Chindie Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 He's not innocent. The law, in effect, says that of you open an indecent image, and you have any reason to even slightly suspect it would be an indecent image, and you don't have a good reason (which is basically limited to involvement in law enforcement, legitimate journalism or potentially research) you are guilty and there is no innocent position. Because he received the pictures over a long period, and there was multiple, even though he did not ask for them and seemingly did not have an interest in them, he's still guilty of 'making indecent images', which effectively includes opening a file. He's guilty. His lawyers will have told him this. It doesn't mean he's a paedo, but it does mean he's guilty of making indecent images and there's no getting away from that, hence he can only plead guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 2 minutes ago, Chindie said: He's not innocent. The law, in effect, says that of you open an indecent image, and you have any reason to even slightly suspect it would be an indecent image, and you don't have a good reason (which is basically limited to involvement in law enforcement, legitimate journalism or potentially research) you are guilty and there is no innocent position. Because he received the pictures over a long period, and there was multiple, even though he did not ask for them and seemingly did not have an interest in them, he's still guilty of 'making indecent images', which effectively includes opening a file. He's guilty. His lawyers will have told him this. It doesn't mean he's a paedo, but it does mean he's guilty of making indecent images and there's no getting away from that, hence he can only plead guilty. And that puts him firmly on the sex offenders register, for life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 BBC says: Quote 'Making' indecent images - what does the law say? Edwards pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent photographs of a child. In the law, a photograph can also mean video footage. "Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip. The Crown Prosecution Service says it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o.amp He received an image therefore he's guilty of making an indecent image. He can't plead not guilty surely unless he denies receiving the images at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, Lichfield Dean said: BBC says: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o.amp He received an image therefore he's guilty of making an indecent image. He can't plead not guilty surely unless he denies receiving the images at all. How does any self - respecting individual end up with such images anyway? If someone sent me such images, I would be straight to the police station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 11 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: How does any self - respecting individual end up with such images anyway? If someone sent me such images, I would be straight to the police station. But it wasn't a random stranger, and he wasn't Joe Ordinary. It was some bloke he had already been sharing (legal) porn with. Which, as a high profile TV celebrity, had put him in an awkward spot, at risk of blackmail. He probably thought it was safer to say nothing and avoid publicity. Not the first 'famous' person to fall into that trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Just now, mjmooney said: But it wasn't a random stranger, and he wasn't Joe Ordinary. It was some bloke he had already been sharing (legal) porn with. Which, as a high profile TV celebrity, had put him in an awkward spot, at risk of blackmail. He probably thought it was safer to say nothing and avoid publicity. Not the first 'famous' person to fall into that trap. Conjecture all the same. Legal pornography is one thing, indecent images of children is a serious crime. That's when he should have gone to the police, why make a mountain out of a molehill. No one is going to condemn for legal porn in the same way they are for child porn. So that excuse doesn't wash with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 17 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: How does any self - respecting individual end up with such images anyway? If someone sent me such images, I would be straight to the police station. Absolutely, I agree totally, it's a clear indication of the kind of person he is. And especially coupled with the fact that he didn't dob the guy in immediately. However if you received those images, you'd be guilty too, even if you reported and deleted them immediately. The law for this just seems exceptionally harsh, probably for a good reason, but blimey, you'd effectively be incriminating yourself by going to the police in that situation! The guidelines talk about mitigating circumstances but I have no idea when that kicks in - would it prevent you being taken to court? Is it a only a sentencing thing? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Just now, Lichfield Dean said: Absolutely, I agree totally, it's a clear indication of the kind of person he is. And especially coupled with the fact that he didn't dob the guy in immediately. However if you received those images, you'd be guilty too, even if you reported and deleted them immediately. The law for this just seems exceptionally harsh, probably for a good reason, but blimey, you'd effectively be incriminating yourself by going to the police in that situation! The guidelines talk about mitigating circumstances but I have no idea when that kicks in - would it prevent you being taken to court? Is it a only a sentencing thing? I don't know. I would be electing for trial. Where does it state that receiving such an image implies guilt? That doesn't make sense, because anyone could set anyone up, so there has to be some acknowledgment of that fact. I would go to trial and say that I was sent the image by somebody with the intention of fitting me up for being in possession of an indecent image of a child. That would be a legitimate defence. Otherwise, you would be leaving an opening for potential blackmail. That would also be a legitimate defence, if you could convince the jury of your innocence. There is always the presumption of innocence, regardless of the crime and it's circumstances. Edwards should have elected for trial and pleaded his innocence from the rooftops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 18 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: There is always the presumption of innocence, regardless of the crime and it's circumstances. Edwards should have elected for trial and pleaded his innocence from the rooftops. You might be right. I also think that by staying on contact for so long (and then receiving *more* child abuse images), he became complicit in my eyes, if not in law. I can understand why someone would not want to go to the police though, especially given the last page of discussions and the added complexity of being a high profile public figure. I've said previously that if I'd received 1 image like that, part of me would be thinking 'I need to report this nonce'. The other part of me would be thinking 'Shit, it's on my device, I didn't ask for it, I've done nothing wrong but...Do I really want to risk having to clear my name if the police don't buy it and ending up in the local press as a nonce on trial, this could ruin my life'. Call me a coward, but that would definitely weigh heavily on me. And that's for a mere pleb. If you're a household name on the BBC, you would have to assume someone that sees that case file is leaking it to the tabloids. That's a defence of the hypothetical innocent person who receives an individual unsolicited image though, he loses the benefit of the doubt from me when he stays in regular contact for another 8 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 It cannot be that you are guilty if you received something unsolicited and reported it straight away. Think about it, just send evil to everyone you don’t like and they are toast? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Just now, chrisp65 said: It cannot be that you are guilty if you received something unsolicited and reported it straight away. Think about it, just send evil to everyone you don’t like and they are toast? Exactly! If you went straight to the police in all innocence, then common sense would apply. What are rules and regulations without that extra ingredient of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 The law basically says if you have any reason to suspect you may open an indecent image, and you do, you break the law. Therefore, if you receive an unsolicited image from out of the blue, you'd have a defence. If you continue to engage with that... resource... and you receive more, you're guilty. The only defences are that you did not reasonably expect to be given indecent images, or that you have a justifiable reason. Anything else, you're guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 The BBC have announced that they've started removing footage from the archive that has Edwards in it, and the historically significant stuff like the queen's death and so on is going to have a new audio track with someone else reading his lines, that's seems absolutely bizarre to me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 Something stinks with the BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 On 02/08/2024 at 21:02, sheepyvillian said: How does any self - respecting individual end up with such images anyway? If someone sent me such images, I would be straight to the police station. I've been thinking about how I would react and it's a thorny issue. I'd certainly tell him he was sick, that I didn't want them and break off all contact. But when it came to the crunch going to the police comes which a whole host of issues I think most people would just like to avoid. Obviously now knowing the law there's no question I'd go to the police but without knowing that I think I'd have had a long think about all that involving yourself in a criminal investigation brings with it. I'm sure plenty of people would prefer just to keep their heads down and act like it's not happened. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Something stinks with the BBC You reckon? Still paying Edwards when they knew he was guilty. Now out in the public eye, they are flapping an want the money back??? It's been rife at the BBC throughout the years. Who's gonna be next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 Also you just know that if you've reported receiving such images, and a criminal case that you instigated follows, word is going to get out. There are inevitably going to be rumours, people whispering "no smoke without fire", kids getting shit at school about peado dad,the wife asking who the hell this "friend" of yours was. I can think of a million reasons why people would just prefer to sweep it under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 5 minutes ago, sidcow said: I've been thinking about how I would react and it's a thorny issue. I'd certainly tell him he was sick, that I didn't want them and break off all contact. But when it came to the crunch going to the police comes which a whole host of issues I think most people would just like to avoid. Obviously now knowing the law there's no question I'd go to the police but without knowing that I think I'd have had a long think about all that involving yourself in a criminal investigation brings with it. I'm sure plenty of people would prefer just to keep their heads down and act like it's not happened. I'm well acquainted with matters involving the police. I'm a staunch man when push comes to shove, never once did I seek the easy way out. However, crimes involving children,.is another matter entirely. I would have no hesitation or compunction about informing the police. As long as my criminal record may be, there are no crimes involving preying on the vulnerable, so ironically, my previous convictions would be ample evidence in assuring the police of my innocence. I honestly don't believe I would find myself in such a scenario, I fish in calmer waters, so to speak. The fact that Edwards didn't look in the least contrite, didn't sit well with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: Also you just know that if you've reported receiving such images, and a criminal case that you instigated follows, word is going to get out. There are inevitably going to be rumours, people whispering "no smoke without fire", kids getting shit at school about peado dad,the wife asking who the hell this "friend" of yours was. I can think of a million reasons why people would just prefer to sweep it under the carpet. And how did that work out for Edwards? These are not things "To sweep under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 2 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: I'm well acquainted with matters involving the police. I'm a staunch man when push comes to shove, never once did I seek the easy way out. However, crimes involving children,.is another matter entirely. I would have no hesitation or compunction about informing the police. As long as my criminal record may be, there are no crimes involving preying on the vulnerable, so ironically, my previous convictions would be ample evidence in assuring the police of my innocence. I honestly don't believe I would find myself in such a scenario, I fish in calmer waters, so to speak. The fact that Edwards didn't look in the least contrite, didn't sit well with me. I agree, but I can totally see why others would think differently which doesn't make them sick paedos. At worst just weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts