BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[nffc]

Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.


After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.


Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.


If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.


The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by nffc

Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.

After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.

Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.

If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.

The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.

And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link

After the hearing, police said officers started investigating Edwards after seizing a phone as part of an unrelated probe, which revealed his participation in a WhatsApp conversation.
The Metropolitan Police said a 25-year-old paedophile called Alex Williams, who was sentenced to a suspended 12-month jail sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in Wales on 15 March, had shared indecent images of children with Edwards.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Making being that he was sent images on Whatsapp.


After he was sent images of a child he asked for adults only.


Strictly illegal, but just putting it into context.


If he wasn't asking someone to send him kids then that's not 100% his fault, though he is guilty and is presumably rightly being punished for this.


The headlines don't reveal what actually happened, though the BBC have done this.

Nor do they present that a man on the coin of the state to the extent of four hundred and forty thousand pounds a year committed a crime.

Originally Posted by nomadking

And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct

Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort."

He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else".

Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct



Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.

Link

Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images,the most serious classification of indecent images, on a phone. He is also accused of having 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs.

He still set out to join that WhatsApp group and remained there.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And kept them on his phone.

Yet he still remained a member of that group.

He was only caught out because of an investigation into somebody else. Just shows that there was no original investigations into his activities.
Unfortunately he may dodge a prison sentence as the sender wasn't jailed.
Link

Yes, there's absolutely no fair way that HE can go down for this when the sender wasn't jailed.


But he was still being sent images of children in August 2021 after requesting adults only in February 2021.


There isn't a lot which can defend this behaviour, because you can simply either report it, delete the content from your phone (even though technically that doesn't stop the fact you were making CP by being sent a copy), leave the group, block the sender, etc. Indeed getting this content presumably doesn't happen randomly anyway


He didn't and it's the scale of the stuff he was sent along with the nature and the repeated occurrence over time which is the key thing here.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o

That statement may not be factually correct



Which may be the reason the police did not find any on his phone when they investigated him initially…

fyi, this is not a defence of Edwards - his behaviour was abhorrent, but factual accuracy is important.

Totally agree with bib


There's a lot wrong here. But there's also a lot of sensationalism which means people will be misled by headlines, from what actually did happen.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by nffc

Yes, there's absolutely no fair way that HE can go down for this when the sender wasn't jailed.


But he was still being sent images of children in August 2021 after requesting adults only in February 2021.


There isn't a lot which can defend this behaviour, because you can simply either report it, delete the content from your phone (even though technically that doesn't stop the fact you were making CP by being sent a copy), leave the group, block the sender, etc. Indeed getting this content presumably doesn't happen randomly anyway


He didn't and it's the scale of the stuff he was sent along with the nature and the repeated occurrence over time which is the key thing here.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------


Totally agree with bib


There's a lot wrong here. But there's also a lot of sensationalism which means people will be misled by headlines, from what actually did happen.

See my post where I quote the source of they were on his phone.

Originally Posted by nomadking

See my post where I quote the source of they were on his phone.

There seems to be contradictory statements…

From the Telegraph report today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...guilty-latest/

Speaking in Edwards’ defence, his barrister Philip Evans KC said: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.

“It is important also to remember for context that devices, Mr Edwards’ devices, have been seized, have been searched, and there’s nothing in those devices.

“It is only the images that are the subject of the charges that came via a WhatsApp chat.

“Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”

[nomadking]

Link

Huw Edwards, once the BBC's most senior news presenter, has pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.
He admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by another man on WhatsApp, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.
They included seven category A images, the most serious classification - two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.

Maybe "having" was meant to be "was sent" or "received"?

Whatever way you look at things, he was looking for "barely legal" content and carried on communicating with somebody who had under-age content.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link
Maybe "having" was meant to be "was sent" or "received"?

Whatever way you look at things, he was looking for "barely legal" content and carried on communicating with somebody who had under-age content.

Yup - abhorrent behaviour, and he has, quite rightly, been found guilty.

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

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

To 'make' has been widely interpreted by the courts, and can include the following:

* live-streaming images of children
* storing an image in a directory on a computer
* downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen
* accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism
* opening an attachment to an email containing an image
* receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group

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.

[spiderplant]

I assume the principle of mens rea applies, so you would only be guilty if you could reasonably foresee that it could contain illegal content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I assume the principle of mens rea applies, so you would only be guilty if you could reasonably foresee that it could contain illegal content

What I came across in a later report suggests he could not use "mens rea" as a defence.

Edwards admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by a convicted paedophile, Alex Williams, on WhatsApp.

While its not mentioned in that report, I saw in another report that these were over a period of time, not all at once.
You could only get that many, over time, if you stuck around waiting for them. He was guilty, and had little choice but to plead as such.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Paul

What I came across in a later report suggests he could not use "mens rea" as a defence.

While its not mentioned in that report, I saw in another report that these were over a period of time, not all at once.
You could only get that many, over time, if you stuck around waiting for them. He was guilty, and had little choice but to plead as such.

Absolutely. I was addressing these points:

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 ?

[Russ]

I’m no expert on these kinds of things but from what I’ve been told anecdotally by police from the hunting stuff if someone sends you an illegal image, whether you requested it or not, whether you kept it or not, if you view the image you’ve committed an offence. Sounds harsh but given the serious nature of this I get that it needs to be. However whereas the police may arrest you for it, a very in-depth investigation will likely show whether you intended to receive it or have gone looking for it in the past. These sorts of details will only come out in court. The best you can hope for (assuming someone genuinely did not request the stuff and isn’t legitimately interested) is a no further action from the CPS but that’s unlikely.

This kind of reason is why WhatsApp shows you a preview of what someone is trying to send you - you don’t have to download it.

It’s a legal minefield with no obvious way to answer.

I get the impression Edwards isn’t interested in underage material but used very poor judgement in his actions and who he keeps in contact with.

I’m happy to be proven wrong though - if it turns out he knew what he was doing then he deserves to be put away for a very long time.