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 😭

Whether he created the images, sent them or received them, he is still culpable. If someone sent me photos of sexually abused children I would block the contact and report to the police. I would NOT be continuing my correspondence with them and asking for ‘legal’ images. Those poor children!

Of course there's value in the distinction. Most reasonable people would consider possession of such images, however vile, as less of a crime than producing them.

I agree. Making an image can mean literally click on a link to make it always on a screen, downloading it . Or drawing it. It doesn't mean they have had children posing for them.

Why are you trying to minimise this. The images of child sexual abuse do not just pop up in a computer they have to be accessed via the dark we or some other way that is not easy. They have to be searched out. You are making it sound like he stumbled upon them via pop up or emails this does not happen. Supply and demand. Children are tortured and abused because of this.

@ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot

Nobody is minimising it by clarifying what " making an image " means. Details matter. Nobody is saying what he did was ok for god sake, calm yourself.

no i wont calm down
educate yourself

I'm sure the courts and cps and even huw would have said something and not just gone with the charges if he was an innocent party in this who just happened to have automatically downloadd a child abuse picture unsolicited

And abuse images do NOT have to be found in the dark web. They are prolific and available on pretty much every platform if you know the right people. There aren't enough agencies and police to stop it, it's going to be the next big thing now children can access hardcore porn in their pocket any time they want. Porn addiction is a massive thing anyway and addictions always escalate. Is going to be so common in a few years that we will all have a monster in our family.

You clearly have zero idea what you are on about.

AFAIK and I am not a lawyer nor have been paying specific interest to this case, someone sending you images on WhatsApp is a crime, whether you download them or not.

From what I have read, the police searched his devices and they were clear - nothing downloaded. Just in the whatsapp chats, visible if you scrolled back. Yes he should have blocked the sender and reported the person to the police. But it's not the same as getting your camera out and making the pictures but the wording of the law makes it sound like that is what was going on.

Obtaining, holding, storing might be better terminology. I think in Scotland our legislation refers to "possessing an image" which makes a lot more sense, IMHO.

I think both crimes are equally as bad.

Which is presumably why he was charged and why he pleaded guilty

@ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot

I am better educated than you are. Search my name, my son was prosecuted for making illegal images. I know more about this subject than I would wish on anybody. Still, details matter. As does being able to discuss these things without people like you trying to make it even worse with dramatics. It's a very emotive subject , I get it, but details matter and so does taking about things in a factual precise manner instead of screaming about dark webs and spreading miss information.

Nobody here has said what he did was ok. Far from it.

@WitchyBits that's just it - there is no accusation/evidence that Edwards sought out these photographs on dodgy websites. Someone sent them to him on WhatsApp and he didn't report it.

I think it’s important to distinguish between the people who receive an image on WhatsApp and the people who create the images.

Make sure the men in your circle realise that if they are in a group that shares porn, and an illegal image is shared, then they all become culpable f ‘making’ that image.

We need to distinguish between the two so that we can make it explicit that receiving the image is criminal.
And creating the image- abusing the child- is obviously even worse.

If we can’t distinguish between them, some people won’t appreciate how bad it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

A Metropolitan police chief who was sent an unsolicited video of child sexual abuse via WhatsApp has been convicted of possessing indecent images on her phone.
Supt Robyn Williams, 54, was found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey and potentially faces being sacked after 36 years of distinguished service.

Williams was at a gym class in February 2018 when she was sent the video via WhatsApp on her phone by her sister, who was outraged by its content and wanted the person behind it caught.

Under the law on possessing indecent images, it was for Williams to prove she had a legitimate reason to have it, or that she had not seen the video and did not have reason to believe it was indecent.

He received 377 legal images in WhatsApp from this bloke.
Many men swap porn, and many women are remarkably ok with it- though not me.

There were also 41 indecent images, mainly of older teens. Those should have been reported.

It's disgusting, enough without portraying it as even worse.

I am confused? Report on BBC News implied he asked the person who sent them to him not to send images of underage people?

Yes. But opening what he was sent was enough.

On what’sapp you don’t even have to click to open, it’s right there.

Not if people use common sense and actually look the legal definitions up.

Or am I giving the average person too much credit here?

Yes, I don't think that part is in doubt, they have the messages that say that.

Of course he still continued the conversation, and didn't report the images which would have been the right thing to do.

I'd assume (and hope) that if someone is sent an unsolicited message and they immediately report it and hand the device over for police to investigate the sender, that person would not be charged with anything. But that's not what he did.

Downloading, viewing and distributing child porn is utterly vile and deserving of a long custodial sentence.

Creating child porn is much more vile and deserving of a life sentence.

I thought that "making" meant the latter, and it's not widely known, so the distinction is important.

Just because people didn't know that Edward did vile thing number one, and not vile thing number two, doesn't make what he did any better.

It is NOT CHILD PORN - no such thing!!!! Semantics matter ffs

So theoretically could someone, who receives an indecent image, without any warning encouragement or prompting, be prosecuted? Could they defend themselves by immediately reporting it to the police or would they still be culpable?