Huw Edwards' sentence is not unexpected, that doesn’t mean it’s OK
Plus the Starmer gifted clothes controversy explained and royal birthday wishes for Prince Harry
Two years ago this month, Huw Edwards announced to millions of viewers that Queen Elizabeth II had died. His position at the BBC as its most trusted and highest paid newsreader was, at that time, rock solid.
This week his shocking fall from grace is now complete, after he received a six-month suspended jail sentence over indecent images of children sent to him via WhatsApp.
A suspended sentence means he won’t go to prison, unless he commits any other offences in the next two years. He will be placed on the sex offenders’ register for seven years and must undergo rehabilitation.
The details of the case are shocking. Edwards was found to have 41 indecent images, with one featuring a child aged seven to nine and others of children aged 13 to 15. The images included seven category A images, the most serious, 12 category B images, and 22 category C images. Edwards admitted three counts of making indecent images - which is a legal term used when the defendant has downloaded or viewed the images. A court heard this week he paid the young man who sent him the images £1,500.
The news has understandably led to much outcry. How could someone in possession of such horrifying images, which supports the horrendous exploitation and abuse of children, not go to prison?
Compounding the anger was Edwards’ attempt at explaining his behaviour. In summarising the case against Edwards, Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring noted the former broadcaster’s “psychologically challenging” upbringing and his feelings of inadequacy at the BBC. He noted Edwards had low self-esteem because he went to Cardiff and not Oxford to study, which meant he was “something of an outsider at the BBC”.
The payment element to Edwards’ crimes has also enraged people. He denies paying the person who sent him the images - a man called Alex Williams, who also escaped jail - for them. He says they were just gifts. It seems an awfully unfortunate coincidence to be sending cash to someone you hardly know after they sent you illegal content.
I’ve seen people claim the sentence was lenient due to his fame and/or due to his race. The sad truth is, this is an entirely normal sentence for such a crime when it is a first offence - see The Secret Barrister’s explanation of the law here.
It is certainly the case that Edwards had certain advantages over others going through the courts, with the money to pay for excellent legal representation and medical reports to present in mitigation.
But, as former Old Bailey judge Wendy Joseph explained to Sky News, “all the magistrate has done is apply the law”.
I have covered more court cases involving indecent images than I care to remember during my time as a reporter and I can tell you it is nothing new to see someone possessing the most dreadful images and videos to be allowed to walk free.
This, of course, does not mean the sentence is OK. It just means it was within the law. If people want to see tougher punishments for people who, like Edwards, have downloaded such terrible images, then we need to start with the system. This cannot just be about one famous person.
Last year the National Crime Agency revealed that eight out of 10 people in the UK caught with images of children being abused avoid going to jail. The organisation called for tougher sentences of imprisonment, saying the balance of more people avoiding jail than not is “not quite right”.
Simon Bailey, the former Norfolk chief constable who was national police chief council’s lead for child protection, said: “What has happened is that this is now being treated as a victimless crime. That is so far wide of the mark.”
The high profile nature of this case may well lead to discussions about changing something that experts and victims charities have been calling on for some time.
The controversy surrounding Lady Starmer and her clothes
Over the weekend it was reported Labour donor Lord Alli covered the £5,000 cost of a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s wife Victoria.
The wardrobe gift - starting just before the July election campaign - was not disclosed in the MPs register of interests until after the 28 day deadline. That register exists to provide transparency, showing the public what financial gifts and specific donations MPs have received.
The Conservatives pushed for the late declaration to be investigated, but the parliamentary standards watchdog won’t be launching an inquiry. The watchdog appears to have accepted Starmer’s explanation that the late declaration was an honest mistake.
This story, as so many often are, is about much more than just the headline. In the grand scheme of things, a donation worth £5,000 is pretty low.
It’s sparked a conversation about donations to MPs and the prime minister in particular.
It is absolutely within the rules for Starmer, his wife and others to receive gifts. Many other MPs have received various gifts over the years. But controversy over it is nothing new, and the Tories certainly cannot judge when it comes to failing to follow the rules on disclosure.
Boris Johnson was fined after it transpired a donor had helped cover the cost of redecorated the Downing Street flat he shared with wife Carrie.
Although there is nothing improper about the gifts accepted by Starmer, transparency campaigners have said that MPs should question the “hidden price tag” potentially attached.
When is a donation inappropriate? Should a party donor be buying an MP, or particularly a party leader, something as personal as clothes and glasses? Should the PM’s wife receive donations?
And, given Starmer earned over £400,000 last year, does he need someone to spend £5,000 on clothes for his wife, who herself has largely shunned the political spotlight?
For Starmer the story is problematic for two reasons. First of all the Tories are seeking to label him as a hypocrite, because he spent years being a vocal critic of Conservative’s lack of transparency on declaring donations and sleaze.
Secondly, the story about his wife’s wardrobe has put the spotlight on his own register of interests, which show he received around £100,000 of gifts and free tickets since 2019. This is more than other major party leaders in recent times and more than any other MP over the last five years.
His own MPs have sputtered and struggled this week when answering questions about how the scale of gifts can be justified.
Labour minister Angela Eagle told Times Radio on Tuesday: “I’m afraid I’m not responsible for decisions the prime minister makes.”
I suspect the rumble over Lady Starmer’s clothes will quietly die down. However the wider debate about donations to politicians, and whether there is ever a line that shouldn’t be crossed, even if the donation is declared, will continue. And for Starmer, his register of interests will be closely watched by journalists.
This newsletter and my work on Instagram are entirely reader-supported. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my journalism.
Harry’s birthday wishes weren’t quite an olive branch
The royal family is so entrenched in personal drama that Netflix made a whole drama series out of their lives. And yet The Crown was created around the little bits and pieces that we actually do know about, with a smattering of creative interpretation. The reality is there’s probably a whole ton of stuff that would shock and titillate that we never get to hear.
Consider the royal family as being a bit like an iceberg. There’s the public engagement stuff we see above the surface, there’s the glimpses beneath the surface that we get at the bit where ice meets lapping water and then there’s a whole huge block of stuff we never get to view.
And why should we? Most people agree that everyone has a right to some semblance of a private life, whoever they might be.
Take Catherine’s cancer diagnosis. She opened up in a deeply personal message earlier this month about her struggle these last nine months, but there is still much she has chosen to keep secret. We still do not know what her original operation was for in January - there is a hint at a pre-existing condition as the operation was “planned”. We do not know what type of cancer she has had and we don’t know anything of the very personal conversations she has likely had with loved ones during this time.
It is for this reason that, when it comes to the royal family, a single tweet can launch a thousand opinions and many thousands of words of analysis.
And so it was that this week when the official Royal Family Twitter and Facebook accounts shared a “happy birthday” message for Prince Harry, it got a lot of attention. The same message was then reshared by the Prince and Princess of Wales’s accounts - although absent was a personal sign off from “W & C”, which is what the couple usually does when it’s directly from them.
The birthday wishes were seen as significant because it is the first time the family has publicly acknowledged Harry’s birthday since 2021. As it’s his 40th birthday, a milestone, it’s unsurprising they chose to do so. Ignoring the birthday makes the family look cold.
Even if relations remain frosty behind closed doors - as they undoubtedly are - it’s best for the royal family to maintain a public image of friendliness towards the Sussexes. Being clinical about it in PR terms, doing anything that gives the appearance of bitterness and nastiness only feeds Harry and Meghan’s narrative. The best way to combat Harry and Meghan’s complaints about the royal family is for the institution to not play tit for tat and instead appear like the reasonable party by seeming open to reconciliation.
The photo the royal family chose to share was from 2018, at an event in Dublin when Harry was still a working royal. The original photo had him sat next to his wife Meghan, although she was cropped out by the photo agency at the time the image was filed. Even this image selection has sparked debate as to whether the royal family was indirectly throwing shade at Meghan.
The happy birthday message is not quite an olive branch. But for the public, who have grown weary of both direct and indirect mudslinging from both sides, maybe it’s a sign of a more convivial public-facing relationship.
Also on the royal beat, Meghan bullying reports resurface (in US publications this time)
A new article in the Hollywood Reporter headlined “Why Hollywood keeps quitting on Harry and Meghan” has outlined fresh bullying allegations against the Duchess of Sussex.
The publication, which says it had a dozen sources for the piece, said one told them: “She belittles people, she doesn’t take advice. They’re both poor decision-makers, they change their minds frequently. Harry is a very, very charming person — no airs at all — but he’s very much an enabler. And she’s just terrible.”
The story in the US publication echoes claims from UK reports a few years ago when Meghan was a working royal.
The reporter who originally broke those stories, Valentine Low of The Times, told Newsweek: "It does have some glaring and fascinating echoes of everything I wrote, and that others have written before, about Meghan. I don't know about the truth of The Hollywood Reporter article but it seems to be a pattern that she is, depending on your point of view, either a demanding boss or a difficult one.”
Harry has long complained that UK reports about Meghan’s treatment of staff were an invention by the UK media and Buckingham Palace insiders. The couple have so far made no comment on the Hollywood Reporter’s claims.
Trump pet memes aren’t the flex liberals think they are
I love a meme. Sometimes a news story is best told through meme form. It’s more engaging. A picture can easily tell a thousands words. And, most importantly, it’s funny.
This week I have been chuckling away at the pet memes that have been circulating since Donald Trump repeated a debunked conspiracy theory that migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating cats and dogs.
Most of the memes come from people who are mocking the Republican presidential candidate for making the claim. However I’ve also seen a few AI generated images where Trump is appearing as a protective figure for fluffy kittens, and geese too.
After seeing the dozens of videos of cats and dogs reacting to Trump saying “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats”, I stopped to think about the impact and message of these memes.
Stepping back and looking at all of these, the picture created is one that it’s all just a big joke. No one takes everything Trump says seriously anyway and it’s all good fun. It’s made spreading a lie, one with very real consequences, OK because it’s then used as entertainment.
Republicans are also laughing at the eating pets claim, not because they’re mocking Trump but because they’re taking the stance of “that’s just Donald, only he can get away with this stuff, isn’t he the best”.
The social media memes and general hilarity mean the severity of making such a false claim has been lost. There has been a spate of bomb threats in Springfield that have closed schools, healthcare facilities and other buildings.
Trump’s vice president pick JD Vance has said people should “keep the cat memes flowing”.
As long as people are laughing at cat memes, they aren’t considering the very real issues at the heart of the election.
More on this story:
An Ohio woman has told reporters she regrets initiating the false rumour about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield by sharing it on Facebook.
It’s worth reading into the background of why Springfield has become such a talking point when it comes to migration to the US. The city’s population has boomed after Haitians moved there in vast numbers, drawn by the low cost of living and availability of jobs. The city’s public services has struggled to cope with the soaring demand.
Also this week
Terror group Hezbollah has vowed retaliation against Israel after 12 people were killed and nearly 3,000 injured when pagers exploded across Lebanon. Hezbollah bought the pagers months ago, but they appear to have been intercepted by Israel and packed with explosives. Those devices detonated simultaneously after receiving a message. Israel planted the explosives next to the battery in each pager, as well as a detonation switch, the New York Times reported, citing US and other officials. Israel went ahead with the operation on Tuesday after learning the secret operation might have been discovered by Hezbollah, Axois reports. It is thought the pager bombs were potentially set to be used in the event of an all-out war with Hezbollah. The terror group has been firing rockets into Israel since after the October 7 attack by Hamas.
Teenage Instagram users will get new privacy settings, its parent company Meta has announced in a major new update. Instagram allows 13-year-olds and above to sign up but after the privacy changes, all designated accounts will be turned into teen accounts automatically, which will be private by default. Those accounts can only be messaged and tagged by accounts they follow or are already connected to, and sensitive content settings will be the most restrictive available. As a parent I find the news encouraging, but so much more needs to be done around children’s access to and use of smartphones. I am staring at the countdown to my own kids entering secondary school and ramping up pressure to get a phone of their own. It’s not something I want them to have - largely because I struggle to see how any of the positives outweigh the many negatives of kids having a smartphone.
Everything we know about the suspect, Ryan Routh, in the second Donald Trump assassination attempt. The 58-year-old lay in wait for 12 hours at Trump’s golf course in Florida before Secret Service agents spotted him and opened fire. He is not believed to have fired his own weapon during the incident, and is not believed to have had a clear line of sight to Trump at any point.
Audio clips of Hitler giving speeches in English have gotten millions of views on TikTok. Some users have been promoting and praising the audios in an apparent violation of TikTok’s community guidelines.
Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major denounced Brexit in a new BBC interview. “Brexit was sold to the nation on the basis of things that haven’t happened and couldn’t have happened. There was a great degree of misapplication of reality.”
A teacher who held a placard at a pro-Palestinian protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts has been found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence.
Cambridgeshire County Council must pay a social worker more than £63,000 after she was disciplined for having “nasty opinions” about a colleague’s “gender-fluid” dog.
Rupert Murdoch and his children are fighting in court over control of his multi-billion dollar empire in a drama to rival the hit TV show Succession (which is actually inspired by the Murdochs). Rupert Murdoch stepped back from running his empire in 2023, and handed the role of chair of News Corp to his eldest son, Lachlan. When Murdoch dies, voting shares he holds in the companies are set to be split evenly among his four children from his first and second marriages. In a new court case set to begin this week, Murdoch is now pushing to amend the previously established trust to give the bulk of the power to Lachlan.
British writer Will Smith accepted the Emmy for outstanding writing for a drama series for Slow Horses, and delivered the perfect nod to his namesake.
Friends is 30 years old! The Guardian looks at the inside story of the hit TV show.
What I’m Watching
Emily in Paris (Netflix). A truly dreadful show featuring characters who I care absolutely nothing about. Every season I totally forget who everyone is and what happened to them. With this latest season I found chef Gabriel reached brand new heights of utter uselessness. We’re suppose to root for him, but I am rooting for the other guy. Or literally any other guy. Lily Collins is a gifted comic actress, but her clothes are often funnier than the lines. This is a TV show I should have turned off after episode one, season one. And yet I know that, with the announcement of a fifth season this week, I will absolutely be watching it again. A true mystery of modern times.
The Perfect Couple (Netflix). I am only just getting started with this series but so far my only two observations are it has my attention and I love the whole cast dance number in the opening credits.
Deadpool and Wolverine (in cinemas). I am so tired of Marvel movies. They lost me some time around the second Dr Strange movie, which is when I found myself unable to keep up with the characters, storylines and vastness of the universe Marvel has built. My brain is too full with other stuff for me to retain the information from multiple movies and now TV shows being pumped out annually. Luckily Deadpool is a Marvel movie I can get on board with, because it both mocks and pays homage to this rather confusing world. And it’s hard to say no to a film with Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman. This is the silliest Deadpool film so far, however it was created to make cinema fun, and that’s what it does. There are tons of pop culture and Marvel references - enough to please everyone - and fantastic cameos. There were slightly too many penis jokes for me, but it also had Matthew Macfadyen doing a wonderful job as a corporate arsehole (sound familiar?), so I’ll let the producers off.
As an American, I assure you that the liberals who are posting memes are making fun of Trump for believing the stories, the conservatives who post love their AI versions of Trump the Savior and/or believe what they are told. Vance has admitted that he has 'created the stories' to get media attention and there has been lots of pushback, most recently from the Wall Street Journal (a Murdoch publication, no less!) showing that Vance knew it was a lie and did it anyway.
The out and out racism, from the Springfield residents who chose to spread rumors, to Vance first claiming the stories are true while knowing they weren't to Trump saying he going to 'start in Springfield' to deport people who are here legally, is horrifying. I have no pity for Usha Vance (I learned my lesson briefly feeling sorry for Melania) but I do wonder what she thinks, as the daughter of immigrants.