BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

[polly]

It’s not a claim, it’s a fact. He’s been charged with possession of category A images. That’s what Cat A images are. Oh okay they could be images of children being tortured instead?

It's worse - he's been charged with making them.

(A worse charge for him obvs, just as bad for the victims)

 

[Silas Loom]

It's worse - he's been charged with making them.

“Making” can mean saving files in this context. He’d be charged with other sexual offences if he was actively involved in creating CSA content.

Possession is actually worse than making - it’s the preferred charge if the image is still accessible to the offender.

 

[polly]

“Making” can mean saving files in this context.

Ah ok, fair enough. I wondered but didn't really want to look into it tbh.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It’s not a claim, it’s a fact. He’s been charged with possession of category A images. That’s what Cat A images are. Oh okay they could be images of children being tortured instead?

Which part of the editor's warning are you not understanding?

Unless you can support this claim with credibly-sourced links with references to actual successful prosecutions

 

[Indeliblelink]

If these images were on WhatsApp then presumably he either sent or received them from another person so I'd expect at least one other arrest? Or could it be sharing pics with the victim?

 

[trashpony]

Which part of the editor's warning are you not understanding?

Wow. I didn’t know you’d been made a mod. Congrats!

 

[Ax^]

hmm these kid parents must be pretty hooked up socially for this case to be still being pushed


might be wrong but was it not like a suger daddy set up where hue was paying the one subject for years but it was rightfully objected to by the parents who went to the police

 

[Spymaster]

hmm these kid parents must be pretty hooked up socially for this case to be still being pushed

Eh?

He's been charged with having extremely seriously indecent pictures of kids on his phone.

What does the parents social status have to do with anything?

 

[Wilf]

hmm these kid parents must be pretty hooked up socially for this case to be still being pushed


might be wrong but was it not like a suger daddy set up where hue was paying the one subject for years but it was rightfully objected to by the parents who went to the police

The case is being 'pushed' by the parents? Really?

 

[Silas Loom]

Ax^ is jumping to the conclusion that the seventeen year old groomed by Edwards is the subject of the category A images. Which is possible but unlikely.

 

[Elpenor]

Ax^ is jumping to the conclusion that the seventeen year old groomed by Edwards is the subject of the category A images. Which is possible but unlikely.

Yes potentially these were found on devices seized when he was first arrested

 

[Wilf]

Ax^ is jumping to the conclusion that the seventeen year old groomed by Edwards is the subject of the category A images. Which is possible but unlikely.

But even if that was the case, the attitude of 'pushy' parents wouldn't be central.

 

[trashpony]

Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children. He is accused of having six category A images, the most serious classification of indecent images, on a phone plus 12 cat B and 29 cat C.

As those are words used on the BBC, urban isn’t going to get prosecuted. This is not speculation, it’s factual.

I would caution against speculating about the 17 year old however.

 

[TopCat]

Ax^ is jumping to the conclusion that the seventeen year old groomed by Edwards is the subject of the category A images. Which is possible but unlikely.

No fucking chance this is over a 17 year old

 

[Silas Loom]

No fucking chance this is over a 17 year old

That was my instinct, also that a Cat A image would be of penetration and so would presumably involve more than one person, but as Elpenor says it’s perfectly possible. We don’t know all the details and why on earth should we?

Just be thankful that there are people out there who are prepared to investigate this stuff and spend their days categorising or isolating absolutely soul destroying images.

 

[Petcha]

I think they should really change the wording on the law about 'making' child porn. It does imply the perp was setting up photo shoots with kids when in actual fact it means they were downloading pics someone else actually made. Which is obvs still fucking horrendous but on a scale, not quite the same thing.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

gtfo.

 

[Mumbles274]

It's not porn. Stop using that word. Porn is not something children can consent to, it's rape and sexual abuse

 

[Spymaster]

I think they should really change the wording on the law about 'making' child porn. It does imply the perp was setting up photo shoots with kids when in actual fact it means they were downloading pics someone else actually made. Which is obvs still fucking horrendous but on a scale, not quite the same thing.

Yeah, it's misleading. The obvious inference is as you say but the reality is quite different.

 

[brogdale]

Yeah, it's misleading. The obvious inference is as you say but the reality is quite different.

Are you suggesting that it needs to be described as something like digitally reproducing/storing CSA images made by a third party? Isn't it easier to just say 'making'?

 

[Spymaster]

Are you suggesting that it needs to be described as something like digitally reproducing/storing CSA images made by a third party? Isn't it easier to just say 'making'?

"Downloading" or "storing".

That's what it is.

"Making" suggests that he produced it, which is different to what he's done and, I assume, a different offence.

 

[two sheds]

or copying?

 

[8ball]

Are you suggesting that it needs to be described as something like digitally reproducing/storing CSA images made by a third party? Isn't it easier to just say 'making'?

Wouldn’t the wording have come from before the internet?

 

[brogdale]

"Downloading" or "storing".

That's what it is.

"Making" suggests that he produced it, which is different to what he's done and, I assume, a different offence.

so, making copies?

 

[Cerv]

I think they should really change the wording on the law about 'making' child porn. It does imply the perp was setting up photo shoots with kids when in actual fact it means they were downloading pics someone else actually made. Which is obvs still fucking horrendous but on a scale, not quite the same thing.

it dates back to when "making" meant setting up a dark room and printing off photos from negatives, or similar.

I agree it should be changed, for exactly the reason you say that it's commonly misconstrued by the public.
but given who it is that's negatively affected by this, you can see it's never likely to be a priority for the government to bother with.

 

[elbows]

Actually there are various specialist solicitors websites online who describe that the word 'make' was added to legislation in 1995 to deal with internet stuff.

The implications for the way the law is worded go beyond the public misunderstanding the words used when reporting. If they havent sorted the law out to deal with that other stuff too, I dont imagine they will bother for this purpose either.

I note that articles such as todays BBC piece make use of wording the CPS have on their website in order to offer some clarification:

According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”

 

[Spymaster]

so, making copies?

It's unnecessarily ambiguous.

There's probably a reason for the wording but I'm reluctant to Google "making indecent images of children" from my computer to find out.

 

[UrbaneFox]

Wow. I didn’t know you’d been made a mod. Congrats!

Yes, he's come a long way since 5.17pm today.

 

[Cerv]

Actually there are various specialist solicitors websites online who describe that the word 'make' was added to legislation in 1995 to deal with internet stuff.

if so, I think I might have misremembered.
I do recall a lot of problems that came out of interpreting pre-internet law in the internet age, and what changes were needed to deal with it. like did an automatically created temporary copy of an image file in your computer's cache really count as making a copy of a photo.
so perhaps I've gotten the addition of that wording to law mixed up with that.


But

but I'm reluctant to Google "making indecent images of children" from my computer to find out.

 

[brogdale]

It's unnecessarily ambiguous.

Not really seeing any ambiguity, tbh. If, as alleged, he was downloading or storing/saving images of CSA, then "making" seems to cover that pretty succinctly.