I think that's about the grooming a vulnerable teen with drug issues. It's still very grim with that and the abusive messages he sent him and that alone should have been the last we saw of Huw.
It is illegal for anyone over the age of 18 to exchange sexually explicit images with anyone under the age of 18. Ironically it's the law which stopped The Scum putting topless girls on page 3 the day after they turned 16.
The kerfuffle last year was nothing to do with the charges brought this year or the Sun. They're totally unrelated and were only discovered because the sender of the images got arrested.
I thought the young man from last year had been on drugs etc before HE got involved with him? Or am I wrong? It's a tragic story regardless.
He was just 17 and at the beginning of his drug habit. Drug habits are very expensive and he had an incredibly supportive family who were trying to get hin into treatment. Had he not had unfettered access to funds for it, they may have succeeded.
Once Edwards began exploiting this lad for porno images and sex shows, he suddenly had two, three and once five thousand pounds deposited into his bank. This was in fact how his parents discovered the Edwards link because the lad was so far gone on the drugs he could now afford to buy at will that his parents began looking into his account to find out where it was coming from.
If the lad had had a brain tumour which caused him to make dangerous decisions and lose his inhibitions and someone exploited that condition I think no one would be asking "but he already had the tumour didn't he? Not like Huw gave him the condition just exploited it"
Same for addiction. Especially addiction in a CHILD.
Let's just reiterate here. A 62 year old millionaire who was famous all over the country and a 17 year old drug addicted kid from a council estate.
The power dynamic kind of speaks for itself.
