Luckily one of our national pastimes here in the UK is "guess the nonce".
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
When the Sun first published, the met have confirmed no one had approached them so naming wouldn't be an issue as there was no investigation, no charges etc. Now they re investigating it changes things.
I assume it is because the accuser is a crack head who wouldnt be believed in court and they don't think they have a public interest defence for breaching privacy. Which suggests they don't think the under 18 thing stacks up.
You can't just get anyone's nudes for free though.
You seem think just because the person hasn't been named, that there is little to the story, which isn't actually very logical.
I think we're fine to be a little cautious when talking about the story, which is why it's good that people aren't allowed to just throw names out.
Your reactions in this thread are very dismissive though, considering you have the same information as everyone else here.
maybe not but there might be an argument, whether legally or morally (I know it’s the Sun so don’t laugh), that the protection of any potential victim still stands.
Like I said, I’m not even sure that it would count for this kind of ‘offence’ but it might be part of the thought process
And you’d do well to remember that
Dont know the facts yet is constantly downplaying the story and throwing up baseless theories as to why is isn’t that bad?
Why pretend to have a neutral stance then come down so heavily on one side?
I can't say who it is but the people who the know the identity know who it is and that person is somebody
there is a photo of a huge butt going round.
He doesn't know the facts and gets annoyed at anyone slightly bashing the BBC because they also don't know the facts, but has no issue saying it's a crackhead on onlyfans
This is very distasteful.
You don't know the facts to know if it's distasteful or not
It is, however, true if you believe The Sun.
That's true, I'll need to wait for his hunch to be confirmed
Jeez, just seen it, his back to the camera, pants down. Thankfully someone has covered his arse with a photo of Jimmy Savile’s face.
Never did I ever imagine I would be glad to see a photo of Jimmy Savile.
Horrendous word peddled by click hungry media. Call it by it’s true name, CSAM, Child Sexual Abuse Material.
I dont think anyone is getting off lightly by calling it Child Pornography....
I was going to say similar - in the CJS we call it indecent images of children.
I dont think anyone is getting off lightly by calling it Child Pornography....
No but for some reason pornography is an industry where consent is supposed/implied and has become normalised in society, so calling it 'child pornography' adds an element of legitimacy to the phrase.
I think there is a subtle implication with the word pornography that the subject was in some way complicit whereas CSAM makes it clear the subject is always a victim.I dont think anyone is getting off lightly by calling it Child Pornography....
Who in the year 2023 is paying £35k for nuddy pictures?
Just use the internet like normal people.
Just use the internet like normal people.
This is in a strange grey zone, where the accused could legally have had sex with the individual in the photos. So I’m not sure referencing sexual abuse of children is any more accurate.
It's not a grey zone, the law is pretty clear.
What makes you think the alleged victim would have had sex with the perpetrator without being paid? And then to extrapolate further, is there really consent being given if the purpose of the transaction for the alleged victim is to attain money to purchase illicit substances to feed their addiction?
They didn’t have sex, so consent is a moot point. They could have though. In theory. Perfectly legally. And I say this as someone who thinks any fully grown adult having sex with a 16 year old is dodgy as feck.
So the law is pretty clear: images of people under the age of 18 are considered indecent images of children. There's no grey area, any grey area exists only in your mind.
Seems a bit dismissive. What is grey about it, then? He hasn't been accused of having sex with someone under the age of consent so it's irrelevant; he's received indecent images of someone considered a child under the law. It seems pretty black and white to me?
Whether the law should only be applicable to people under the age of consent is another conversation.
Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is a crime to take, make, share or possess indecent images of people under 18. A person under the age of 18 also cannot give their consent to the images being taken.
I don’t know enough about the law to get into an argument about it. I just think there are all sorts of moral grey areas here, which make some of the opinions/terminology used in this thread seem a bit extreme. The most obvious one is the idea that a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old is somehow equivalent to a 50 year old doing the same. Similarly, the idea that an 18 year old with an indecent photo of their 17 year old boy/girlfriend on their phone is in possession of “images of child sexual abuse” (or whatever the term was that was used above)
Is the pic / vid of him naked in the bar crowd surfing related to this case/incident though? Or has it just gone viral
This is not the photo I seen.
It's cause when you read about IIOC or CSAM or whatever you want to call them, your mind immediately assumes pre-teens or young teens, I'd say I probably do the same. I guess the law raises it to 18 because some adolescents are still immature prior to (and after) 18 and it is seeking to protect them as well. I've probably been a bit harsh, I do get where you are coming from but I think the law is pretty clear about the issue.
I'd like to go into the examples regarding consensual sex you've provided but to be honest it's an absolute minefield. You'd assume a relationship between a 17 year old and an 18 year old wouldn't involve any element of grooming, but then we all know know young 18 year old boys can put pressure on their girlfriends to do things they aren't comfortable with. I guess what matters is what they do with the photographs in those instaces.
We don't know what happened in this individual case or who "he" is. We will know if "he" has broken the law only when a jury says so and that seems a million miles from a Sun article that doesn't even have enough legal juice behind it to name "him". Of course if the law has been broken the person should be punished.
I’m sure we’ve all heard the rumours of who it actually is now. Not going to post here for obvious reasons
The government have until 16:00 today to hand over everything of Johnson's diaries, notes, e-mails and messages regarding the COVID inquiry.
*Checks news*
Ahhh of course.
*Checks news*
Ahhh of course.
There’s also some news around in the rumor mill about a certain ex chancellor
Looks like we will soon know