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?
That seems a little harsh. Not saying he's clean by any means whatsoever but if he didn't ask for the image, didn't want the image or keep it and asked the person not to send it.. I assumed the issue was that he never reported receiving these images. Which I would personally do immediately if I were ever sent one.It’s a weird one. As far as I can tell, the law doesn’t seem to require intent in this instance.
That seems a little harsh. Not saying he's clean by any means whatsoever but if he didn't ask for the image, didn't want the image or keep it and asked the person not to send it.. I assumed the issue was that he never reported receiving these images. Which I would personally do immediately if I were ever sent one.
Doesn't it seem pretty clear?
They were chatting for a long period of time, with the other guy sending images. Many of these images were of kids who were very clearly underage, some of them as young as under 10. Only when the other man specifically said that he had illegal images Edwards said that he didn't want anything illegal, but he didn't say anything when receiving clearly illegal images where this wasn't explicitly stated.
That seems a little harsh. Not saying he's clean by any means whatsoever but if he didn't ask for the image, didn't want the image or keep it and asked the person not to send it.. I assumed the issue was that he never reported receiving these images. Which I would personally do immediately if I were ever sent one.
And if that's the case then it makes more sense but I can't see that reported on or what he's actually pleased guilty to.Just because he said “nothing illegal” to the guy sending them doesn’t mean there isn’t intent elsewhere in his devices.
In that case why did they report that he asked for "no illegal stuff" after months of already receiving it? Seems strange.He was receiving hundreds of illegal images of children for months
The initial story was about Edwards paying for explicit photos of an individual who was underage. Now we are hearing a story about an adult man who shared photos with Edwards of others. It isn't really clear if the person is the same or if the initial reporting was wrong.
In that case why did they report that he asked for "no illegal stuff" after months of already receiving it? Seems strange.
What was his defense? That he didn''t realise they were kids?
And if that's the case then it makes more sense but I can't see that reported on or what he's actually pleased guilty to.
I'm not trying to claim he's some sort of innocent victim. The fact it's gone to court and involves these types of images means he's obviously no angel. I just want clarity on what he's actually done because the bits i've read are basically just saying he got sent stuff that he didn't want. That alone can't be it. I couldn't send a picture of something rotten to someone and then have them arrested for receiving it.
Pretty sure that these are seperate incidents, perhaps discovered when they were investigating the other thing.
I guess it's technically possible that the adult they're referring to is the same as the person who was underage at the time, and that this person in addition to sending pictures of himself as underage was sending pictures of tons of other kids, and continued doing so after he reached 18, but that sounds really convoluted. Makes more sense to me that he was paying that kid for pictures of himself, and this other guy for pictures of whoever.
In that case why did they report that he asked for "no illegal stuff" after months of already receiving it? Seems strange.
What was his defense? That he didn''t realise they were kids?
Because the guy sending the pictures specifically said they were illegal. Say you're someone who regularly buys stolen goods, and it's obvious that they're stolen. Even then, if someone comes at you with "hey, do you want to illegally buy these stolen goods" you might say that you don't do anything illegal.
It might be a weak attempt at plausible deniability, or just him being uncomfortable with the illegality being brought up explicitly.
Pretty sure that these are seperate incidents, perhaps discovered when they were investigating the other thing.
I guess it's technically possible that the adult they're referring to is the same as the person who was underage at the time, and that this person in addition to sending pictures of himself as underage was sending pictures of tons of other kids, and continued doing so after he reached 18, but that sounds really convoluted. Makes more sense to me that he was paying that kid for pictures of himself, and this other guy for pictures of whoever.
That would make sense, I suppose we will find out soon.
Yeah that's what I'd think. I'd just like to see it reported that way rather than focusing on him saying he didn't want illegal stuff as if he didn't consent.Some were reportedly under 10 - "I didn't realise" surely can't apply.
Ah fair enough. An intrusive thought which enters my mind when they play the holiday adverts and'll have young kids by the pool with their bodies mostly visible is that you'll get pedo's out there watching that. So are you saying that effectively if they were watching something like that alone it would be technically legal but if you then raided his house and he had illegal indecent images too, it would all add up together in the case against him?it seems like it has been a prolonged conversation where he had received IIOC.
I would add the wording in the sky article says “they continued sending legal images,” after the IIOC was shared.
There is a category of images where we grade the indecent images which we would call “6’s or indicative.” That means basically images that are technically legal because they are 1) impossible to determine if they are definitely under 18 despite probably being so or 2) legal because whilst sexually suggestive there is nobody e.g tight swimwear on the child meaning you can’t see the genitals or the outline of them. Still morally awful, and would shock the average person but not technically illegal. So they would be legal but enough to suggest intent.
That’s my educated opinion anyway
In cases where illegal material is accessed/shared it's usually involves a 'porn buddy' like the one Edwards has. As has been mentioned just because he didn't explicitly ask for it and also said not to send it, then it doesn't negate responsibility. If he wanted to access legal porn then he could have gone on the internet and had a million videos at his disposal with a few clicks.In that case why did they report that he asked for "no illegal stuff" after months of already receiving it? Seems strange.
What was his defense? That he didn''t realise they were kids?
Because the guy sending the pictures specifically said they were illegal. Say you're someone who regularly buys stolen goods, and it's obvious that they're stolen. Even then, if someone comes at you with "hey, do you want to illegally buy these stolen goods" you might say that you don't do anything illegal.
It might be a weak attempt at plausible deniability, or just him being uncomfortable with the illegality being brought up explicitly.
This basically.
He was directly confronted with the illegality and tried to move away from it, but given the age of at least one of the children involved, there's absolutely no way he didn't know the images were illegal.
Thanks. All 3 responses make it make more sense to me.In cases where illegal material is accessed/shared it's usually involves a 'porn buddy' like the one Edwards has. As has been mentioned just because he didn't explicitly ask for it and also said not to send it, then it doesn't negate responsibility. If he wanted to access legal porn then he could have gone on the internet and had a million videos at his disposal with a few clicks.
On the news yesterday I'm pretty sure I heard them say it was different and separate case to the one he was arrested for last year.
Tommy Robinson will be along any minute I’m sure
Two seperate cases. This case of ‘making’ underage images ( I.e saving a copy to his own device) is an entirely different set of circumstances to the original case reported when he quit the beeb. The original underage guy isn’t involved with this case as I understand, and they have been investigated as seperate stand alone cases.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?
Yep, it seems so.When someone sends me a pic on whatsapp it's automatically saved on my phone, so if a random sent me a pic of a nude kid and it saved automatically, I would technically be making the pic?
I see the lads protesting grooming gangs are down at the courthouse.Oh look Laurence Fox has popped in
Weren't they getting missiles thrown at their dicks?I see the lads protesting grooming gangs are down at the courthouse.
Busy calendar for themWeren't they getting missiles thrown at their dicks?
I assume no court would actually punish someone for this.Yep, it seems so.
It sounds like you're kind of fecked if you get sent stuff like that. Even going to the police sounds risky, I think you'd need to at least speak to a solicitor first.
It sounds like you're kind of fecked if you get sent stuff like that. Even going to the police sounds risky, I think you'd need to at least speak to a solicitor first.
Understatement of the year from the Daily Mail:
His career looks to be over
The BBC has not responded to a request for comment.
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
This one seems absolutely crazy. Her sister sent her the video because she was outraged by it and wanted the perpetrator found. She didn’t open the video and still got found guilty of possession and placed on the sex offenders register (as it seems did her sister).
Very different to Huw Edwards of course, who I have no sympathy with.
That aged well
Damn sonThat's the dumbest thing I ever heard. I know loads of BBC people and they are no more likely to be nonces than anyone else. You need to stop inhaling twitter threads.
WelpDamn son
