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.

The law needs clarifying and updating I imagine.

How Edwards was rightly prosecuted and convicted.

The law needs clarifying and updating I imagine.

It really doesn't

Yeah I'm a bit worried I posted too quickly! I'm probably wrong.

Yes now I’ve read this thread and youve prompted me to consider that .

I think it should be updated to stop confusion.

It must be clear that immediately reporting recieving an unsolicited image will not result in prosecution, otherwise it encourages people to delete and block but they need to report.

Also to stop people from using it to try and make them look innocent as seen on this post

Most normal people would not ever get a video of child abuse sent to them. Unless you are in touch with child abusers or you are on the dark web then you should be fine. What people are saying is that if you ever did get anything like that then of course you would take it to the police. A 7 yr old being raped would not just be a case of deleting. You would go straight to the police would t you because that would be horrific This is the thing. For most people who have no interest In this barbaric material you will never see it. You will never know the horrors of it. Hew Edward's was communicating with a known child sex offender. Therefore he was open to receiving these images. You would not be talking to this person unless you were a paedophillle yourself. You would go to the police. That's not what he did hence he is In serious trouble with the law. On top of that he was pestering young teens for nude photos and grooming them. He is a sex offender.

Exactly. This was not an accident. If you move in them circles then this will happen of course.

The offence class for images of children actually includes making, having , distributing etc indecent images of children

When being sentenced if it's images that have just been downloaded/viewed and not having actually been made by the offender then it would be considered as possession of indecent images

Also when sentencing they take into account the category the offences fall under, how many have been received and so on

So it's indecent images of children then it's kind of like there are subcategories that determine how the judge sentences

Yes I think that’s the thing it’s not ever happened to me and not going to I hope. I hadn’t even thought of that scenario mentioned about a 7 year old now that that’s been said and it’s a graphic description of what such an image could be that I hadn’t even thought so I do understand now

I think the way my mind works was just : bad image (hadn’t really thought what that might be until posters have mentioned what it could be) - delete- block. Now I know what you actually should do if ever that happens

He's not a fool. Not at all. He knew what he was doing. He joined that whatsapp chat specifically to see children being abused. Maybe the very young children aren't his taste - but if they were I can guarantee he would cheerfully accept the images without a second thought. Because he's a sick fucker who gets off on abusing boys.

my understanding is he had some kind of 'burner' phone where he had these conversations. at least thats what was said in a report i read. either way, he didnt 'accidentally' come across those images/videos. thats not how it works. people like that move in packs, they find each other and they feed each others sick perversions. they dont stumble across it.

Key messages here:

• look at the groups you belong to, delete the ones you aren't using
• tell your DC to do the same
• don't get into personal conversations with people you don't know online
• start having the 'difficult' conversations with your DC. Make it clear to them that an awkward conversation now is much, much easier than dealing with the police later.

I can't believe that there are still people trying to excuse this vile, filthy nonce's behaviour.

It's no accident that he found himself conversing on line with a like-minded filthy, vile nonce and that his filthy, vile nonce friend knew he would enjoy receiving photos and a video of innocent children being abused.

Huw Edwards is not an innocent victim who received unsolicited messages from a friend he mistakenly thought was decent. He is a disgusting paedophile, just like the creature who sent those messages.

He has even pleaded guilty. If you can't believe what The Sun and other brave individuals tried to tell you, at least believe the man himself.

Exactly - the CPS would say it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute. That’s if it even got as far as the CPS.

Yes those calling for a change in the law really mean that they’d like to change the law so that nice men also happen to be peadophiles don’t get prosecuted. Because it would sit much better with people to believe it can’t possibly be true than face up to the fact that purportedly nice and admiral people can also be monsters behind closed doors.

This is exactly the kind of attitudes that offenders hide behind and stops prosecution and hides abuse.

Pardon ? No he is t a fool stop making out he didn't know what he was doing. He was communicating online with a known child sex offender who he received images from. What did he expect for gods sake. Of course he wanted this material that's why he was speaking to him. Wake up. He was also grooming teenage boys for naked pictures and paying them for it. Is that foolish too ?

I am still flabbergasted that such an excellent journalist who seemed so genuine was anything but

Why does him being an excellent journalist make it seem unlikely that he could have done such a thing?
We can’t tell anything about his personality or personal life based on how he presents the news.
This is why victims find it hard to report crimes and are often not believed.

I am still flabbergasted that such an excellent journalist who seemed so genuine was anything but

They walk amongst us. My advise as a survivor of CSA is never assume.

There cannot surely be people out there who believe in the man's innocence.

Not necessarily. Huw Edwards absolutely deserves whatever's coming to him.

The over whelming majority of men who are actually prosecuted under this law also had it coming.

But the law as written does allow people to be guilty without having done anything morally wrong. They're dependant on the judgement and discretion of the police, the CPS and potentially a jury. I'm basically fine with that because I do trust these institutions' discretion in this context, and am aware that if they started prosecuting in those circumstances they'd have no time to do anything else.

But I can see that if you have less faith you might want to put in a specific defence for people who've done literally nothing wrong, and have reported illegal material to the authorities at the first opportunity.

And if there were such a defence then maybe the bastards who do get prosecuted would be less able to muddy the water with the possibility that they'd actually done nothing wrong and just recieved an unsolicited photo out of the blue.

ETA by "overwhelming majority" I'm not ruling out the possibility that 100% of it had it coming - but mistakes do happen.

“Mistakes” don’t happen to normal people without a sexual interest in children. Those people, who receive such an image will report it, be disgusted and not be prosecuted.

Don’t pretend you can accidentally receive an abundance of child porngraphy just going about your normal, honest life.

As a pp said if you think the law is too broad then find an example of someone who was prosecuted in the circumstances I spoke about in my first paragraph - I can guarantee you won’t.

@HonestMistake great name.

There are specific defences available anyway

Unsolicited photographs
This defence that the photographs were unsolicited (s. 160(2)(c) CJA 1988) applies to s160(1) CJA 1988only. The defendant has a legal defence if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9). The issue of reasonableness is a matter for the jury to decide on the facts of any particular case.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

Yes, people who've done nothing wrong really aren't getting prosecuted under this law, even when theoretically they could be.

That's why I personally am broadly happy to trust the discretion of the police on this: if a fascist government were going to pursue innocent people who they disliked then frankly they'd find a way to do it without needing this law. But it does leave room for perpetrators to raise a smokescreen.

Brilliant. That's the piece of information I was missing, despite thinking I'd been paying attention, and which frankly needs more publicity. I'll bookmark that link for the next time it comes up.