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 😭

'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.'

A news anchor who sat there every night discussing the outcomes of criminal cases knows better than most people what is and isn't morally wrong.

I think the guy who sent it should be named and shamed to a greater degree. The details are relevant. Does anyone else find it disconcerting that you can be sent something and be AS culpable as the person who sent it? He should be done for possession instead, would that stick? He deleted the images, because none were found on his devices. His crime seems to be not blocking the person and not reporting it, and that should be listed as a separate crime.
I’ll get a pile on for saying it because this is MN. But also, because this is MN, this thread will soon be deleted.

But someone likely sent it to that, guy. And Huw wasn’t saying don’t send them, he was happily discussing the images. He wasn’t some passive participant.

I learned it maybe ten years ago on safeguarding training. I believe it is taught to children in PSHE- they need to know sending each other intimate photos is t ok.

of course they view it in their own context and immediately disregard it as they are ‘just sexting’ ‘just a bit of bantz’ etc.

Personally I think all porn is disgusting, and opens you up to receiving images which are illegal which you may just delete and forget about. I don’t know, I’ve not been sent an image of any kind, thank God.

@summerdazey you asked why so many- many men seem to swap and share ‘dirty pictures’ in WhatsApp groups. I don’t understand why. But the number of images could clock up pretty fast.

I mean, I was shocked to discover that ‘twinks’ were a thing. To me, that’s disgusting and predatory even if it’s legal.

I imagine that’s how this started, legal sharing images of twinks, that eventually crossed the line.

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 must be highly unreasonable, then.

He's disgusting. Hopefully he goes away for a long time

It is ! This is why kids are taught don’t send or solicit naked selfies - having a sexual image of a minor is a criminal offence.

The person who sent the images could be based overseas where laws are different.

That's what I find so shocking. Although I shouldn't . We had a neighbour who was a solicitor of very good standing. Used to share lifts, had him and his wife round for coffee. He was oddly insistent on offering to babysit my children. It turned out he was abusing his stepson and his the stepsons friend. He went to jail. You couldn't have chosen a more upstanding, professional, seemingly charming man. On the face of it.

I wonder if he pleaded guilty as part of a ploy to try to stop the details getting out. It’s clear across the threads on this people are not taking the time to read I fully and seem to think he was some passive recipient who just didn’t delete.

he was a proactive and willing participant in receiving these images, he discussed the images with the paedo, he only said stop when it was the 7 year old. And he said don’t send me anything of someone so young. But they were all 14 and below. Children being raped and abused. Photographed and videos for these men and men like them sexual gratification.

This exactly. It's awful, he's awful. It's a terrible crime.

I also think people need to be clear about exactly what he is accused of, instead of jumping to conclusions about what 'making' images means.

The article says he didn’t keep them, send them or ask for them. Seven serious images of mostly of children 15-17.

Honestly it’s bad enough, no need to make it sound worse than it already is.

“He had 41 photographs - seven category A images, 12 category B pictures, and 22 category C - on the messaging app WhatsApp.
The category A images - the most serious kind - were mostly of children aged 13 to 15, the court heard.”

On another thread someone’s referred to Saville.

THIS IS BAD ENOUGH ON ITS OWN. Exaggerating it devalues how bad it is.

@Ponkpinkpink15 your definition of making an image is not the same as the legal definition.

To those suggesting that if you were to be sent an indecent image of a child, you should immediately report it to the Police, what this course of action does is put you at the mercy of the Police. You have committed a crime just by having 'made' the image and are effectively reporting yourself for it.

So, you would be relying on the good graces of the Police not to prosecute you. But regardless of that, all the computers/phones etc in your house would be seized for investigation. And your neighbours would see what was going on.

Personally, I'd delete it, scrub my hard drive and say no more about it.

We don’t know if they discussed them or not. When asked, he said “don’t send me illegal images”. For sure he was not protesting but he did say not to do it.

@PrincessofWells

Huw Edwards received images of CSA and didn't report it.
Carried on the conversation with said supplier of CSA images.

Omitting to report is a deliberate act. He didn't want it, but he was permissive of CSA in allowing the supply line to continue uninterrupted.

It can be inferred that Huw put his appetite for the porn this guy supplied, over his opportunity to stop that pipeline or even perhaps help the kids in those images.

I feel this is not the characteristics of 'an exceptional character' as stated by the barrister (no judgement on the barrister it's their job, just disbelief that they' be able say it with a straight face).

Which bit I'm confused about please?

I personally DGAF if he didn't want the images & they were unsolicited. IMO he should face consequences for not doing anything about it - he knew what his supplier was up to and continued to engage which as such a high profile figure was absolutely knowingly playing with fire.

There should be a way of exonerating the unfortunate recipient. Knowing they are innocent but might be charged would put many off. We need clarification about what to do should we are put in this position!

I can see how hard it would be for some people- your whole household losing their devices, including work laptops etc.

I might need to think about that for a moment.

I am really sickened and hugely disappointed if the charge and punishment are the same for someone who receives an image as for someone who actually “makes” the image in the usual sense of the word.

Treating those two things as the same in the law is horrific.

Stop minimising! Possessing pornographic images is just as bad as making them. You’re adding to the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people for your own pleasure.

I definitely think this plays a role in failing to report. I had to report someone else for taking a video without my knowledge at 16, later to sent to me by the person. Even though I was the victim, it's scary to not know if you'll be given a record for trying to do the right thing.

The law does need to be strict so that genuine nonces (and in my case, malevolent peers) don't get away with serious crimes. But there does need to be more guidance on cases where a person reports things on their own device. I tried to look it up at the time, and o don't think it was all that reassuring.

Even when I spoke to the detective in person, I wasn't given a 'you're not in trouble', outright.

So for many people, they think 'I'll delete that awful video' and wipe their hands clean, hoping it goes away.

That’s known as ‘burying your head in the sand’.

I think it might be the same. There don’t seem to be fine details written into the law. It’s all bad, this case is disgusting, but I just think the way the law is worded makes it sound like he was creating images; he was receiving them passively, but as far as the law is concerned, he was ‘making’ them.

What if they are sent to you, unsolicited?

'Burying your head in the sand' would be believing that you wouldn't get prosecuted for something illegal that you have admitted to doing.