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 😭

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

I hope the other guy is going to get the book thrown at him.

I agree Huw should have reported it and also shouldn't have been messing around sexting much younger men, but this sounds like the blame rests much more with the other man.

Yep. Porn sick men are desensitised to abuse of all sorts.
It's grim. I feel for his wife and children.

I still don't understand how it can be legal to have images of children.

@Longma
@SoulMole

how can someone be charged for making images, if they've just opened a photo on WhatsApp?

Anyone could send you anything, how can you be responsible for what someone else does??

What a fall from grace. From announcement of Queen Elizabeth IIs death to this.

He deserves everything he gets

Because the legal ones weren’t children?

I can’t imagine I’m the only person who hopes he receives a prison sentence.

And the word “indecent” (I know it’s a legal term) must be the biggest WTF? euphemism to label images of children being sexually abused.

The majority of photos would not have been of children (although obviously a lot of porn uses trafficked and vulnerable young adults).

@summerdazey

i disagree. You might take a photo of your cat & send it to me, my phone automatically saves that to my camera roll.

i haven't 'made' your photo, I've looked at it.

You might disagree @Ponkpinkpink15 but the term “making images” covers a variety of uses of images, legally.

@Ponkpinkpink15 I do wonder with the advances in technology whether the terminology/crime will change.

But yes someone sending you a photo can put you in a position of committing a crime.

They weren’t images of children. They were adult porn. And among them were 40 images that weren’t. Which stopped being sent when he told the sender, ‘nothing illegal’.

It’s all sleazy. And some of it was criminal.

And it’s important to distinguish between people who abuse small children, those who abuse teens, those who seek out images, and those who receive such images among others and fail to report them to the police.

And legally speaking, you’ve ’made an image’ of that cat.

It’s a really important piece of law people need to know about, in an age where people share photos all the time.

You really are keen to minimise the viewing of child sexual abuse.

Right, I understand now.

@BonifaceBonanza

yes, I'm confused about this too, how can viewing & automatically saving an image be something you get charged for when someone else sent it to you?

I'm not sure the terminology but I wonder if there's a distinction. If a 15 year old boy takes a selfie of himself unclothed then this would be an indecent image of a child, rather than an image of child sexual abuse?

No. I’m keen people understand.

If you lose language by being sloppy, you stop being able to describe what’s happening.

I want this man prosecuted and scorned for what he did, not for what he didn’t do.

I want the man who sent those images to be prosecuted, and his contacts identified, and the children protected. That’s what matters, not some old white man’s career.

@mrswhiplington so how could he have stopped the illegal ones amongst them.

Whilst I think his taste in porn is not my cup of tea, it's legal, so why is he being charged for someone else's decision to send illegal images?

it makes no sense to me.

He needed to take the phone straight to the police. And deal with the embarrassment,

In Not taking his phone straight to the police, he potentially allowed children to be abused and groomed for longer.

He could have been part of the solution. But instead became party to the abuse.

It’s in the same kind of terminology as ‘receiving stolen goods’ when you buy cheap steak in a pub car park.

I suspect if you've grown up in an environment which tells you that your sexuality is sinful then it could be tough as an adult to distinguish between what is and is not morally wrong.

Because he continued to engage with the person sending the images for a matter of months, and even after the images of children were included, carried on with this interchange for a further two months during which more were sent, and then persisted his involvement for another period of time; alll in all, around nine months.

Oh, come on.

I remember this and was saddened on her behalf.
We know what the blokes are up to.

Oh the irony and arrogance of sunglasses being worn - doesn't want his eyes observed, but happy to look at hideous abuse of minors.