Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

But as discussed earlier, making was specifically added to the law in 1994 (came into force in 1995) specifically to deal with the internet and digital files. So it wasnt a particular case that enabled 'making' to apply to digital copying, that wording was formulated in the first place to deal with just such cases.

As it was explained to me, (so please don't try too hard to shoot the messenger) it was a question of how "making" was interpreted. The legislation (see below) did not make it clear that saving a file could be interpreted as "making" and it was this that was established in court.

1722358094560.png
 
As it was explained to me, (so please don't try too hard to shoot the messenger) it was a question of how "making" was interpreted. The legislation (see below) did not make it clear that saving a file could be interpreted as "making" and it was this that was established in court.

View attachment 435715

I suppose we can both be right. ie the language was originally inserted to deal with digital stuff but you still need court cases to establish that this use is valid and set the suitable precedent. Press reporting of the time can probably help determine the original intention, but I havent got access to the right sort of archive for that time period at the moment.

Dont worry, Im not interested in messenger shooting.
 
By the way, they added the pseudo-images/pseudo-photographs wording in the law at the same time, and that was done due to the digital era too.
I'd wondered how it applies to AI generated images. I suppose they have to accept that the LLM needs real input to generate the image, and so they are "real" images.
 
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.”

Which further outlines the ambiguous nature of "making" in the context of this offence.
 
Yeah, the mags will be a preliminary hearing... You can enter a plea (which obvs he has done) which will dictate the course of the trial. Since he's admitted guilt there's no need to convene a full trial, he just gets sentenced. Since this is happening in Sept presumably the mags has referred it to the Crown court. There are a few caveats to that, rusty on the details, but that's the broad principle.
 
They can, but that option is usually reserved for people outside of their social circle.
Suspended sentence. Small fine. See you in the pub.

Checking a bit further reckon you're right on this, same court for sentencing, early plea etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom