Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Huw Edwards got me thinking…

134 replies

Friendsfestival · 03/08/2024 09:08

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.

OP posts:
birdling · 03/08/2024 09:11

I think if that happened, you would take them straight to the police.

DogwoodTree · 03/08/2024 09:13

I’ve not read that detail about Huw Edwards so can’t comment on that aspect but your post reminded me of a BBC radio programme I listened to a few years ago. It was made by a mum who was also a radio producer/journalist (I forget which!) and was about something really similar. Someone had sent an indecent image to their WhatsApp group. I think it was like a class WhatsApp or a NCT WhatsApp. Anyway, the rest of the group reported it to the police but then they were all investigated or potentially charged with receiving and storing indecent images. The radio programme was about that quirk in the law and also how traumatic it was for them to go through.

does anyone else remember that? I can’t remember enough precise details to google it for the link or synopsis. For obvious reasons, I don’t want to google the vaguer details above. I’d forgotten all about it until I read your post!

PurpleMat · 03/08/2024 09:13

Whole thread about this yesterday!

Huw Edwards - receiving pics is a crime? - www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5132998-huw-edwards-receiving-pics-is-a-crime

Yozzer87 · 03/08/2024 09:13

If someone sent you images of children you would naturally report that person to the police.

ViscountDreams · 03/08/2024 09:14

I've had the same thoughts.

The term 'making' is completely misleading in cases like this. The crimes covered under that charge need reviewing, splitting out and re-naming imo, to accurately describe what the crimes were.

I think H.E is a pathetic, porn-addled man but I don't think he's a paedophile.

Friendsfestival · 03/08/2024 09:15

PurpleMat · 03/08/2024 09:13

Whole thread about this yesterday!

Huw Edwards - receiving pics is a crime? - www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5132998-huw-edwards-receiving-pics-is-a-crime

Oh I hadn’t seen that. Thank you. Well, let’s end this one then! Sorry.

OP posts:
SwingTheMonkey · 03/08/2024 09:23

If you’ve received something illegal without your consent and you report it, you will not be prosecuted. Huw Edwards has been charged because he received lots of images over a period of months and continued to engage (discussed the pictures sent in ‘graphic’ detail) with the person sending them. Most likely because they were within the realms of his sexual interest- e.g teenager. When younger child sex abuse pictures were sent and the paedophile who sent them remarked that they ‘looked very young’, HE only then said not to send him anything illegal.

So no, op. No need to worry - unless you’re a raging paedophile and you’ve been sent stuff by a fellow nonce and you need to think of an alibi.

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 09:27

Why don't you at least read a decent report of the trial? It should put your mind at rest.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/31/huw-edwards-pleads-guilty-to-making-indecent-images-of-children

Police are absolutely overwhelmed with possession of CSAM (child sex abuse material) cases. If you think they and the CPS are taking men to court who just happened to be sent spam, you can rest assured: no. Everything is analysed to see what actually happened.

Category A images are rape of a child, in this case a boy of 7-9 years old.

He was receiving the images and chatting to the convicted paedophile on WhatsApp from December 2020 to April 2022. At any point he could have blocked the guy.

SwingTheMonkey · 03/08/2024 09:33

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 09:27

Why don't you at least read a decent report of the trial? It should put your mind at rest.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/31/huw-edwards-pleads-guilty-to-making-indecent-images-of-children

Police are absolutely overwhelmed with possession of CSAM (child sex abuse material) cases. If you think they and the CPS are taking men to court who just happened to be sent spam, you can rest assured: no. Everything is analysed to see what actually happened.

Category A images are rape of a child, in this case a boy of 7-9 years old.

He was receiving the images and chatting to the convicted paedophile on WhatsApp from December 2020 to April 2022. At any point he could have blocked the guy.

Absolutely right. I’m so fed up of reading that poor Huwey was just caught up in something he didn’t intend to be in. He was clearly viewing images he liked for some time and some of those must have been of child sex abuse - even if they were young teens, it’s still CSA. We need to stop making excuses for him.

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 09:44

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.

Cas112 · 03/08/2024 09:52

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

DaisyChain505 · 03/08/2024 09:58

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.

Haroldwilson · 03/08/2024 09:59

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.

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:00

FORTY. OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.

FORTY.

FORTY IMAGES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

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

KnickerlessParsons · 03/08/2024 10:03

birdling · 03/08/2024 09:11

I think if that happened, you would take them straight to the police.

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.

AngleClara · 03/08/2024 10:04

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:00

FORTY. OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.

FORTY.

FORTY IMAGES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

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

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.

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 10:08

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).

AngleClara · 03/08/2024 10:09

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 10:08

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).

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. 👍

WitchyBits · 03/08/2024 10:11

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.

burnoutbabe · 03/08/2024 10:12

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)

WetBandits · 03/08/2024 10:13

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.

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:14

AngleClara · 03/08/2024 10:04

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.

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

Cas112 · 03/08/2024 10:14

WitchyBits · 03/08/2024 10:11

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.

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.

Whatafustercluck · 03/08/2024 10:15

CeruleanDive · 03/08/2024 09:44

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.

Edited

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.

spongelover · 03/08/2024 10:15

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.