Huw Edwards got me thinking…

[Friendsfestival]

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.

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.

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

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.

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....

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

The law is very very widely drawn. We're dependent on the police, the CPS, the courts and if all else fails the jury to say "this does not warrant investigation/prosecution/conviction"

But that's not unique. People commit negligent criminal damage all the time, by clumsily/recklessly dropping a pint in a pub for example. Loads of sixteen year olds have had some form of consensual sex, or other sexual activity with fifteen year olds. Seventeen year olds send boob shots to their boyfriends. The system works (insofar as it does work) by the exercise of human judgement at every step.

However this offence does seem unusual in that it can be committed passively. I'd be tempted to create a specific defence of "unless the recipient immediately reports the unsolicited image and its source to the correct authorities" but that's off the top of my head.

There should be no fear in reporting a random image you’ve been sent that you think might depict an underage person being sexually abused. Yes you’ll almost certainly have your phone etc seized and scrutinised but if you have nothing to hide, you won’t be worried. People don’t get convinced when they’ve reported the issue immediately.

HE didn’t report it. Ever. He was only caught because the other disgusting nonce he was communicating with got caught. He didn’t report it because he was happily receiving images of slightly older, although still illegal, boys. He was discussing the images with the follow paedo in graphic detail. None of it was received by HE unsolicited.

He's not a 16 year old girl though is he? What a ridiculous way of trying to justify it. He had more than enough money to buy a new phone/get a new number

Must I point out he was in contact with the other peadophile for a couple of years. Use your critical thinking to actually research HIS case and why HE has been charged rather than that of the imaginary 16 year old girl

I don’t believe he would have been prosecuted in those circumstances.

I specifically said that none of us should be discussing the Edwards case because none of us heard all of the evidence.

My point is that receipt of images is an offence. So if someone sent me them, and I went to the police to report it, I would also be admitting to an offence myself. That’s clearly going to be a disincentive when it comes to reporting, and strikes me as an odd law, if indeed that is the law.

It’s fine saying that the CPS and Police probably wouldn’t take forward a case against someone in that instance. But why is the law as it is?

So if your 16 year old daughter sent her boyfriend nudes.

And accidentally sent you some/ your phones synced.

You are now guilty of making indecent images. You should also immediately report her to the police as she is guilty too and worse, she disturbutee those images.

But no one actually would do that to their own daughter. You'd delete it all and bollock her.

Yet the law says you both committed crimes. Her deliberately and you innocently.

Surely we are discussing what the law says and how innocent people can be caught rather than a particular case?

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?

It’s an interesting taking point. So perhaps op had been better off not mentioning HE and stating that he’d received images he hadnt asked for, which isn’t true.

I think there may have been a better discussion around the subject of ‘making images’ had she not mentioned him.

You started the post with a lie

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

You are an apologist. Start a thread about the issues surrounding receiving unsolicited images but don't use a post to make excuses for a paedophile.

I cant believe people sympathising with the guy. Read the facts.

A surprising number of people are only bothered about their own children being sexually abused and don’t actually care when it happens to other children.

Have you actually read about it? He was chatting with a paedophile for around 2 years exchanging images.

Mad the world ATM. .. I'm so shocked some women are like this.

If it was their teenage son...

I specifically said that none of us should be discussing the Edwards case because none of us heard all of the evidence.

No one needs to hear all of the evidence, @Friendsfestival, unless they are involved in the case or work in this area. A decent summary of the evidence is enough. And yet you chose to ignore that and quibble about imaginary cases.

Why is that? Do you know?

Why does every peadophile supposedly have mental health issues? Tell a therapist not a judge when you’ve offended.