Huw! Edwards!

Images shared over WhatsApp, so I’d say there isnt much doubt he did it, but the severity/legality of the images may be questioned. But really, a well known public figure, what on earth was he thinking. Just like those idiot MPs who sent naked pics of themselves. And the BBC reportedly paid him 400k for the time he has had off. I think there’ll be a rather large piece about this in the DM tomorrow.

Whilst those MPs were indeed idiots, I don’t think adults sending naked pics of themselves is as remotely serious as sharing indecent images of children. Wrong? No question, but not the same IMO.

No, but both are career ending, so why even think about sending pics of your bits to anyone, or, pics of others bits. So well off they think they are above the Law? Or life is so good they need to get a bit of an extra buzz?

Agree with that.

Could well explain why he missed out on an honour after the Queen’s funeral!

but the severity/legality of the images may be questioned.

Severity isn’t something easy to argue about, the classification of images is fairly well defined,  (Cat A,B or C – you can look the definitions up but i wouldn’t recommend it). If needs be the bench / judge can look at the images.

I’m not sure what you mean by legality. There’s various defences available but arguing about the age of the child isn’t one of them.

“I’m not sure what you mean by legality. There’s various defences available but arguing about the age of the child isn’t one of them.”

I’d guess that if the Prosecution says the images were of a 15yo, the Defence could argue it was a 16yo (or is it 18 now?), or that the images were of an 18+yo, but made to look like an under 16(18?).
If they were clearly young children, then there’s pretty much no defence, but, it has taken 6+ months to bring the charges, so I’d guess it isnt in that class of offence (presumably the younger the person in the images, the more severe the offence?), as surely the charges would have been brought a lot sooner for the most serious of offences.

, as surely the charges would have been brought a lot sooner for the most serious of offences.

The delay in this sort of matter is almost always down to slow progress in getting the devices seized downloaded; getting all the data and images off the device and into a viewable format. There are hundreds / thousands of these jobs a year and only a finite number of forensic IT staff.

Classification of indecent imagery takes a special type of person imv. There was a 24 hours in police custody episode where a bunch of plod were grading a whole hard drives of images from various bits of it kit. Days of work.

Classification of indecent imagery takes a special type of person imv.

Isn’t there a limited amount of time that they are allowed to work dealing with those sorts of crimes?

Wonder what he’ll be spending the extra £40k pay rise he got w for being off for  9 months.

I’ll be suggesting it to my MD tomorrow that as I’ve not had 9 months off, I should get a £160k rise.

So he’s pled guilty.

This is unrelated to the original case though, right? So is this a case of being investigated for one thing, having all your digital equipment seized and then charged/convicted of something else once the police have examined it all?

I feel like I no longer trust anyone in the media to be who they appear to be

Yeh I think this is from what they found on his devices when investigating the original case. Not sure if the original case is actually going ahead??

What I found interesting is that the charges are a bit misleading. When I read ‘making Indecent pics of children’ I’m thinking he’s been personally taking the images

Whereas apparently just opening them after being sent them in wattsapp falls under this law. Not sure why he’s opening 40 pics of kids however, so still very much a nonce in my eyes.

 There was a 24 hours in police custody episode where a bunch of plod were grading a whole hard drives of images from various bits of it kit.

Yes, I’m always mindful of that whenever I think that I’m having a shit day at work. It could be much much worse.

“What I found interesting is that the charges are a bit misleading. When I read ‘making Indecent pics of children’ I’m thinking he’s been personally taking the images

Whereas apparently just opening them after being sent them in wattsapp falls under this law. Not sure why he’s opening 40 pics of kids however, so still very much a nonce in my eyes.”

I think any reasonable person, open opening something like by accident would simply go straight to the police station to report it.

To do anything but that implies intent to receive them, to me.

I haven’t read much into this – but I am presuming that if one was sent said illegal images on Whatsapp completely unannounced, and therefore saw them on one’s phone, but immediately deleted and reported to the police then this wouldn’t be classed as ‘making images’?
I would imagine that if there is an intent to receive and/or look at said images then this would quite rightly be an offence, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

I feel like I no longer trust anyone in the media to be who they appear to be

Why is the Huw Edwards case in the news – because lot of us know him. But if you counted up all the people ‘in the media’ that you know – and by that I mean actors, musicians, politicians, sports people…the list goes on – it’ll run into the thousands. And among them will be bad apples – just like there are in the rest of society where it’s not ‘in the public interest’ to widely publicise this stuff. Edwards did not get hold of these images using his influence and power – he was just a sad grubby man exchanging images online. The depressing thing is not that ‘I no longer trust anyone in the media’ but the fact it’s all around us – statistically there will be one member (or more) here who is into this shit. Statistically there will be someone (or more) in your family or your friendship group or who you work with who is too.

Creepily, I think there will be a number of thousands of (mostly) men this evening having a bit of a think after hearing about Edwards’ crime having a bit of a wake up call and wondering if what they get up to in the privacy of their computer screens might count as ‘making indecent images’  too and having a bit of a delete session.

I haven’t read much into this – but I am presuming that if one was sent said illegal images on Whatsapp completely unannounced, and therefore saw them on one’s phone, but immediately deleted and reported to the police then this wouldn’t be classed as ‘making images’?
I would imagine that if there is an intent to receive and/or look at said images then this would quite rightly be an offence, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Its worth having a look of the fate of Police Superintendent Novlett Robyn Williams to see where the line might be.

Making covers the creation of an image on a device, effectively by downloading it to your device you’re making that particular image.

The image in the charge is that particular version of a photo or video rather than the original, first generation, image. So Huw downloads an image to his phone, he has not have made the original but he has in effect made the image on his phone.

Re unsolicited images, there is a defence available

This defence that the photographs were unsolicited (s. 160(2)(c) CJA 1988) applies to s160(1) CJA 1988 only. The defendant has a legal defence if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9). The issue of reasonableness is a matter for the jury to decide on the facts of any particular case.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

Yes, I’m always mindful of that whenever I think that I’m having a shit day at work. It could be much much worse.

I did it for a few years, some of the most significant / rewarding bits of work i’ve done; including getting physical hold of two kids who were going to be raped at some stage. PTSD from repeated exposure to indirect trauma being the downside.

“I think any reasonable person, open opening something like by accident would simply go straight to the police station to report it.”

LOL. I would destroy the phone and never breathe a word of it to anyone. If you think that going to the police with illegal images on your phone will end up anywhere other than in court on a slam-dunk charge of “making illegal images” then I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in. The article I read said he’d several times insisted that he didn’t want to be sent anything illegal or underage. Nevertheless, he received the images, and is therefore guilty.

The image in the charge is that particular version of a photo or video rather than the original, first generation, image. So Huw downloads an image to his phone, he has not have made the original but he has in effect made the image on his phone.

I think from something I was involved in at work this year (child on child) this has got a little more complicated recently. Whatsapp by default stores the images you receive. And ‘opening’ has become more vague as it’s not like an email with an attachment to click on and open.  You might not need to consciously save the image or ‘open’ the image in the traditional email sense for it to count.

Seems this case was  seperate from the 17 year old he was communicating with asking for pics.

“Police said an investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized by officers as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster’s participation in a WhatsApp conversation.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/huw-edwards-live-updates-former-29647361

His poor wife and family.

Still think it’s funny that it was alluded to in The Thick of It…..

Makes you think.

Where’s jonnyhive these days?

According to that WalesOnline article it wasn’t Huw’s devices that were seized and found to contain the images but the devices of the person who sent them to him. In fact it would appear that Huw specifically asked the person not to send him anything illegal and when his own devices were searched no such images were found. But the evidence from the device of the person who sent the images was enough to charge Huw.

The article also says that the person who sent the images (and who possessed many others) received a suspended sentence, so it seems unlikely that Huw would go to jail.

I read something a while back that gave some shocking statistics for the number of such images apparently available online (darkweb?) and the number of times they are apparently viewed in the UK. The implication was that the police had almost given up trying to catch people viewing this stuff and most arrests were either the result of searching devices seized for other purposes or foreign (usually USA) agencies passing on information obtained from taking down sites. Even then there was a quote from a policeman to the effect that they couldn’t even pursue all of those cases and had to prioritise ones where they thought there was a direct threat to children. Pretty sobering stuff.

LOL. I would destroy the phone and never breathe a word of it to anyone.

Given whatsapps tendency to “backup” messages and a now “missing” phone that might actually prove fruitless and look suspicious!

If you think that going to the police with illegal images on your phone will end up anywhere other than in court on a slam-dunk charge of “making illegal images” then I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.

Well there is a defence “that he had not himself seen the photographs and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, them to be indecent.”  I think if you get unsolicited images from a normally trustworthy source you’ll be far from a slam-dunk charge.

The article I read said he’d several times insisted that he didn’t want to be sent anything illegal or underage. Nevertheless, he received the images, and is therefore guilty.

You can assume he’s had access to some very experienced lawyers who have seen the messages, seen the context and discussed it with him and he pled guilty – had it been a one off he might have got away with it.  Had he deleted the (worst) images he might have got away with it.  its difficult to believe that anyone gets cat A images and thinks that its legit.  Whatsapp makes it very easy to block a number you don’t want so the “I asked them not to send them” excuse only really works once.

“You can assume he’s had access to some very experienced lawyers who have seen the messages, seen the context and discussed it with him and he pled guilty”

Definitely

“had it been a one off he might have got away with it.”

Is this based on an expert understanding of the law and its application, or something you just made up because it was convenient for you?

I suspect that even if the lawyers said he did have some chance of getting away with it, they would also advise that a trial would be lengthy, embarrassing, all sorts of mud would get thrown, and if convicted he’d get a rather worse punishment than the alternative of a quick guilty plea with probable suspended sentence. But as I understand it (based on what I’ve read) there is really very little defence and “making” doesn’t mean anything like its common english usage. Specifically there has been no suggestion that he did anything other than receive illegal pictures that he had repeatedly asked not to be sent.

You may also recall children getting caught up on kiddie porn charges on the basis of taking pictures of themselves and sending them to peers.

Child sexual exploitation is disgusting and offensive but all sorts of bystanders are caught on the pitchforks of the incompetently written laws.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-who-sent-indecent-images-29652680

the wales online article reporting the court hearing.

The court heard that Edwards had engaged in online chat involving illegal photographs with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021. The man, Williams, sent him 377 sexual images of which 41 were indecent images of children. The bulk of these, 36, were sent during a two-month period. On February 2, 2021, the male asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard

Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard

After which point it would appear that he carried on receiving further obviously underage pictures and took no action to remove himself from the chat, report the images to the police and/or block the sender.

Sentenced today. 6 months suspended.

Given the nature of the crime, I’m disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn’t apply in crimes like this in my opinion

Got away with that then. Disgraceful.

This country ffs

Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.

Nasty words on Facebook – off to prison you go

Given the nature of the crime, I’m disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn’t apply in crimes like this in my opinion

I’m also disappointed that it was suspended, but the rules around sentencing and early pleas seem to apply to all crimes and I’m not sure our opinion would make changing it for certain types of crime any better. Certainly seems a consistent sentence with a similar recent case local to me.

Media kerfuffle aside he was never going to get a custodial on the charges he faced and in the grand scheme of things he had very few Cat A images (seven as opposed to the fairly routine hundreds if not thousands nonces have in these sort of cases).

Seemed to lean quite heavily on his “mental health”. Great, worsen the stigma for the millions who already struggle with their mental health yet manage to avoid drowning out their problems with deviant behaviour :-/

Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.

Nasty words  using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending thereby to stir up racial hatred, or where having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up, on Facebook – off to prison you go

ftfy

Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.

Nasty words  using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending thereby to stir up racial hatred, or where having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up, on Facebook – off to prison you go

ftfy

Call me old fashioned, I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?

That doesn’t mean the second is acceptable before you start

in the grand scheme of things he had very few Cat A images

Maybe it’s just me, but having Cat A > 0, is as wrong as it gets. There’s no sliding scale here