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
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 16:43

SunQueen24 · 04/08/2024 13:30

@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, that's one of the subcategories I was talking about earlier

Making sexual images of children etc is just the offence class, which is a J , which is really just saying that anything to do with sexual images of children come under the most serious of offence classes

Then you have the subcategory like this which is section 106 (1) of the criminal justice act , there are hundreds and hundreds of subcategories for crimes and its that and the statement of the defendent that is used by police, cps and a judge to decide on prosecution and sentencing

Cantgetausername87 · 04/08/2024 16:47

Nope not scary at all. Regardless of how profile I was, if I recieved those photos I'd be straight onto the police trying to get the scumbag sending them on. That's not me pretending to be a Saint, I would simply be so enraged I wouldn't not be able to do something. I think most sane people would. The police would have no interest I legal port and its unlikely it would be high profile if you were assisting the police.
Don't be convinced otherwise. Those photos would make you sick to your stomach and angry. No ifs, buts or maybes.

AngleClara · 04/08/2024 17:42

Allie47 · 04/08/2024 09:27

He didn't delete them, they were found on his phone.

Weren't they found on the other blokes phone? He could well have deleted it, and would have to be extremely stupid not to (even more stupid than chatting with this man in the first place)

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 04/08/2024 23:02

AngleClara · 04/08/2024 17:42

Weren't they found on the other blokes phone? He could well have deleted it, and would have to be extremely stupid not to (even more stupid than chatting with this man in the first place)

Show quote history

Even if he did delete them he still knew that a serious crime against children had taken place and the guy he was talking to was distributing images of children, some of which were category A . He continued talking to this person and we all know why that is

Allie47 · 04/08/2024 23:23

AngleClara · 04/08/2024 17:42

Weren't they found on the other blokes phone? He could well have deleted it, and would have to be extremely stupid not to (even more stupid than chatting with this man in the first place)

Show quote history

No, and yes he was that stupid 🤷‍♀️

CottonwoolCubes · 04/08/2024 23:29

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.

Aren't you forgetting how many times this happened?

OnAndOnAndonAgain · 05/08/2024 03:49

CottonwoolCubes · 04/08/2024 23:29

Aren't you forgetting how many times this happened?

Show quote history

That poster is talking shit , there are already distinctions

TeaGinandFags · 05/08/2024 04:29

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.

When people get done for this it's not because of the odd picture, it's because of hundreds of pictures.

If you receive without your consent these images then ALWAYS run screaming to the police. So bloody what if they investigate? They have to. But that investigation proves innocence as much as guilt. Plus the fact that the electronics prove provenance.

GnomeDePlume · 05/08/2024 12:00

TeaGinandFags · 05/08/2024 04:29

When people get done for this it's not because of the odd picture, it's because of hundreds of pictures.

If you receive without your consent these images then ALWAYS run screaming to the police. So bloody what if they investigate? They have to. But that investigation proves innocence as much as guilt. Plus the fact that the electronics prove provenance.

Show quote history

This is why it is so important to be having the conversations with our teens.

It is essential for them to understand that an embarrassing conversation with mum/dad about looking at porn when something illegal gets sent by a 'mate' is a million times better than that illegal thing being found by the police later.

We have been having age appropriate conversations with our DCs since they were young. We still talk now they are in their 20s.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page