Inappropriate joke
Why is he looking into my soul?
He is looking under the pants of your kids
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
He is looking under the pants of your kids
Probably just sent his mates a Lamine Yamal compilation.
He's going on my dirty peed list
Less weird, more full of sanctimonious pricks rushing to vent their performative outrage and score internet points before the full facts of a case are known.
Another went to the Met didn't they soon after the story broke? Not sure if that was just another grooming accusation.
Yeah, now you mention it, there were other allegations that came out, but none seemed to particularly gain traction at the time, publicly at least.
Aged like milk.
Nice to have a pastime.
Ahh, this thread has revealed the caf’s resident nonce-catcher.
@P-Nut this is definitely better than signal-box-repair-specialist
In court today.
I’m actually not ready to wade through the earlier pages of this thread to try and find out if I was one of those sanctimonious pricks. Bound to be loads of them in this thread.
There are some here, but was more a reference to twitter and people's need to be seen to be on the 'right' side of an argument, even when few facts are known and it's mostly speculation. Then furious back peddalling ensues.
Pleaded guilty.
The definition of “making” in this case seems very odd. He was sent a bunch of images on WhatsApp, which apparently he didn’t save or copy or send on or anything.
Now obviously if a normal person received child porn in a WhatsApp chat you’d expect to immediately block and report the person who sent it, so he’s definitely guilty of having child porn, but I don’t understand the “making” term.
Now obviously if a normal person received child porn in a WhatsApp chat you’d expect to immediately block and report the person who sent it, so he’s definitely guilty of having child porn, but I don’t understand the “making” term.
The phone creates a copy of the image on it when it receives the image so the law defines it as making the image. It seems harsh but it’s to criminalise the perpetuation of the images.
The correct term is indecent images of children, not child porn, it does matter as porn seems to be normalised in society which means describing it as child porn can give the impression it’s acceptable .
As someone who works in probation,this is in the very shallow end of the sex offence pool.
The 3 charges for indecent images (not child porn) are “make,” “possess,” and “take.”
A copy has been made on his phone. Therefore has has made it. If he’s deleted it and it’s only recovered via digital forensics then he’s not in possession and he didn’t take it so make is the only charge that fits.
Disagree with the above points. I would assume that “making” refers not to being the cameraman and actively taking the images but being the producer or director and requesting that the images were made before receiving them.
I would allege that he’s probably sent messages to the minor asking for certain scenarios to be photographed and sent to him which they were, thus he was a producer of indecent images, involved in the process of “making” them.
Wow that’s wild, presumably they then have to establish intent.
From what I've read it sounds like he had an adult procuring the images for him, so I don't think he was talking directly to any children or young person. Rather he knew a guy and was purchasing images through this third party. There was a line about the guy saying he had illegal images too, to which he told him not to send anything illegal.
The person providing the images needs to be locked up too.
Interesting, thanks both and apologies for the poor wording.
That was my take from the article I saw, in that receiving them seems an odd definition of making them, but I guess the posts above do give some context to it.
Obviously by no means playing down his guilt here, just the legal technicality I found interesting.
Is that even if you turn off the auto save feature on WhatsApp?
I can’t imagine the courts won’t take this into account, he’s clearly guilty and will be punished but it seems the guy procuring and sending these images should receive a larger sentence?
Yeah, that person will hopefully be given a lengthy sentence. In terms of Huw Edwards, it's I guess at least good he said 'nothing illegal' but it seemed to happen after he was asked? Had that other scum not asked would he have still taken them? I imagine if he 'proactively' told the person to stop sending underage pictures it would have looked better
Lock him up.
The article cuttings i've seen say he was sent these images by someone else, didn't keep them and asked the sender not to send any more.
My small brain needs help.. What's he pleaded guilty to? Because this has gone to court, I feel like some information has been left out, or I've missed something.
My small brain needs help.. What's he pleaded guilty to? Because this has gone to court, I feel like some information has been left out, or I've missed something.
It’s an offence for these images to be saved to your device, which can happen automatically if someone sends them via social media or an app saves them to the cache.
At least, that’s how the courts have interpreted legislation that was written pre-internet for the social media age.
I suppose telling your p*or*n dealing text buddy to not send illegal stuff is a bright spot in an otherwise grim case.
So what is his crime? That he didn't report being sent it?
Under the prison.
I'm still confused about the case. Is this person messaging the younger individual the early stories broke about or is it a random person he was sharing and chatting about porn with?
Generally pretty easy. There are loads of search terms paedo’s use, there are chats they have had, commonly used words in their user dictionary, websites visited.
Simply continuing the conversation as he appears to have done and continuing to share images may have been enough
“Making” the illegal images because when they’re downloaded to his phone, a new copy of the image is technically being made.
He was receiving pornographic images via WhatsApp for months. The man sending him these images told him he had "illegal" stuff, and Edwards said "nothing illegal", and continued receiving pornographic images off this man.
However, it now transpires that two of the images he received before the exchange about "illegal" images were of the highest category and featured a child between seven and nine years old.
To my mind, he had to know he'd already received illegal material.
No idea to be honest. I think maybe there’s a cache in the back end on WhatsApp still, even if the image isn’t saved directly to the phone?
So he pleaded guilty to doing that on purpose? Thought i'd read that he never saved or kept any.
Not explicitly, just having the image on the device is enough. See this: https://theguardian.com/uk-news/201...child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams
It’s a weird one. As far as I can tell, the law doesn’t seem to require intent in this instance.