Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Huw Edwards - receiving pics is a crime?

300 replies

PurpleMat · 02/08/2024 08:03

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...

OP posts:
bonzaitree · 02/08/2024 10:28

If I received a photo like that I would make a physical note of my key contacts (OH, mum, boss etc), get in the car and drive straight to the police station tell them what’s happened and hand over my device. (I’d then get a burner phone and get my number transferred asap.)

Not a chance I’d just ignore- no way. Too much personal risk.

crumblingschools · 02/08/2024 10:29

@hotpotlover I thought HE was caught because they saw images being sent to him, they didn’t find evidence on his tech

MummyLongLegsss · 02/08/2024 10:29

Custardandrhubarbcrumble · 02/08/2024 10:19

So in terms of what should we (or our teens) do if sent something illegal via WhatsApp, I'm still really unclear about whether we (they) should delete and report or keep as evidence and report. Or what? I think there needs to be more public information about this.

You should tell your teen to be careful who they accept as a Whatsapp contact. That's one thing.

I'm always a bit askance at how many adults share their personal contact info so casually.

I don't think it's a simple as being prosecuted for having one illegal photo on your phone.

People who view sexual images of children usually have 'form' for it, they are open to contact from other paedos, they are known amongst others like themselves. In the case of HE I think (but can't be sure) that his history includes making advances in real life, so the photos are just part of the evidence of his interest and behaviour.

Summertimer · 02/08/2024 10:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Read what I said, definitely not apologist. Please apologise for your highly unacceptable conduct.

Moonshine5 · 02/08/2024 10:35

Lol OP do you honestly believe at the age of 60 that's the first time HE reviewed any images and he got caught??????

People who are not paedophiles would respond to the sender with disgust / don't send me any more pictures/ block/ report to the police / not continue interacting, etc.

Saying don't send me anything illegal just means you don't want to get caught.

The pedophile sending him these images was also on several other apps that are discreet. Do you believe he HE wasn't on them?

OP saying he's not a pedophile on a legal technicality leads to questions about your moral compass.

Ps. If your DC receives such an image via Watts App he or she or you should report it and be part of the solution not the problem.

Summertimer · 02/08/2024 10:37

Moonshine5 · 02/08/2024 10:35

Lol OP do you honestly believe at the age of 60 that's the first time HE reviewed any images and he got caught??????

People who are not paedophiles would respond to the sender with disgust / don't send me any more pictures/ block/ report to the police / not continue interacting, etc.

Saying don't send me anything illegal just means you don't want to get caught.

The pedophile sending him these images was also on several other apps that are discreet. Do you believe he HE wasn't on them?

OP saying he's not a pedophile on a legal technicality leads to questions about your moral compass.

Ps. If your DC receives such an image via Watts App he or she or you should report it and be part of the solution not the problem.

.

Moonshine5 · 02/08/2024 10:38

@Summertimer are you the OP? I did read it and was responding.

Summertimer · 02/08/2024 10:41

Moonshine5 · 02/08/2024 10:38

@Summertimer are you the OP? I did read it and was responding.

I’m not the OP, that’s why I removed my reply. But I am the person over 60 whose comment has been miss read by lots of posters including one who has really overstepped that I replied to just above

westisbest1982 · 02/08/2024 10:41

hotpotlover · 02/08/2024 10:26

But in order for you to be charged with a crime, the police has to find a physical copy of the image on your phone.

I have a solicitor friend who works in that area.

Show quote history

No, that’s not right. In the case of HE, the images weren’t found in his phone or any of his other devices.

Dreamingofgoldfinchlane · 02/08/2024 10:44

Figment1982 · 02/08/2024 10:10

No-one is making excuses for him. We are having an (in my opinion) interesting conversation about how the law works in this area, which a lot of people don't seem to understand (myself included until this case came up, and I am a solicitor).

What Huw Edwards did is clearly illegal, with no hope of a plausible excuse for why he should be treated leniently. A few 'oh please don't send me those again' and then continuing to receive images from the same person clearly takes him out of any leniency.

But we are making the point that the receipt itself is the offence. As that poor police woman who was prosecuted despite not even viewing the photo.

Show quote history

It has been reported that he engaged with the convicted paedophile who provided the images over an extended period - that to me is very relevant

hotpotlover · 02/08/2024 10:44

westisbest1982 · 02/08/2024 10:41

No, that’s not right. In the case of HE, the images weren’t found in his phone or any of his other devices.

Show quote history

Do you have any evidence that they weren't found on his devices?

westisbest1982 · 02/08/2024 10:46

hotpotlover · 02/08/2024 10:44

Do you have any evidence that they weren't found on his devices?

Show quote history

It was all in the court reporting.

Mayhemmumma · 02/08/2024 10:46

There was more than one message.
He wasn't horrified, he didn't immediately report this. They were children as young as 7, with the highest category of abusive images.

Come on.

westisbest1982 · 02/08/2024 10:47

Mayhemmumma · 02/08/2024 10:46

There was more than one message.
He wasn't horrified, he didn't immediately report this. They were children as young as 7, with the highest category of abusive images.

Come on.

Yep, he wasn’t horrified and didn’t report the photos 41 times.

80s · 02/08/2024 10:49

""Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.
The Crown Prosecution Service says it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.
A court must also decide whether an offence falls into the category of possession, distribution or production.
According to the Sentencing Council, creating the original image counts as production - the more serious of the three categories. It adds that "making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing".
In such cases, sentences can range from six months to three years in prison." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

If my children had been sent Category A images of 7-year-olds like Huw Edwards - involving penetrative sex, sex with an animal or sadism - they would have told me. I'd have reported it to the police, obviously.

I agree that the word "making" is confusing but the law seems more nuanced than "you accidentally saw a popup window and will now go to jail".

crumblingschools · 02/08/2024 10:50

@hotpotlover I also assume the police checked HE’s devices when investigating the incidence with the young man which he initially got suspended for. They didn’t find anything criminal with respect to that but if they had found the images he has now pleaded guilty for he would have been arrested for them then.

Zita60 · 02/08/2024 10:52

velvetcoat · 02/08/2024 08:25

Well, obviously you cant help if someone sends you something you dont want but surely then you would say "stop sending this, I dont want to see this" and then report it.

The difference here is that he was offering money to receive the pictures and asking for them and getting angry when the 17 year old only sent a pic of his chest - he literally berated him for not sending more explicit photos.

I don't think the case he's been charged with is related to the 17 year old that we heard about last year.

I read that they found out about these pictures because they were investigating a paedophile and found Edwards' phone number on his phone. When they followed it up, they found the images on Edwards' phone.

Lancymomma · 02/08/2024 10:54

The reason he didn’t report was simple, if he’d reported then journalists would have found out and he’d have been ruined. Remember, no one knew he was gay at this point either.

Brushing it under the carpet was the only option if he wanted to keep his career and family. Absolutely abhorrent as it may be. I’m also sorry but these images are so so so rife that one person reporting won’t make a blind bit of difference to the law enforcement effort. So he may have used that to justify his decision.

FWIW I work in Criminal Justice and he won’t be getting a sentence, from what I’ve read he’s not engaged in sexual activity with anyone underage and the images are unsolicited and there’s clearly proof of that. He’s revolting, but there are many more far more revolting individuals walking the streets.

LaeralSilverhand · 02/08/2024 10:54

LondonGrimmer · 02/08/2024 08:14

I was wondering this. Also the term "making indecent images". In the news article I read- BBC online - I think they said this term is used even if you just received it and did nothing with it. I always thought "making" inferred you were more involved in the filming/taking pictures and/or videos, or that you'd edited them or something.

By the act of receiving a digital file, and then displaying the digital file as an image on a screen you have made an indecent image. This is the criminal act. We talk about "opening" a file, but what we are actually doing is making an image from the contents of a file (which is just ones and zeros until we make it into an image).

Dusta · 02/08/2024 10:59

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?

been there, thankfully WhatsApp blurred the image so my kid handed it to me. Got the police involved. I knew who did it. The number pulled up the other kid via Snapchat and instagram.

they didn’t care. The kids parents are none the wiser because the police did fuck all

Our whole household however, got a marker on our records as “vulnerable”

DysonSphere · 02/08/2024 10:59

crumblingschools · 02/08/2024 10:50

@hotpotlover I also assume the police checked HE’s devices when investigating the incidence with the young man which he initially got suspended for. They didn’t find anything criminal with respect to that but if they had found the images he has now pleaded guilty for he would have been arrested for them then.

He had also lost his phone some time earlier apparently.

Lost or 'lost'?

We'll never know.

DoIWantTo · 02/08/2024 10:59

Does your DC intend on becoming a pedophile, or sending on pictures of pedophilia? Saving pictures that have been sent to him instead of reporting them to the police? If not then I think he’s safe.

DysonSphere · 02/08/2024 11:02

LaeralSilverhand · 02/08/2024 10:54

By the act of receiving a digital file, and then displaying the digital file as an image on a screen you have made an indecent image. This is the criminal act. We talk about "opening" a file, but what we are actually doing is making an image from the contents of a file (which is just ones and zeros until we make it into an image).

Edited
Show quote history

I'm slightly confused.

I have the option to not automatically download pictures or videos on WhatsUp

BUT you often can't see what the image is or the details of the image until you open it.

So how on earth are you supposed to avoid 'making' it?

wonderingwhatlifemeans · 02/08/2024 11:03

If you download or open a picture on your phone you are making a copy of it and that is where the criminal act occurs. That is why children and parents have to be so careful. If you copy an indecent picture from your child's phone to show the police you have committed a criminal act.

The law is there so that people can't just say they only looked at the pictures to get a lower sentence. It reflects the fact that without the people wanting to view and download them the need to take the pictures and commit the abuse would not be as great.

Disturbia81 · 02/08/2024 11:04

Wow I didn't realise he was into kids as well as teenagers, sick fuck. How do such big names think nothing will ever be said. I used to really like him and found him comforting on the news. How many more are we yet to find out about.