Huw Edwards - receiving pics is a crime?

[PurpleMat]

Looking at the details in the Huw Edwards case, someone else sent him all these pics of underage children. And that is enough for him to be totally screwed and most likely going to prison. I've no idea if it makes a difference if you ask for them to be sent or not?

My DC are approaching secondary age when most of their peers will be getting mobile phones, and I am seriously worried about what kind of pictures of could be floating about on WhatsApp. It only takes one kid to be sent something dodgy by an older relative and it could be forwarded on to hundreds of others.

If one of my DC receives an unsolicited image and it is discovered (for example by the school confiscating a phone, which I'm lead to believe happens quite often) is that my DC totally screwed?

What exactly is the law on this?

I'm seriously thinking smartphones with WhatsApp for young teens are a bad idea at this point...

I confess to being one of these people. I didn't read properly and I apologise.

I found this article online which is admittedly an advert for a solicitors but I think has useful things to say anyway - presumably accurate too. https://www.olliers.com/news/can-my-child-be-prosecuted-for-sending-indecent-images-of-themselves/ . The key bit is the police/CPS having to judge whether justice is properly served by a case going to court I think, not just in the case of images of themselves but any indecent images.

Realistically though a 11/12 year old being sent unsolicited porn is much more likely to be viewed as a vulnerable victim of grooming rather than prosecuted as a criminal. Similar to other grooming or coercing into criminal acts of young people. There is every need to be VERY vigilant and make your children aware but no need to panic here.

Oh, come on! Are you being serious? He's been a senior broadcaster at the BBC for decades. My dad is 10 years older and he showed me how to find and alter Whatsapp settings, and also how to set it up on my laptop.

Take care with your own photos as well. We have pictures of our girls when they were little getting bathed and dried and cuddled etc. I suspect that technically they could be considered child porn and not just happy reminders of their early years long gone.

These days we're careful about pictures of the gc.

Even if you delete the image unless you have special software you may find it leaves a trace that can be found.

Thanks for sharing @mirrorlife That explainer is really surprising, the strict liability angle is news to me, meaning the act of having on the phone makes that person a criminal. In that light, if the OPs son gets sent a picture in what’s app which he didn’t solicit, he didn’t open and immediately deleted- he has still committed an offence of downloading images of child abuse. The two cases cited of the rugby club group and the police officer mentioned by PP shows what the consequences are. Unless there is more than the article states. Does this serve justice?

Because she absolutely knew as a police officer to report her sister straightaway, she didn't.

kids cant be too careful with what’s app. There was an incident a few years ago local to me in a school at a levels. One of the pupils sat the exam early because of a clash, she then proceeded to tell the class what’s app what was coming in the exam. It was catastrophic the whole class got Us people missed uni places and the school crashed down the league tables. It’s never really recovered since. I felt sorry for all the pupils who were just in the group and were punished because of one persons silly actions

So if you receive an unsolicited illegal image and then do the right thing and report it to the police, you will be treated as a potential criminal. Your devices will all be seized and your entire online history examined. Bloody hell.

He had allegedly attempted to solicit people and pay them for pics before and also conducted himself in a questionable manner around less senior BBC staff before the first story.

He was sending considerable amounts of money to a drug addicted Teen in return for sexually gratifying images despite the pleading of the teen's parents that he stop.

People DO NOT put themselves at risk of prosecution by sending you category A or B pics to your WhatsApp out of the blue. You have to go places and 'feel the lay of the woods' so that people know they can trust you.

Porn is easily accessible online, you do not need a middleman unless you have an acquired taste and are worried about online activity being less safe, monitored by police etc.

He did not receive all the serious images at once. He received them over time.

One of the images was a moving image of a child no older than 9

His objection was not 'That's disgusting!' His objection was 'dont send me anything illegal'

He did not report to Police.

He kept on receiving images.

Specifically: on another thread it was reported that Cat A moving images often include children screaming and begging to stop.

So I myself was inclined to see it initially as him perhaps being out of his depth, but unfortunately no.

She didn't know she had it on her device. She received it in a whatsapp group message she hadn't looked at and it automatically downloaded to her device, but she never looked at it on her device either.

@Summertimer I am older than this. I am not a media person who has been around tech all my working life. just a normal business owner. we arent dribbling idiots you know just because we arent in our 40s

You would not be prosecuted, you have to have intent to commit a crime. Receiving the image means you are guilty of an illegal act, butthe CPS would NEVER prosecute if you reported it straightaway.

Her case was not dropped. She was convicted under sexual offence laws, and her appeal was refused.

However, I do believe that after a period of time she was entitled to resume her career.

The case that was dropped recently was in relation to failure to comply with her registration requirements as a sex offender. The charges were dropped due to her poor mental state.

This poor woman has gone through absolute hell, and she never even opened the video in question (this was agreed by both sides at her trial).

This investigation has followed on from him originally leaving the BBC because he was having a sexual relationship with a young lad, think he was 17-19? I can't remember exactly. But then they have investigated, he had these images on his phone sent by a fellow 25 year old convicted pedophile - is that who mister Huw Edwards wants to keep company with? It's pretty clear from my understanding that he has a liking for younger people, he associates with pedophiles, and he received sexual images of the worst type from an actual pedophile and didn't report them - wonder why - no actually don't, it's pretty obvious why. He likes children himself.

I see you're trying to look a the larger issue of recieving photos and if that makes you a criminal but there was surely more evidence pointing towards the fact he seeked these out and was conversing with convicted pedophiles. In my opinion? Jail. Nobody can convince me having and accessing CP isn't worth a custodial sentence. Children are harmed in the most awful ways for them images to be created, it's not a crime we should be letting him walk free from. Especially somebody in quite a position of power and success - you're under the public eye, act like it and don't be a disgusting seedy old man then, otherwise it won't go well for you.

That's if you trust the police and CPS to make the 'right' call.

By even having the photo on your phone, even if sent to you via a wrong number, the crime has been committed. No intent required in this circumstance.

It then comes down to the CPS to decide whether it's in the public interest. And if they decide it is.. off to court you go.

Yes recieving pictures even unsolicited ones is a crime; and not reporting the recipet of them within 12 hours of opening them is an even bigger crime.
Even if it's a child of a similar age that is underage sending the images it's still a crime. It is also a crime for an underage child to have sexual images of themselves on their phone.

This isn’t a perfect analogy, but that’s a little bit like arguing that if I’m in the habit of buying legal second hand items from my mate, but then he gives me a stolen games console… If I know it’s stolen, and tell him that I’d prefer he didn’t give me stolen goods again, but I don’t report and in fact perhaps I even keep it, then that’s illegal. I’m knowingly handling and receiving stolen goods. If months go by and it happens AGAIN, well, then I’d find it pretty tricky to defend myself, wouldn’t I…

Meanwhile my mate has been tacitly supported and encouraged in his pursuit of accruing stolen items from poor victims. And so the victimhood continues.

Perhaps she considered it « reported » since that was possibly her sister’s intention by sending it to her.

I am grasping here but my very vague impression was that offences against children was at least part of that officer’s remit… happy to be corrected of course

Your second sentence is good advice: "I would delete it and report the sender to the police". We should all communicate that message to our kids.

Exactly this. Who is he associating with where he needs to specify "nobody underage"? That would never happen with any normal person who has a functioning moral compass and isn't a pedophile. You don't find yourself recieving porn from convicted pedophiles and simply say "nobody undeeage". He was associating with the sender because he wanted images, or he wouldve reported and blocked and said that's disgusting.. surely? Also it's quite possible that after he received the images he wanted to cover himself by specifying no underage, even though he was enjoying the images that were still on his phone.

Precisely. Some people are incredibly naive and trusting when it comes to the police.

I think the best course of action when ever being sent an unsolicited indecent image on a group chat, is to delete, block the sender, leave the group AND throw away your device.

Presumably the law is written as it is (apart from the issue of technology getting ahead of things), that otherwise someone could argue 'but I never asked for these photos and said no each time they arrived on my phone'. Therefore anyone could just type 'no I don't want these' or (as in the case of that police woman's sister) 'look at this disgusting photo it needs reporting to the police don't you agree' every time they send a photo and use that as an excuse to avoid prosecution.

So the law has to be strict to stop these get out clauses.

But it sure as hell worries me. My career is over if I get a conviction. If I randomly received a WhatsApp like this (scammer, wrong number) would I report it, and take the risk of a criminal investigation, or do I just delete it and hope to God it doesn't get found out (and if it does, then I probably am in definite criminal charges territory).

One of the images the child was under 10. This isn’t a grey area, he’s not an innocent. Anyone who doesn’t report that immediately to the police is a sex offender. Simple as that. Stop making excuses for his depravity

DH is police too. He is very clear with our DC and I'm very clear at work (I'm a teacher). It is a complete offence. But but but doesn't matter. It is complete at the point of reporting and logged as such. Same as sending a picture of yourself if you're underage. It's a complete offence. You could send a topless photo of yourself consensually in the first flushes of romance with your same aged 15yr old boyfriend and if reported, you've committed the crime. The code on the DBS check now acknowledges that there are cases where it's consensual teen ill thought out behaviour rather than criminal intent, but it's still recorded.