Huw Edward’s pleads GUILTY to making indecent child images

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwards-set-to-appear-in-court-after-being-charged-with-making-indecent-images-of-children-13187776

some of these images were of children as young as 7 😭

Not making excuses for this.

But I do think the term "making images" is widely misunderstood.

@Misthios
Can you explain it then please?

Makes me feel sick regardless of what is actually involved.

It is a very poorly thought out term, isn't it. As you say, still disgusting behaviour, but the term is badly misunderstood.

Even if he didn’t ’make’ them just thinking about looking at them is sickening and illegal.

In what way?

'Making' is widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29
receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
live-streaming images of children

The breadth of what constitutes “making” – see below, Selection of Charges – means it will often be the appropriate charge rather than “possession”. When a device is seized, it may be the case that an image is stored in such a way that it is not possible to say that the suspect possessed it, because it is not accessible to them. Even if it is not accessible, however, the evidence may show that they had knowingly “made” the image.

It was a huge number of images, multiple category A and some involving very young children from the age of seven.

He is a dangerous disgusting predator and I hope a jail sentence reflects this. I could cry for the children.

He didn't take the photos himself or draw pictures, which is what "making" implies. He downloaded them, and because his computer downloaded 0s and 1s and then rendered them as an image using an image viewer software, he's deemed to have "made" the image.

"Obtaining" would be a more accurate term.

This is not to minimise what he's done: deliberately obtaining images of child sexual abuse is appalling behaviour. It's to clarify what he's done.

No one has actually clarified if he made them in the widely understood sense or downloaded them. Stop minimising.

I know he's pleaded guilty and IS guilty but one part of my brain just keeps thinking 'but Huw Edwards is a respectable, sensible, professional nice man, surely it's a mistake'.

I'll get over it like I did with Rolf Harris but it scares me that men who you'd never suspect in a million years are up to this vile stuff.

Very grim. Utterly disgusting. Hope he gets everything he deserves.

I think it's very unlikely he will get a custodial sentence.

A 'huge number of images would be hundreds at Cat A.

He's also pleaded guilty which will be taken into account for sentencing.

What's with this Edward's with an apostrophe? Seen it twice now on thread titles. What next? Tom Jone's?

blame autocorrect!

Ah right OK.

I've just seen that even receiving an image, even unsolicited can be classified as 'making' too

Surely the article states clearly that he was sent images on WhatsApp and he opened them? That’s what the making refers to.

He received hundreds of legal pornographic images, and in a two month period was sent 35 illegal images.

He specified he didn’t want anything illegal.

I mean the man’s a creep with an interest in young male bodies, there’s no need to make it seem any worse!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

It's fairly clear he knew exactly what he was looking at, told the guy not to send him anything illegal. He was sent pictures on What's App, it's all separate to the previous allegations last year.

You've said this on previous threads and frankly you do give the impression you think there is value in the distinction, as if his crime isn't as bad.

They have, it says on BBC news that he received and downloaded them. There is no allegation that he 'made' them. He also requested that no illegal images be sent. However, despite receiving these images, he continued with the communication and went on to receive more which presumably he was paying for, perpetuating vile exploitation that men like him consider less important than their own disgusting desires.

It's not. You download it - you've made it

How dare he walk with his head held high like that

Do you think it's the same if someone sends you illegal images (which you tell them not to send you) as if you take the photos yourself?

Unlikely he'll be imprisoned. I've seen so many documentaries where ownership of thousands of these images does not result in prison time, or that when it does, it's a risible sentence.