[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

The law is against the "making" of illegal images.

However, while not defending Mr Edwards, the law seems a little alarming in some cases.



Most of those make sense (not sure how you would prove Live Streaming) - its the last two seem a bit alarming.

Someone could randomly send you/group an image, without warning, and you're classed as "making" it ?
The same with an email, how could you possible know what was in an attached image, until you opened it ?

In fact, the previous one about an automatic 'pop-up' seems a bit concerning as well, the point of an "automatic pop-up" is you had no control.
Accessing a pornographic website itself is not normally illegal - of course you could just run any half decent pop-up blocker to prevent that happening.

Also, how do you even report it ?
If you keep the image in any form as evidence, or forward it on to police, you're breaking the law yourself ?
I suppose the relevant word is "can", so isnt always interpreted that way, depending on context, events etc.

In the case of Huw, what he should have done is as noted above "delete the content, leave the group, block the sender".

So the thing that (for me) points towards his guilt is that he didnt do the last two of those things.
Why you would be in a private group unless you were looking for dodgy images, its not as if legal porn is hard to find, just google it.

The Met advise people not to delete such images as they say that this will help to trace the offender.

The Online Safety Act amended the 1978 legislation to grant Ofcom the right to be granted immunity from the various charges of viewing, creating etc of illegal material because of their duty of online safety.