Huw Edwards

Making indecent images with children. Absolutely despicable.


I wonder if the bbc will have to re voice over all their historical coverage of the queens funeral i am sure he was very prominent in it.
 
Glover_elbow said:
Making indecent images with children. Absolutely despicable.


I wonder if the bbc will have to re voice over all their historical coverage of the queens funeral i am sure he was very prominent in it.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is despicable. But I always find the wording of this odd, because technically, the “making” part of this in law often refers to the creation of a digital file rather than the creation of the event depicted in the image, which is defined by law as “production” of indecent images I believe.

For clarity - any child sexual abuse constitutes a despicable act, I just wonder if the language couldn’t be made clearer so the general public can truely appreciate/understand the crime that has been committed
 
Well you need to ask Parliament about making things clearer or look at the case law which involves the courts interpreting what constitutes making.

Often it involves simply looking at images online and that can constitute making.

Getting sent an image on WhatsApp and keeping it even if unsolicited can amount to an offence.

No mention of the category of images alleged either A,B or C. With A being the most serious category.
 
boringblock_21 said:
It absolutely is despicable. But I always find the wording of this odd, because technically, the “making” part of this in law often refers to the creation of a digital file rather than the creation of the event depicted in the image, which is defined by law as “production” of indecent images I believe.

For clarity - any child sexual abuse constitutes a despicable act, I just wonder if the language couldn’t be made clearer so the general public can truely appreciate/understand the crime that has been committed
Click to expand...
I guess that will come out once it goes to court and/or found guilty?
 
Angus said:
Well you need to ask Parliament about making things clearer or look at the case law which involves the courts interpreting what constitutes making.

Often it involves simply looking at images online and that can constitute making.

Getting sent an image on WhatsApp and keeping it even if unsolicited can amount to an offence.

No mention of the category of images alleged either A,B or C. With A being the most serious category.
Click to expand...
On the BBC it says some of each category.
 
Angus said:
No mention of the category of images alleged either A,B or C. With A being the most serious category.
Click to expand...
From the BBC website "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."
 
I’m not a lawyer, or a criminal for what it’s worth 🤣 Just a fan of descriptive, accurate language. And it strikes me that this language is difficult to understand for the average person like me, so why not make it more clear?
 
boringblock_21 said:
I’m not a lawyer, or a criminal for what it’s worth 🤣 Just a fan of descriptive, accurate language. And it strikes me that this language is difficult to understand for the average person like me, so why not make it more clear?
Click to expand...

​

From the CPS website.​

​

Making​

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

  • opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
  • downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
  • storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
  • accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29
  • receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
  • live-streaming images of children
 
m3t4tr0n said:
Is there information to suggest they knew and were covering it up ?
Click to expand...
No but he was arrested I believe in November so I presume they had knowledge of the investigation from then.

He is of course presumed innocent until convicted.
 
Last edited:
Angus said:

​

From the CPS website.​

​

Making​

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

  • opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
  • downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
  • storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
  • accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29
  • receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
  • live-streaming images of children
Click to expand...
Thanks Angus. I think this post makes me feel even stronger about having a more descriptive name because there appears to be such a variety of offences that can be described as “making”.

Anyway enough of my rantings. Terrible thing for him to have done, and for a man held in such high regard it completely blows my mind!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top