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.

What on earth does anyone get out of seeing a child being raped it's utterly disgusting and vile.
What would they say if their child was raped?

They should worry that there is something really wrong with their brains and ask for help, not wait until they are caught?

How low can you sink to want to see an image of a child being raped?

There was an incident of a very senior police officer who had been sent an inappropriate WhatsApp message from her sister, never opened it, but ended up losing her job over it. It's a minefield. Edwards opened the images, was asked if they were too young and responded that he didn't want young images. He's an absolute fool and I am still flabbergasted that such an excellent journalist who seemed so genuine was anything but. I suppose the fact that in the previous part of his fall from grace, the young man and the photos, is similarly weird. Paying £30,000+ for photos of this man, why not buy a gay magazine!?! Bit cheaper.

If your not in conversation with a convicted child abuser then I should t think you need to worry 🙄

If your not asking 17yr olds for naked pictures for 2k then you don't need to worry either 🙄

He is. 100 per cent.

17yr olds wouldn't be in gay magazines. He likes young boys.

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.

No, that wouldn’t happen.

Stop being an apologist . 40 separate pictures over a year including 7-9 year old. He isn't a fool he is a paedophile.

And as for the police officer that isn't what happened, why are you manipulating this story to give credence to the idea that HE is just a victim of being sent images?

The law doesn't need changing, you'd need to use commen sense and go to the police if you received images of csa . That's what any normal person would do

It's not even commen sense , any normal person would be repulsed and go to the police so they could investigate the person who sent them to you

Jesus Christ there are some stupid and gullible people in this world. At least I hope they’re just stupid and gullible because the alternative is that they’re paedophile apologists.

@Friendsfestival I 100% agree with you. Laws as they are written are black and white. They aren’t about morals or ethics.

If he blocked the sender or reported to the police he could still have been charged for the exact same crime.

Does anyone actually think that creating or sending such images is no worse or different to receiving them unsolicited? How disgusting.

It should also be completely irrelevant that he’s a high profile celebrity and if it’s not then somethings very wrong with our justice system.

Receiving unsolicited images, deleting them and asking the sender not to send any more is so not the same as actually sending them or “making”/taking them. And the law should clearly distinguish in charging and sentencing, but doesn’t appear to.

The blurred lines in my view reduces the disgrace and punishment that should come with sending or “making” these pictures.

Again, going the the police is a moral not a legal issue, it doesn’t change the fact that the exact same offence has been committed.

Even the whole premise of this thread is bizarre!
Oh are you saying if someone randomly sends me CP that I’ll be prosecuted?!!

Like, I can tell you now there is not a person in my life who would send me that, why would it ever be a concern of someone unless they were hanging around in dark corners of the internet discussing these sorts of ‘preferences’.

@BonifaceBonanza i would love you to reference even one single precedent in law where an individual was sent an indecent image, having had nothing to do with the the person, the conversation, or other CP and was prosecuted for receiving the image.

It does, sentencing goes on how many you've received what cat they are and what you've done with the images eg saving/sharing

Oh and I'd you'd created them you'd be done for sexual offences against children!

You know, I thought this. So what if we're sent something illegal? That makes us guilty is fucking scary.

But then put yourself in that situation.

What would your actions be?

When I thought this myself, I'd be raging mad if someone sent me that type of content. The reaction of disgust would be quite strong.

There's no way I would be deleting and continuing talking to this sort of person.

I'd go to the police because I'd want that person investigated. There would be no friendship after that.

But also, Huw started talking to that 21 year old they were paying for pictures when he was 17. And why was he talking to a 25 year old?

He likes them young it seems

I think you are right OP and to be totally honest I did not know before the other thread on this that it’s an offence to have done what he did (unasked for images deleted and he requested no more of that nature)

If prior to this knowledge it had happened to me I’d have done the same if I knew the person just deleted and blocked them. Had it been a stranger the same. Now I know you have to report to the police but I wouldn’t have thought that before

@DogwoodTree
I remember listening to the documentary too. It’s called The Boy in the Video, by Lucy Proctor, but although the police had to investigate those who received the horrific video, I think only the person who posted it was charged.
The focus of the documentary was finding out what had happened to the boy in the video and whether he was now ‘safe’.

It stayed with me after I listened to it, particularly the part where she discusses the lifelong effects of CSA videos with a survivor.

It’s worth listening to.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000bx2k

Regarding ‘saving’ WhatsApp saves to camera roll automatically unless you disable that ? So should we all be doing that just in case ? Sometimes like random scamming emails you can get weird WhatsApp messages - I’ve had ones where they claim to be business recruiters or just random one trying to start conversations- so to protect ourselves saving to camera roll should be disabled ?

You have only just become aware of the fact that if someone sent you a video of a 7 year old being r’ped you should report it to the police?

Thats really and truly brand new information to you?
And before if someone you knew sent you this sort of content you would delete and think no more about it?

It’s not a fucking meme. Honestly why are people so dense as to think oh no are you saying I could be prosecuted for being a peado?

FORTY, FORTY PICTURES OF CHILDREN.

unasked for images deleted and he requested no more of that nature

If I received one I would hand my phone to the police so the sender could be investigated. I would not continue chatting and recieving images which I continued to watch and chat on the thread.

Even his legal team hasn't gone down this route so why on earth are you?

I work in this field, this is a common defence used, it's usually nonsense.
If someone was sent something they hadn't requested deleted immediately and blocked the person even if they hadn't reported it to police it wouldn't meet CPS thresholds.
He received 41 CSA images over a prolonged period of time and yes he might've at one point said make sure it's nothing illegal, but he was illiciting indecent images of young looking males for two years, engaged in detailed sexual conversations about them with the sender and continued to do so each time the illegal images were sent. They were also retained on his device.
Category A are the worst type of images Category A: ‘Images involving penetrative sexual activity’; ‘possession of images involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism’.
For the purposes of the legislation images includes videos.

" askign them what they were doing" and some.

Regarding ‘saving’ WhatsApp saves to camera roll automatically unless you disable that ? So should we all be doing that just in case ?

Just in case what???
Sorry but if anybody needs to make decisions “just in case” someone sends them CP they need to seriously reevaluate the sort of lifestyle they live.