Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 7,105
Member is Online
|
Post by Ulythium on Jul 29, 2024 15:08:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by smoothpete on Jul 29, 2024 16:22:40 GMT
How have I only just heard about Huw Edwards???
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Jul 29, 2024 16:38:34 GMT
Seriously. That story ran for like a month.
|
|
askew
Full Member
Posts: 6,804
Member is Online
|
Post by askew on Jul 31, 2024 11:38:23 GMT
Ffs Huw  |
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 11:45:57 GMT
He might have got away with it had he gone straight to the police. Perhaps more to it that prevented him going so?
|
|
askew
Full Member
Posts: 6,804
Member is Online
|
Post by askew on Jul 31, 2024 11:49:03 GMT
He’d definitely have gotten away with it had it not been for those pesky kids.
Just say no, kids.
|
|
mrpon
Junior Member
Posts: 3,737
|
Post by mrpon on Jul 31, 2024 11:57:18 GMT
I'm not clicking, but making? AI? Hand drawn?
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Jul 31, 2024 12:02:03 GMT
It could be as simple as being sent something via WhatsApp. If an image is saved, even if it's an unrequested image, it counts as "making".
I have no idea what the details are in Huw's case and not defending him, but I'm also not getting the pitchfork just yet. Though the pitchfork case is unlocked.
Pitchforks are stored in cases right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 12:02:05 GMT
It's a legal term I think - if you receive illegal content whether solicited or not, and it stores it on your device, you have made illegal images. I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 12:02:57 GMT
Oh, he's definitely a paedo. His response to being sent them tells us that.
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Jul 31, 2024 12:10:13 GMT
I've no idea what his response was, I've really not followed the story at all.
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,368
|
Post by cubby on Jul 31, 2024 12:12:53 GMT
It's from the 1978 law when people printed magazines, hence the making part. Over the years the definition has been expanded via various court cases with the development of technology, and so the wording remains, it just encapsulates a lot more including being sent WhatsApp images.
Not defending him at all but a lot of these cases do go without trial and straight to a guilty plea because dragging it all out would be far worse even if they thought they might have a case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 12:13:48 GMT
I was just going by the gurniad write up. Where it says he told the guy not to send him illegal or underage images. But seemingly not immediately.
|
|
Lukus
Junior Member
Posts: 2,703
|
Post by Lukus on Jul 31, 2024 12:28:58 GMT
So, the Queen's funeral coverage was hosted by a paedophile? Seems fitting somehow.
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,368
|
Post by cubby on Jul 31, 2024 12:29:33 GMT
Couldn't get Savile so...
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Jul 31, 2024 12:56:02 GMT
I was just going by the gurniad write up. Where it says he told the guy not to send him illegal or underage images. But seemingly not immediately. That, I believe, is what's fucked him. The 'making' of indecent images relies, really, on intent to acquire. The making part is very broad and is as simple as the act of allowing it to appear on your device. The bit that makes it a crime is whether or not you reasonably could have expected it to be 'obscene'. The fact that he said 'no young uns, plz' implies that he actually did consider it likely that it would be exactly that. If you're just randomly sent something out the blue, that's one thing. If you're in a lengthy conversation that is getting more and more edgy to the point you have to say that, you know its coming and that's why he is pleading guilty, I would think. |
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 13:13:22 GMT
That makes a whole load of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mothercruncher on Jul 31, 2024 14:07:03 GMT
DOUGS IN YOUNG IMAGES MAKE SENSE SHOCKA
|
|
Onny
Junior Member
Posts: 1,152
|
Post by Onny on Jul 31, 2024 17:28:35 GMT
I find the charging decision very interesting. Normally “making” is reserved for images which aren’t easily available - let’s say deleted - as described above, but in this case he would have theoretically still had access to them, so strictly speaking it should have been “possession” which carries stricter sentencing.
I suspect that what happened here is that he got it bumped down if he plead guilty on the basis that:
- he asked for them not to be sent afterwards
- he could have been ignorant of his continued access
But it’s still surprising in a few ways, not least that he continued to maintain contact - and also who the fuck gets their porn from randos over WhatsApp?
|
|
|
|
Post by mothercruncher on Jul 31, 2024 18:27:44 GMT
Honestly, I still feel wistful for hedgerows
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Jul 31, 2024 19:04:41 GMT
who the fuck gets their porn from randos over WhatsApp? Live a little onny |
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,368
|
Post by cubby on Jul 31, 2024 19:07:55 GMT
Is WhatsApp still fully encrypted end to end? I never even considered what a godsend that must be to wronguns sending each other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Jul 31, 2024 19:13:52 GMT
I always thought Telegram was the way for those looking a bit dodgy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 31, 2024 19:17:26 GMT
Both encrypted end to end as far as I know. And why the previous govt tried to force access - lost sight of what happened tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Jul 31, 2024 19:33:51 GMT
It just has the problem that if it’s government business and you’re a shit minister then it’ll magically delete all your messages.
|
|
|
|
Post by mothercruncher on Jul 31, 2024 23:50:28 GMT
|
|
askew
Full Member
Posts: 6,804
Member is Online
|
Post by askew on Aug 1, 2024 21:28:48 GMT
So… if the paedo-peddler gets 12 months suspended, surely Huw is likely to get less?
|
|
|
|
Post by rawshark on Aug 1, 2024 23:16:23 GMT
Hot take - license fee, and the BBC as we know it,will be gone by this time next year.
We’ll miss it when it’s gone. The ad free CBeebies anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Aug 1, 2024 23:41:34 GMT
If Labour wanted to increase Britain’s reputation via cultural soft power it has no stronger tool than the BBC. Look at how great everyone thinks South Korea is with the cultural push its government has made over the last decade or so.
But then we’ve been a nation in retreat, becoming steadily smaller minded, meaner and more jealous of the outside world for 20+ years so why wouldn’t we find new ways to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Aug 2, 2024 0:00:08 GMT
Hot take - license fee, and the BBC as we know it,will be gone by this time next year. We’ll miss it when it’s gone. The ad free CBeebies anyway. Your working out please? |
|
