According to the article he was sent the images by another man, he repeatedly asked the man not to send underage images, and he didn't keep the images or forward them. He was charged with making indecent images of children and pleaded guilty. Does this mean that anyone who is sent such images can be legally guilty of this, even if they don't request or want the images and delete them right away? Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images? Or are there other considerations that go into making such a charge?
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
31 points (97.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4081 readers
55 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.
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."
I suppose the facts that he a) retained some of the images, b) didn't report having received them and c) continued talking to the man has some bearing on his charges.
Yes, and yes.
It's a very silly aspect of the law, which made sense before digital distribution (e.g making photocopies) but needs amending now.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.
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."
Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images?
Yes, I think so.
Only if they didn't report such a message/activity and fully cooperate.
My understanding is that if you are party to things like this and don't take the required action then you are liable to this wider definition of making.
So you are essentially complicit in the making of them because you didn't try and stop/report it in a timely manner.
Happens with loads of other stuff like murders, terror, theft etc... Basically if you know about serious crimes and don't take any action. Then you can be found guilty of a very similar offence as the people who committed the exact offence.
Has anyone heard what's happened to the guy who sent the images? This presumably is the greater crime but there has been silence in the coverage I've seen
That's nice and all but did he report it to the police? CP is mandatory report by iirc every person in the eu and UK itself.
I know this stuff is bad and he should feel the weight of the law, but I cannot help but feel sorry for the man. It seemed he had some form of mental thing go down in 2020-2021, possibly a porn addiction or some sort. And it's completely screwed over his reputation and career.
He should have definitely reported them, yes. But it possibly could have yielded embarrassment over his thing with gay porn. But he is standing up and pleading guilty to this crime, even though it sounds absolutely abhorrent at first glance
It's very politically difficult to express sympathy in cases like this.
For every person suggesting how the systems could have helped him avoid this situation, or treat the issues, there are 100 facebook groups ready to hang the pediatricians.
Which means that people with similar issues who genuinely could be helped don't step forward, because they know it'll be tar and feathers. So they spiral until they're far far worse, and eventually get caught.
That article is both hilarious and awful at the same time. You are right though, who in their right mind would admit to having an issue. Although I think the difference here is that Huw Edwards never meant to actually view child porn, he even asked the guy not to send him any.
Back to the topic though - is it possible to cure paedophilia? I thought it wasn't yet known how one could change somebody's sexual attraction to things/people
That's where it gets into the super-mega-tricky politics.
You've got to advocate for helping to reform someone doing something harmful (diddling kids).
While also defending not doing a similar thing to other people who are not causing harm (being gay).
While a third group is trying to conflate the two, because they want them both to suffer.
And a fourth group (unrepentant diddlers) try to conflate in the opposite direction to normalise their diddling.
Absolute fucking minefield, so the upshot is people who could be helped, don't get helped.
Exactly what I'm thinking. If you could cure paedophilia (which would be a good thing) then you may be able to cure homosexuality (which could and would be abused quite a bit). Although it is worth mentioning that Huw Edwards wasn't diddling, but I assume you were just talking about in general