Obviously, creating kiddie porn is worse than looking at it. Creating is the direct abuse of a kids to make the porn, right?
The man who shared indecent images of children with Huw Edwards, the former BBC presenter, received a suspended prison sentence in March this year after pleading guilty to seven offences, police have confirmed.
Alex Williams, 25, from Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales, shared the images with Edwards via WhatsApp.
Scotland Yard arrested Edwards in November last year after receiving information from colleagues in South Wales Police.
An examination of a phone seized by officers revealed Edwards’ participation in a WhatsApp conversation.
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.
Eh? He received images – bad, criminal etc – but was charged with creating?
Ah, but you see……the image exists, but loading it into a browser – no really – means there are now two copies, server and browser. So that’s porn creation, see?
#At which point we can think one of two things. Either those who created the legislation didn;t understand how the common law interprets “creation” or they did and decided not to care. Which is worse is up to you.
Almost certainly done deliberately to create a more serious offence. See also prosecutions for copyright infringement.
I cannot remember the precise context but it was a silly (IMNSHO) E&W appeal court decision a long time ago which conflated the greater charge of “making”, as opposed to possessing kiddie porn in the computer context.
As a custodial sentence is unlikely in view of the precedent set by failing to lock up the other nonce who was sending him the photos one would hope that the mother of all fines, say equivalent to twenty times his annual bbc salary.
The usual cards have been played “previously of good character” A.K.A. never been caught and mental health issues which never manifested until once again he was caught.
Public disgrace yes, sex offenders register obviously but that’s a bit of a “so what?” at this stage, suspended sentence (see above) and the usual bbc platitudes about lessons being learned. Incidentally that nauseating organisation has contacted its staff as follows:-
The note ended by saying that if staff had “been affected in any way by today’s news, please do make full use of our well-being resources”, which include the “free, confidential employee assistance programme and the BBC’s peer support network”.
What worries me is how blatant the fraudsters (politicians, knights of the realm, the BBC) are becoming in their demonstrating they believe we’re all stupid and easily manipulated.
“Huw Edwards paid X £32,000 for pictures of X’s bum”. Not illegal! Nothing to see here! Shut up you bastards! He’s not well!”
Well, Mr Sopel, Mr Jones are you in the WhatsApp group as well?
I’ve been trying to persuade Mrs Grist to stop paying the “licence fee” for years and hopefully this, combined with the Strictly stuff will convince her. If Strictly follows the same MO as the Edwards cover up, then I think I’m on a winner…
What Tractor Gent said.
@John:’As a custodial sentence is unlikely in view of the precedent set by failing to lock up the other nonce who was sending him the photos…’
Wouldn’t be too sure, never underestimate a judge’s desire to get his name in the papers by ‘being tough on crime’ and ‘sending a message’…
There is a precedent from the 2000s that stated having thumbnail pictures in cache was not sufficient grounds as they could have been downloaded by the browser without the user’s interaction.
I was under the impression that the definition of ‘creation’ is deliberately vague so that it doesn’t just cover the person doing the act – to avoid the “I was just in the room, minding my own business” defence. Isn’t it meant to cover people getting together online to plan or request that certain acts are captured?
It’s all a bit grim really, and no doubt will get grimmer as the court case digs through the history. Lots of people very happy to pile in and score political points off it though – both defending and accusing Edwards.
This isn’t hard to find out. The law itself – Protection of Children Act 1978 – recognises three separate crimes: possession, distribution, and production (to make).
Here’s what the CPS says:
– https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
Prima facie that doesn’t sound right – the lay person would call those “possession”, not “making”. But what the CPS giveth, the Sentencing Council taketh away:
– https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child/
So there you have it. Alex would have been sentenced for both possession and distribution; while Huw himself should only be sentenced for possession. Therefore he should get a lighter sentence.
Is being a child molester mandatory at the BBC?
“I’ve been trying to persuade Mrs Grist to stop paying the “licence fee” for years ”
I’ve not paid a licence fee for nearly 15 years now (saving me over 2k) and have never missed a single TV program I wanted to watch, they all turn up on streaming sites almost immediately after they’ve been broadcast, including all the BBC shows, Strictly included. And you get US shows quicker because they show up on the streaming sites as soon as they’re broadcast in the US, when they may not be broadcast in the UK til much later. TV licencing have even stopped sending me threatening letters, they appear to have given up.
Nonces attract nonces, Steve.
Joe – is that how come there was a media blackout on Huw Edwards for over a year?
Omerta, wasn’t it?
I’m not surprised the BBC has a perv support network.
oh. peer.
Jim – we don’t have a TV licence either (haven’t watched broadcast telly or the Beeb since David Cameron was PM).
I cancelled it and got an email back from Capita acknowledging that I don’t need to pay for a telly licence.
Then the inspectors turned up.
I told them I had cancelled the licence because we don’t do any of the things that require a TV licence.
“Oh yes, we know all about that” (lie)
“We just need to come inside your house and then you won’t be visited for another 2 years” (lie)
I hate liars, so I politely invited them to leave my property immediately and never return. These guys are failed double glazing salesmen pretending to be some kind of authority figure.
Anyway, I think we’re on to the fifth or tenth “investigation” according to the junk mail they send me. It’s actually a little bit scary to think of how many NHS psychiatric outpatients get doorstepped by strangers. I could be an axe murderer for all they know. I’m not planning on doing any axe murdering, just saying.
The issue that I have with a lot of the law ( both case and legislation ) is that it is strict liability.
So the prosecution does not have to prove intent.
Opening an innocent looking attachment that says kittens.jpg that in fact contains young pussies is enough to bring about a prosecution.
There’s no point in trying to find the reasoning behind sentencing by judges who, after all, are individuals who have their own opinions on how the guidelines should be applied. I can imagine that Edwards will probably receive a tougher sentence than the sender of the images simply because he is a public figure.
@Steve… The standards of probity of Capita and its goons certainly could do with some scrutiny. A chap for whom I have PoA moved into sheltered accommodation and almost immediately started receiving threatening letters about his lack of TV licence – despite the fact that the place was registered under a group “scheme” with TVLA. I didn’t find this out until after I’d taken out a licence for him – their system was quite happy to issue a licence and take his money despite all the flats in the scheme having the same address and postcode! It took a few sharp letters and phonecalls to get his money back.
Useless, grasping bastards!
BJ – preying on the vulnerable is also what double glazing salesmen do.
I’m glad your friend has a friend like you.
Generally I hold no ill will towards people for doing a crappy job, I don’t even hate parking wardens or Jehovah’s Witnesses. But turning up on a chap’s doorstep and deliberately lying to his face in that glib, shifty way these guys do is not on, is it?
I’ve had no tv licence for years now. All of my tv is served up on a self-hosted media platform, with shows downloaded as they become available – I just tell it what to watch out for. For anyone interested in this sort of setup, look into Sonarr and Plex – it’s great, and runs nicely on a Raspberry pi.
On the topic at hand, what would happen if someone were to set up one of those anonymous email addresses and email some illegal images to the judge and/or prosecutor- would they have to turn themselves in? Just receiving the images is enough for an offense to have occurred, from what I can see…
Depends on the weather. If it’s sunny out, I’ll politely tell them I’m busy and close the door. If it’s chucking it down, I’ll let them decide when to leave – they can stand on my doorstep (no porch!) while I politely answer “I don’t need a telly licence. No you may not come in to check” for every question.
I’ve not had a visit in years, for some reason. Even the pointless letters telling me the detector vans are in town have mostly stopped arriving.
You’d have to be damn sure of the anonymity. Even plod might think of phoning up Google and asking who registered [email protected].
I’m fairly sure that I suggested this when the law first came into being…..
I had one visit early on. I wasn’t home, but my wife was and let them in. There was no kit capable of receiving live tv signals (you don’t need the license for stuff like Netflix) so they buggered off and haven’t bothered us since. It may be worth letting them in once to get some peace and quiet.
Beat you hands down Jim. Despite leaving home at 16 & running a household ever since, I’ve never had a TV license in my entire life. Wouldn’t even know how to go about getting one. But then I’ve never had much interest in watching TV. I’m not a passive sort of person. The odd occasion the TV licensing guy has knocked on the door, since there was no sign of one in operation I just told him. “Sorry. Not interested today” Couple of times they demanded to come in & look for one. “Fuck off & come back with a copper & a warrant or just fuck off. Your choice”
The ex liked & watched TV. But she was French. I can’t imagine anyone being brave enough to want to get on the wrong side of her. Better to creep away into the night & survive to see another day.
The note ended by saying that if staff had “been affected in any way by today’s news, please do make full use of our well-being resources”, which include the “free, confidential employee assistance programme and the BBC’s peer support network. The help kiosk is situated near the main entrance under the statue of a naked child sculpted by a pedophile.”
An examination of a phone seized by officers revealed Edwards’ participation in a WhatsApp conversation.
That exposes the nonsense of WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption. On the devices at either end all messages are en clair.
PJF – that hit the target harder than Grapple Y, bravo.
I think child abuse, bullying, and murder are evil.
The BBC needs to sort out the child abuse issue. It happens too often.
Donald Trump was accused of bad behaviour at a beauty pageant and was photoed with Epstein.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-miss-usa-dressing-room-2001-rehearsal
Now the Democrats are accusing JD Vance of odd acts. But they have no evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jul/29/john-oliver-jd-vance
I am left wing and think child abuse is evil
It seems most politicians seem to have strange pecadiloes.
Why – seeing the Regime Media kick into overdrive to pretend there’s any public enthusiasm for Cackling Kamala is something else.
John Oliver on JD Vance: ‘Great Lakes Ron DeSantis’
DeSantis is a successful governor who got it right on Covid, so this isn’t the sick burn poor, genetically-challenged John Oliver thinks it is. I don’t think people in the US generally give a toss about the VP candidate tho. It’s a job so redundant, it’s currently occupied by Kamala Harris.
PS – Yanks, you bought John Oliver, no refunds.
The Democrats accusing JD Vance of “weirdness” seems likely to backfire:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/politics-cartoons-slideshow#53472c9d-4c0c-52c8-bb1a-6974e7591ac0
Whether it should actually happen or not is one question, but that John Oliver deserves a proper kicking cannot be denied.
Comments are closed.