsApp exchange in which Williams had offered Edwards “naughty pics and vids,” adding that they were “young looking” [sic].

Edwards twice told him to “go on” and Williams sent a Category A moving image – the most serious category – showing a male child aged around seven to nine, the hearing was told.

On asking for more images, Williams told Edwards he was “not sure” if he would like them as they were illegal, to which the newsreader responded: “Ah OK don’t”.

The barrister said Edwards “recognises the repugnant nature and the hurt done to those who appear” in the images and “for his part in that he apologises sincerely and makes clear he has the utmost regret”.

He also said Edwards recognises he has “betrayed the priceless trust” placed in him, damaged his family and is “truly sorry he’s committed these offences”.

Delivering his sentence, the judge said Edwards would be “particularly vulnerable” if he was given a custodial sentence, both from attack from others and as a suicide risk.

He referred to a report which described Edwards “psychologically challenging upbringing”, with a father who was “highly regarded” publicly but who was perceived to behave “monstrously” within the family.

The report also outlined the breakdown of Edwards’ marriage to TV producer Vicky Flind, saying the broadcaster didn’t consider his bisexuality to be an excuse for his infidelity.

BBC career

During his four decades at the BBC, Edwards was among the broadcasting teams covering historic events, with his most high-profile moment coming in September 2022, when he announced the late Queen’s death.

Last week, BBC chairman Samir Shah admitted the Edwards had “damaged” the reputation of the corporation.

The BBC is attempting to recover an estimated £200,000 in pay from Edwards, who continued to be paid a salary for around five months after the corporation discovered he had been arrested in November 2023.

Edwards resigned from the BBC in April citing medical advice.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, “making” an indecent image has been broadly interpreted by the courts.

It can range from opening an attachment to an email containing an image, to accessing pornographic websites in which indecent photographs of children appear by way of an automatic “pop-up” mechanism.

In the case of Edwards, he received the illegal images as part of a WhatsApp conversation.

Mr Evans said his client had not “created” the images “in the traditional sense of the word”.

This is just mind-blowing. In the age where dissidents criticising the government response to the recent UK riots and two-tier policing are being jailed and fast tracked for stints up to 26 months in the slammer just for “gesticulating at police” as well as memers being in the cross-hairs of the law…

Yet, paedophiles are merely fined and fawned over, with a suspended sentence, due to their ‘mental health’. Edwards shall not see in the inside of a prison cell.

What the hell is this messed up parallel universe I have awoken to?

I normally use yandex.eu as my go-to search engine, as it yields a greater coverage of results for all things globalist-policy-related compared to Brave browser. I was sorely disappointed in this instance. I searched “Huw Edwards BBC” just to see what came up.

Yandex search results:

Brave browser search results:

[WATCH ON ODYSEE – note the comments]

☝️*This is / was the literal title of the video. TedX removed it from YouTube after – shock😲horror – massive backlash. I think the video is from 2018.

I realise this makes for very uncomfortable viewing, so see below for a breakdown of what was said.

TEDx was forced to remove the video after a medical student said accepting pedophiles will help decrease their “suffering”.

A TEDx speaker has argued that pedophilia should be accepted as “an unchangeable sexual orientation.”

Mirjam Heine presented her talk “Pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation” at the University of Würtzberg in Germany, and said that pedophilia is like any other sexual orientation.

“According to current research pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation just like, for example, heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile, no one can cease being one,” Heine argued. “The difference between pedophilia and other sexual orientations is that living out this sexual orientation will end in a disaster.”

While Heine clarified her comments by noting that “abusing children is wrong without any doubt,” she said that a “pedophile who doesn’t abuse children has done nothing wrong.”

She also said that accepting pedophiles and encouraging them to not pursue their desires will help end their “suffering.”

“We shouldn’t increase the sufferings of pedophiles by excluding them, by blaming and mocking them,” she said. “By doing that, we increase their isolation and we increase the chance of child sexual abuse.”

She added: “We should accept that pedophiles are people who have not chosen their sexuality and who, unlike most of us, will never be able to live it out freely…. Most of us feel discomfort when we think about pedophiles. But just like pedophiles, we are not responsible for our feelings. We do not choose them but we are responsible for our actions.”

People actually applauded her at the end of the talk.

What a vile woman.

The push to not only normalise paedophilia but also give paedophiles victimhood status is an abomination.

I know this is a grim subject. It is horrible beyond descriptive words to do the entirety of the miscarriage of injustice actual justice. Still, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. As Frank Zappa said:

“The more you can escape from how horrible things really are, the less it’s going to bother you…and then, the worse things get.”

I could wrap this up now, but I’m not quite done yet, dear readers. Stay with me, if you can stomach it.

[YouTube link Nov 16, 2021- it might get scrubbed, which is why I have ripped and embedded it in the original Substack post too.]

A professor is taking a lot of heat. Allyn Walker said the word pedophile shouldn’t be used to refer to people who are attracted to children because it comes with a stigma. Walker also said people can be attracted to children without acting on it. Dana Smith has more on what the professor said and the response from Walker and the community.

The controversy surrounding old dominion university professor Dr. Allyn Walker centers around their argument that not everyone who is attracted to children will abuse children it isn’t actually a choice so people are just born with this condition in an interview with the Prostasia Foundation, Walker said the term minor attracted people or MAPS should be used to describe people who are attracted to children it’s less stigmatizing than other terms like pedophile:

“A lot of people when they hear the term pedophile they automatically assume that it means a sex offender and that isn’t true and it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors” – [said Walker].

But not everyone sees it that way, including people on campus like Andrew Lombachus president of the ODU college republicans:

“I’m actually thinking about planning a peaceful protest against Alan Walker.”

In the interview, Walker stressed child sexual abuse is never ok, they explained there is a difference between attraction and behavior Walker said there is no morality attached to attraction because that’s something we can’t help. The Prostasia foundation’s executive director Jeremy Malcolm agrees what experts like Dr. Walker are saying is that telling these people that they are inherently bad and doomed to offend is counterproductive.

Criticism about Walker’s comments prompted ODU and Walker to release statements over the weekend. The statement from the university reads:

“An academic community plays a valuable role in the quest for knowledge. Aa vital part of this is being willing to consider scientific and other empirical data that may involve controversial issues and perspectives.”

For their part, Walker said “child sexual abuse is an inexcusable crime the goal of my research is to prevent crime. I embarked on this research in hopes of gaining understanding of a group that previously has not been studied in order to identify ways to protect children.”

[Archive link for the Prostasia interview ‘blog’ in case that gets scrubbed – I recommend always saving important articles to PDF too, using CTRL+P on the webpage then select ‘print to PDF’ to save it to your hard-drive].

The mind boggles at this depravity and advocacy for normalising paedophilia.

They cite the quest for knowledge and scientific and other empirical data. As ever, trust the science™. In this case, I shall instead trust fellow netizens’ top rated comments on the offending YouTube video: