Huw Edwards

[Clone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgr49q591go

[naomi24]

I suppose we'll know soon.

[Ellipsis]

"Media and the public are strongly reminded that this is an active case. Nothing should be published, including on social media, which could prejudice future court proceedings."

[douglas9401]

I don't think that warning includes two sweetie-wifes arguing the toss on Answerbank.

[nailedit]

His wikipedia page states that Edwards is a Christian and a weekly church goer.... These things seem to go hand in hand!

[Peter Pedant]

Barry, Perhaps when they say 'making' they mean 'making'.  Taking photographs would be 'making'.

it also means downloading.

law jargon...

[Peter Pedant]

has anyone  mentioned that doing  this  sort ofthing is a sign of depresson in  ( er depressed ) mature men?

Give them anti-depressants and they stop doing it - oh and whilst I am at it, I think the 17 y o in Southport is mad as well.

[New Judge]

"Barry, Perhaps when they say 'making' they mean 'making'.  Taking photographs would be 'making'."

"Yes, it does suggest that he was engaged in making the images i.e. photographing an actual child. Was he not?"

Barry is correct. The charge will almost certainly be under Section 1 (1) of the Protection of Children Act, 1978:

1 Indecent photographs of children.

(1)Subject to sections 1A and 1B, it is an offence for a person—

(a)to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or

(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs]; or

(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or

(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.

The principle case which usually persuades prosecutors to use this Act instead of “Possessing indecent images of children” under the Criminal Justice Act 1988  (which carries a lesser sentence) is R v Bowden [2000]. It was ruled that ‘making’ indecent images is defined as follows “to cause to exist, to produce by action, to bring about” indecent images.

The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad and the following can amount to making indecent images; opening an email attachment, downloading an indecent image, storing an image, and accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up”.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years custody. S160 of the CJA carries a maximum of five years.

[sandyRoe]

Is ephebophilia considered less serious than an interest in younger children?

[nailedit]

//Is ephebophilia considered less serious than an interest in younger children?//

 

I would hope so.

Children don't have a say so when they get abused.

Teenagers tend to have some say so regards sexual relations.

 

 

[Spungle]

Rolf Harris, Prince Andrew and now Huw Edwards.  Rest in peace, your Majesty.

[barry1010]

NJ, can you clarify the offences Huw would be charged with it he were responsible for the initial creating of the image, for example coerced a child in to posing whilst he took photos/video.

I'm sure you can explain it better than I can

[Clone]

Forget the pedantry, he wants some time behind bars.

[barry1010]

You may not be interested in the intracies of the law, clone, but I am.

The different charges means different sentences 

[jourdain2]

I've just learned what 'Category A' images means - I'm appalled.

And the BBC has been paying him whilst  not on air?   It's almost unspeakably awful that he was being treated as a respectable and influential newscaster.

Unsure if there is any other cause to the post other than alerting people as to what is/has been going on. 

Scarcely need to ask for opinions, really.

 

[Clone]

 jourdain2

I've just learned what 'Category A' images means - I'm appalled.

 

You agree he needs to be jailed then, Jourdain?

[New Judge]

“NJ, can you clarify the offences Huw would be charged with it he were responsible for the initial creating of the image, for example coerced a child in to posing whilst he took photos/video.”

It would be under the same legislation, ken. However, if you look at the Sentencing Guidelines:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child/

You will see in “Step 1 – Determining the offence category” a table with three headings: “Possession”, “Distribution” and “Production”. Somebody involved in the actual production of the images would be sentenced under “production” (which provides for the most severe penalties, see Step 2). 

The footnote to table 1 reads: “includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing."

Hope that helps.

"Forget the pedantry, he wants some time behind bars."

It is what you term the "pedantry" that determines how long he spends behind bars (or whether he spends any time behind bars at all).

[jourdain2]

I hadn't got through everything when I applied - but, yes, he should be severely  punished.  If jail will do it, then yes, I agree. Perhaps all the publicly funded money he's been paid since being suspended should be repaid as well.

[Clone]

It is what you term the "pedantry" that determines how long he spends behind bars (or whether he spends any time behind bars at all).

 

It's whether he spends any time behind bars at all. His type appear to get away with it.

 

 

[Blubster]

And to think, he's just had a massive pay-rise. 

 

Now we know why he had time off (and still got paid, BTW)

[barry1010]

Blubster, his reason for the suspension was announced months ago when he was arrested.