Huw Edwards got me thinking…

A police officer was charged with having made illegal images after a family member forwarded them directly to "investigate " instead of reporting it officially. They were convicted of it if I remember rightly.

The PO's sister sent the clip to multiple people, including the PO. The PO then failed to report it because she was afraid it would incriminate her sister for distributing it to so many people. She had a professional duty to report it, and she didn't. She then claimed she hadn't actually watched it, but her responses to her sister suggested she had.

I agree with all this. And I'll just add that I don't like the way porn is used as the excuse by some people. I don't like porn but most men ( and women) who watch it can do so without viewing paedophilic images. Yes it can cause it's own problems, but I don't see how being addicted to porn can cause an interest in child abuse. I don't know the ins and outs of what exactly he has done and it will probably come out in due course, but most people would be horrified to communicate or associate with such a person.

@Cas112

Aaaand there were have the lack of critical thinking.

I'm not a sympathiser. At all. I am a victim of repeated childhood rape and sexual abuse. I believe in very strict and severe punishment for people that commit crimes against the vulnerable.

But I also believe in having crystal clear laws to govern the country and mean that people that want to/should report things like getting unsolicited child abuse images are protected so that the agencies can go after the people that are actually producing and regularly engaging in these crimes. But right now those people have ZERO protection.

Imagine you have saved up on a really low income and finally got your teenage daughter a brand new latest model iPhone for their 16th. They receive a photo that is illegal from a malicious school friend. Is that teen going to be happy that they have lost their phone? If they think they will lost their phone, will they report it? Or will they delete and block?

Yes, these things SHOULD be reported but the simple truth is that people are terrified of getting into trouble, losing their belongings and it's actually easier to ignore 1-2 images and block the person than go through the entire risky procedure of doing the right thing. As a species we constantly show that we are ( in general ) TERRIBLE at doing the right thing and we all look the other way when it suits us. People starve to death, have no drinking water, are exposed in sweat shops and we do nothing.

The law is wrong?? Your post demonstrates you have not read up on exactly what behaviour he engaged in. He was in contact with a paedophile for about a year and a half. He received a video of a 7 year old boy being raped and continued to be in contact with the paedophile for another year discussing images and preferences. He asked for and received images of underage persons. These are real children being abused - you do realise that yes? Actual real life young people and children being sexually abused, photographed and videoed and sent to Huw. Over a long period of time.

Exactly what part of the law is wrong here?? You shouldn’t be posting defending him and excusing his behaviour. His behaviour was atrocious and disgusting.

Sorry but if anyone ever sends me a video of a child being raped I’m going straight to the police. I wouldn’t be saying oh I didn’t really like that one but please send me other stuff and here’s what I like. And I wouldn’t be in contact and happily receiving stuff for another year.

You'd go to the police surely? If it was a child then that child is someone's child so who is it? Wouldn't you want then.to be found and protected and the pervert sending them stopped?

People need to know this stuff. It's a convo I've had with my teens. No excuses then from the off

So he saw those CATEGORY A photos and videos of a child being sexually abused. Oh a 7 year old child at that, and he didn't report it? Continued to chat to this sicko, that makes him a pedophile in my eyes. It makes him revolting. If you saw those images, even just for a split second, you would probably be emotionally and completely distraught. But in his case it seems he was just fine....

What? Of course we’re talking about men. And ordinary people, ordinary men are not getting convicted or even charged for one-off images they received as spam.

But it sounds like you’re keen to think this - you must have your own reasons for that.

If you want to suspend belief, crack on. If he has received these and couldn't go to the police , then let's hope that the next married 60 year old who wants images of barely legal teens to wank over, thinks twice because of this.
We've just had another retired policeman convicted of child sex offences. These are the people choosing to investigate, arrest etc. Because of this I don't ever believe that there couldn't be a possibility of someone getting away with it for years.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/retired-police-officer-urged-dad-29638076.amp

You don't think he's a paedophile?! What the actual fuck!

What on earth is he doing in a WhatsApp group full of them then? Wouldn't he have removed himself and reported it to the police if he was an honest and moral man?

He's a raging bloody paedophile who was arrogant enough to believe he wouldn't get caught. Oh, and its not 'porn', it's child abuse.

He's a prolific person, whoever had his number is an acquaintance at the very least surely. They must've thought he would be interested in them to an extent. The whole thing it's disgusting and horrifying that it's so common and too many things are coming out about this subject. It's enough to give you nightmares.

This is the point really isn't it? Non paedophiles don't just strike up relationships with known paedophiles (which HE clearly knew was the case) and start (and continue) exchanging/ receiving photos. Most normal people would find that a sickening thought and would either block the offender and/ or report to the police. Would you remain in contact with a person for two years (I.e. until you were caught out) who had sent you photos of child sexual abuse? He tried to cover his arse with the whole "oh don't send me anything underage" crap. Whether or not HE got off on the images he received is irrelevant. He facilitated a known paedophile, and helped perpetuate the child sexual abuse that had taken place to enable the sharing of those images. Edwards is in it up to his eyeballs and I feel desperately sorry for his family first and foremost.

Sorry but if a peado is sending you pics and you want nothing to do with it then you go to the police.

Stop being a sympathiser.

Because the OP has made it about Huw. They have excused him in the OP

I read that Edwards received the photos without asking for them, then deleted them, then asked that similar ones not be sent again

This isn't true. They are trying to manipulate the narrative.

If it wasn't about Huw they wouldn't have mentioned his name or been an apologist

Well, any normal person would have reported to the police after receiving the first image.

But ask yourself why he was in a group chat with people who might send him those images in the first place, and why he stayed in the chat after being sent them?

Of course he said ‘don’t send me any more’ as he thought it would be a tidy little defence when questioned about his involvement. Guilty as charged.

But technically yes you can be guilty if you just receive one.

"Making it" covers receiving it and your phone saving it by default.

So the law needs changing.

(Now whether police do prosecute, that's another question, they don't tend to charge 17 year old girls who send nudes to boyfriends but that also illegal and the girl could be charged)

Making images simply means that you have received a digital transmission of a series of 0 and 1s and then that code has appeared in the form of an image on your device. You don't have to click on that image, to download it etc, on WhatsApp it is just there. But that is classed as you making an illegal image.

What a lot of people don't realise is that anybody could send you a horrific illegal image if they washed to and had one to hand or actually created one. Then you get a notification and look and it's yours and you have "made " it just by opening your phone. Even though you didn't expect it. Our request it

Now ( and this is where the lack of critical thinkers struggle as they are too busy salivating while baying for blood with pitchforks).

You can go to the police and report it and they will take your device and destroy it. Because it's got an illegal image on it. You don't get those back. But they could also go through that device and find porn. Or something questionable that triggers them coming and taking away every single device in your home. You could be arrested for making that image, and bailed until a later time. What if you are a teacher? Or a nurse? Or run a kids home? You have to tell your safe guard lead. Are you then suspended? What happens when you explain to people that you didn't ASK for this, it just happened. Do you think people will believe you? That is a giant mistake and you are going the right thing Co operating? That's literally what the actual criminals say when people find out before it's fine to court.

A police officer was charged with having made illegal images after a family member forwarded them directly to "investigate " instead of reporting it officially. They were convicted of it if I remember rightly.

What this country needs is a distinction between

-Receiving images unsolicited and reporting it ( with protection)

-Receiving images and not reporting it/just deleting them

-Receiving images and keeping them

-Receiving images and forwarding them

-Producing and distributing images to others.

In Mumsnet there is such a lack of understanding that people think the bottom 4 of these are exactly the same crime and as equally as bad and they are not. A person that documents horrific child abused and sends these to other people causes first degree harm. This is not the same level as somebody sending you an image and you deleting it and choosing not to report it as you fear the repercussions and disruption to your life.

An image can also be a drawing. An image of anime human /dog anthropomorphised hybrids having sex can be classed as bestiality despite it being a clear cartoon. Anime figures wearing school uniforms automatically qualify it as child abuse images due to the significance of the uniform indicating age. People, especially teens, don't realise this.

People also don't realise that this behaviour is an ever worsening epidemic and the police and agencies can't even scratch the surface. It's all linked to not just paedophilia but porn addiction. Like all addictions they start off innocently enough and escalate horrifically. Not all people that are arrested for this stuff are true paedophiles, a huge chunk are just over entitled opportunistic vultures that think they can get away with it and need more extreme stuff to get off too.

I didn't say ANYTHING about men, so stop with the ridiculous straw man arguments. I'm talking about regular people who are sent things against their will. 👍

Have you read my post, @AngleClara? And the trial report? If you still think there are naive but innocent men being convicted then I'll find you an idiot's guide to CSAM law later (just going out now).

Yes, but people are not talking about Huw Edwards. They're speaking in general

You don't need 40 images to be convicted, just one, unsolicited.

Why do people pretend that this is about Huw? Or that the law is perfect? Clearly it's NOT if we're now having debates and people are saying they would worry about the legal repercussions.

Even if you were a national BBC newsreader, knew that receiving is just as guilty as sending, and knew that you'd be all over the Daily Mail in 24 hours.
I think I'd lay low too.

FORTY. OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.

FORTY.

FORTY IMAGES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

INCLUDING MOVING IMAGES OF A BOY 7-9 CAT A.

Then you would have a get out clause to receive anything legally if you messaged 'don't send that again' afterwards.

The police know what they're doing.

If my friend sent me photos of a child being sexually abused I wouldn’t just politely ask them not to and then continue the friendship for months (contributing to receive said photos as well) I would be asking them wtf they think they’re doing and reporting them.

He received 52 photos, he could have blocked after number 1

To be fair, @SwingTheMonkey, if you also read that report you wouldn't be saying "must have been of child sex abuse". You'd know he was sent a video of a boy of 7-9 years old being raped, and stayed on the WhatsApp chat with the convicted paedophile for nearly another year. That was one of 41 illegal CSA images.

But @ViscountDreams doesn't think he is a paedophile.