Page 2 | Huw Edwards got me thinking…

Friendsfestival · 2024-08-03T08:08:29+00:00

I read that Edwards received the photos without asking for them, then deleted them, then asked that similar ones not be sent again. I don’t know if that’s true, and since none of us were at his trail listening to all the evidence I don’t want to get into the specifics of it. But my understanding is that if those were the facts he is still guilty of ‘making indecent images’. Does anyone know if that’s correct? if it is, is that not quite scary? So I could be sent such images without my consent, delete them, ask not to be sent more, and be guilty of ‘making indecent images’ as well as the stigma that comes with being a convicted paedophile. AIBU to think that the law is wrong here? Obviously victims need protecting but I’m not sure this does that.

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 09:57

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 04/08/2024 09:55

Most normal people would not ever get a video of child abuse sent to them. Unless you are in touch with child abusers or you are on the dark web then you should be fine. What people are saying is that if you ever did get anything like that then of course you would take it to the police. A 7 yr old being raped would not just be a case of deleting. You would go straight to the police would t you because that would be horrific This is the thing. For most people who have no interest In this barbaric material you will never see it. You will never know the horrors of it. Hew Edward's was communicating with a known child sex offender. Therefore he was open to receiving these images. You would not be talking to this person unless you were a paedophillle yourself. You would go to the police. That's not what he did hence he is In serious trouble with the law. On top of that he was pestering young teens for nude photos and grooming them. He is a sex offender.

Show quote history

Yes I think that’s the thing it’s not ever happened to me and not going to I hope. I hadn’t even thought of that scenario mentioned about a 7 year old now that that’s been said and it’s a graphic description of what such an image could be that I hadn’t even thought so I do understand now

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 09:56

The offence class for images of children actually includes making, having , distributing etc indecent images of children

When being sentenced if it's images that have just been downloaded/viewed and not having actually been made by the offender then it would be considered as possession of indecent images

Also when sentencing they take into account the category the offences fall under, how many have been received and so on

So it's indecent images of children then it's kind of like there are subcategories that determine how the judge sentences

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 04/08/2024 09:56

Moonshine5 · 04/08/2024 08:53

The apologists are acting like the person recieving the pictures is a passive recipient. They chatted online to another person for over a year viewing 100s of photos.

Exactly. This was not an accident. If you move in them circles then this will happen of course.

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 04/08/2024 09:55

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 08:55

I think actually some posters are being very nasty and harsh with me. I have ASD. I don’t know about the rules around this kind of thing as it’s not a subject I think about like most normal people. I’ve simply said that prior to reading these threads I didn’t know and that my actions would have been delete and block I didn’t know it had to be reported to the police. Having a go at me for not knowing that is unkind. I’ve never even been in the situation and hope to never be so I’ve done nothing wrong

Most normal people would not ever get a video of child abuse sent to them. Unless you are in touch with child abusers or you are on the dark web then you should be fine. What people are saying is that if you ever did get anything like that then of course you would take it to the police. A 7 yr old being raped would not just be a case of deleting. You would go straight to the police would t you because that would be horrific This is the thing. For most people who have no interest In this barbaric material you will never see it. You will never know the horrors of it. Hew Edward's was communicating with a known child sex offender. Therefore he was open to receiving these images. You would not be talking to this person unless you were a paedophillle yourself. You would go to the police. That's not what he did hence he is In serious trouble with the law. On top of that he was pestering young teens for nude photos and grooming them. He is a sex offender.

TheSecretIsland · 04/08/2024 09:44

I think it should be updated to stop confusion.

It must be clear that immediately reporting recieving an unsolicited image will not result in prosecution, otherwise it encourages people to delete and block but they need to report.

Also to stop people from using it to try and make them look innocent as seen on this post

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 09:41

justbeingasmartarse · 04/08/2024 09:19

Stop being ridiculous of course I know that but I wouldn’t have been personally responsible and if prior to knowing the rules I’d have received an image I’d have deleted it . Now I know to report.

But wouldn’t you have had any inclination to think the people generating these images should be bought to the attention of the police?

Yes now I’ve read this thread and youve prompted me to consider that .

TheCoolOliveBalonz · 04/08/2024 09:38

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 09:36

The law needs clarifying and updating I imagine.

It really doesn't

Yeah I'm a bit worried I posted too quickly! I'm probably wrong.

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 09:36

The law needs clarifying and updating I imagine.

It really doesn't

TheCoolOliveBalonz · 04/08/2024 09:34

The law needs clarifying and updating I imagine.

How Edwards was rightly prosecuted and convicted.

Allie47 · 04/08/2024 09:27

He didn't delete them, they were found on his phone.

justbeingasmartarse · 04/08/2024 09:19

Stop being ridiculous of course I know that but I wouldn’t have been personally responsible and if prior to knowing the rules I’d have received an image I’d have deleted it . Now I know to report.

But wouldn’t you have had any inclination to think the people generating these images should be bought to the attention of the police?

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 09:06

I deal with far more cases like this a week then people would imagine and I've never seen anything on the indictment or in court records where a person has been prosecuted for receiving an image out of the blue and reporting it

Richard1985 · 04/08/2024 09:02

Simonjt · 03/08/2024 10:55

A few years ago I received an indecent image of a woman and an animal, I reported it to my local police station, they made a report and supervised me in deleting the image from whatsapp, my phone and the cloud, took the person (I had no idea who they were) number and I blocked them.

I didn’t continue talking to that person for months on end, or ask for more images from them, I also didn’t provide them with my personal email address and ask to receive images via email as well.

If having pictures of a child being raped is okay, are you happy for your partner to have them on their phone, your childs teacher, childminder, nursery nurse?

Great to hear some actual real life testimony on this rather than just people providing hypothetical scenarios they think are going to result in them being locked up for being a peadophile - thanks for sharing👍

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 09:01

burnoutbabe · 04/08/2024 08:58

But does the law actually say "you will not be liable if you report to the police" (and then do you have to go straight away, within a few days, what if abroad when get them?)

As I think we're just assuming "it would be okay" and the cps won't prosecute.

But it's a strict liability crime so in theory if you do it, even without intent, you are guilty. Like not wearing a seat belt.

Show quote history

You just ring the police up if you can't get in, that's probably what most people do anyway. The cps aren't going to prosecute you for receiving something that you have reported , didn't ask for and haven't been searching for

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 09:00

burnoutbabe · 04/08/2024 08:58

But does the law actually say "you will not be liable if you report to the police" (and then do you have to go straight away, within a few days, what if abroad when get them?)

As I think we're just assuming "it would be okay" and the cps won't prosecute.

But it's a strict liability crime so in theory if you do it, even without intent, you are guilty. Like not wearing a seat belt.

Show quote history

This is what has confused me too obviously now I know it’s what you have to do but it’s not very clear is it

Simonjt · 04/08/2024 09:00

burnoutbabe · 04/08/2024 08:58

But does the law actually say "you will not be liable if you report to the police" (and then do you have to go straight away, within a few days, what if abroad when get them?)

As I think we're just assuming "it would be okay" and the cps won't prosecute.

But it's a strict liability crime so in theory if you do it, even without intent, you are guilty. Like not wearing a seat belt.

Show quote history

Abroad has police stations.

cathyandclaire · 04/08/2024 09:00

There is a potential defence if you didn't solicit the image/delete it quickly.

Huw Edwards didn't attempt to use this defence- why was that?

The communication was found on Alex Williams' device not HE,

Edwards phone was 'stolen' on the evening of the Queen's death before he was investigated, so any searched phone was bought after the period of this WhatsApp communication with Williams.

burnoutbabe · 04/08/2024 08:58

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 08:15

The law doesn't need changing, you'd need to use commen sense and go to the police if you received images of csa . That's what any normal person would do

It's not even commen sense , any normal person would be repulsed and go to the police so they could investigate the person who sent them to you

But does the law actually say "you will not be liable if you report to the police" (and then do you have to go straight away, within a few days, what if abroad when get them?)

As I think we're just assuming "it would be okay" and the cps won't prosecute.

But it's a strict liability crime so in theory if you do it, even without intent, you are guilty. Like not wearing a seat belt.

vivainsomnia · 04/08/2024 08:57

It is highly likely that Huw would have received some form of training that makes it very clear that as a journalist (but it affects anyone), he had a statutory duty to report any suspected safeguarding concerns.

So yes, he is guilty of just asking not to receive any illegal material and failing to disclose that he had received these pictures and videos. It is correct that he should be convicted for this legal failure.

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 08:56

Simonjt · 04/08/2024 08:53

So you’re confirming that you didn’t know raping a seven year old is a crime?

Show quote history

Stop being ridiculous of course I know that but I wouldn’t have been personally responsible and if prior to knowing the rules I’d have received an image I’d have deleted it . Now I know to report

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 08:55

I think actually some posters are being very nasty and harsh with me. I have ASD. I don’t know about the rules around this kind of thing as it’s not a subject I think about like most normal people. I’ve simply said that prior to reading these threads I didn’t know and that my actions would have been delete and block I didn’t know it had to be reported to the police. Having a go at me for not knowing that is unkind. I’ve never even been in the situation and hope to never be so I’ve done nothing wrong

Simonjt · 04/08/2024 08:53

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 08:46

Obviously it’s wrong it’s horrendous but the way my mind works I’d have just been shocked and horrified, deleted it, blocked the person.if known to me I’d have said never speak to me again then blocked them if a stranger just blocked . That’s just what I’d have done but now I know the rules

Show quote history

So you’re confirming that you didn’t know raping a seven year old is a crime?

Moonshine5 · 04/08/2024 08:53

The apologists are acting like the person recieving the pictures is a passive recipient. They chatted online to another person for over a year viewing 100s of photos.

Simonjt · 04/08/2024 08:52

Izzymoon · 04/08/2024 08:38

Regarding ‘saving’ WhatsApp saves to camera roll automatically unless you disable that ? So should we all be doing that just in case ?

Just in case what???
Sorry but if anybody needs to make decisions “just in case” someone sends them CP they need to seriously reevaluate the sort of lifestyle they live.

So because a random stranger I have never met and I have no who they were, sent me an image of an animal being sexually abused I should reevaluate my lifestyle? You do realise anyone can send anything to your phone.

Nailproblems · 04/08/2024 08:46

Izzymoon · 04/08/2024 08:43

You didn’t know it was against the law to have a video of a 7 year old being sexually assaulted?
And it wouldn’t have occurred to you that a person who would have and send you this sort of content was doing anything wrong?

Show quote history

Obviously it’s wrong it’s horrendous but the way my mind works I’d have just been shocked and horrified, deleted it, blocked the person.if known to me I’d have said never speak to me again then blocked them if a stranger just blocked . That’s just what I’d have done but now I know the rules