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 😭

This is a shocking case, and considering is was children as young as 7 and what it contained, child rape and abuse I find the comments trying to downplay heinous.

no he wasn’t creating the images, but he was receiving , discussing. After receipt etc and from another paedophile. It’s abhorrent and I hope he goes to jail for a long time.

I would assume reporting it and blocking the person who sent it would have gone highly in his favour. But he didn't, he carried on receiving images from this person

Right, but it’s important to be aware of the difference. Making images of child abuse can be opening a WhatsApp.

Photographing a child being abused is a separate thing. As is presumably sending the WhatsApp- distributing images of child abuse.

A one off image you tell soneoen not to send you and delete, or report, will not have you charged.

multiple images you wish to receive, from another paedo, and then discuss the images with them. Yeah, you’re going to jail.

Agree, block and report and the police aren’t going to prosecute. Continue to engage with sender and don’t report and that’s a different matter.

He didn't delete it either.

What are you doing, trying to down play the fact this man was in touch with a fellow paedophile agreeing to receive multiple images and discussing them?

no he didn’t rape the children himself . So? What he is and what he was doing is heinous. He was creating a market for child rape images. For sexual gratification.

I think thr poster is either a sympathiser or ignorant of the court reports/

Grim indeed - hope he gives the BBC the vast payout of our money he received after being arrested - of course he won’t will he

How are any of these pictures legal if they involve children?

Replace "child porn" with "child sexual abuse images" and your post would be correct. Calling it "porn" minimises what is actually sexual abuse.

Note that this charge of making images applies even if you receive unsolicited images (as he did) and don’t download them or save them (which he apparently didn’t) and even tell the sender not to send you anything illegal.

Im not quite sure how a person avoids a charge if they receive unsolicited images and immediately delete them and tell the sender not to send any illegal images?

Going to the police wouldn’t change the fact that you had still completed actions meeting the definition of “making images”.

But you can't possess them or view them unless someone makes them - and for them to be produced, a child is abused. I don't find it less of a crime, and I don't find it reasonable to consider it less of a crime; viewing such images perpetuates child sexual abuse, which is heinous.

300 odd were legal.
42 were not.

Urgh, why are men so bloody obsessed with people's genitals they'd risk family and career? What a grim cliché.

Imagine if men who send unsolicited dick pics could be prosecuted

On this point about making images. If someone sends you images of child porn on an unsolicited basis, your only option is to report it to the police as soon as is possible. If you sit on the image or view for any reason, you are going to be found guilty of making an image and breaking the law (quite rightly in my view). The point is that people should not be making their own value judgments about child porn and whether it's okay for them to have received and stored images (whether solicited or not). They should report it immediately to the police for investigation, if someone else puts them in possession of such images.

And basically don't trade porn images online with people. It's legally risky. And immoral.

I don't think he can claim they were unsolicited, being in an ongoing chat with someone that has sent you many more of that type of image before?? And not reporting it!

Absolutely not downplaying it. Accuracy is important.
Some people would not know it was an offence to do what he did, and I think it’s really important to make sure people do know.

It’s important because it isn’t a victimless crime as they may have persuaded themselves, and it’s important because a hell of a lot of people do it without understanding the crime they are committing.

if you asked men, anonymously, how many of them had seen an image of child porn/underage porn- images of child sexual abuse- I bet a lot would admit they had. In order to see them, they received them so have committed the same crime as Hugh Edwards.

@SonicTheHodgeheg I thought cyber flashing is now illegal? Have I got that wrong? It's incumbent on parents to teach their sons that this is not okay in any event.

He could claim he asked for legal images.

And ‘merely’ failed to report the illegal ones.

I think porn desensitises them to the point they just sort of, look away.

I wonder if the man who sent him the images has been tried if he’s in the UK?
There’s been lots of men who don’t go for prison for owning child abuse images but fucking hell it’s all so grim.

Actually the article makes it quite clear, he was sent them via WhatsApp.

Plus if they are older teens then he could probably use the “He/She looks legal” excuse

He looked at the images.
He didn't delete them.
He didn't report them.

He deserves everything he gets.

Also, people need to stop using the term 'child porn'. It's disgusting and minimises what they actually are which are child sexual abuse images.