Huw Edwards

[Clone]

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

[Tilly2]

Shocking.

[Clone]

Well, the BBC do have a bit of history with this sort of thing.

[naomi24]

Difficult to believe really ... but I do.

[barry1010]

I do wish the powers that be changed the wording of this offence.  Many people don't understand what it means.

[naomi24]

What do you want it changed to, Barry?

[barry1010]

I saw nothing wrong with the previous 'possessing indecent images of children'.  Perhaps it could be updated to 'possessing and/or distributing indecent images of children and/or quasi children'.

'Making' suggests rather more than opening an image in a link or downloading an image from a website.

Still a very grave and repulsive offense if done intentionally, a defense if you didn't know know what the link contained and deleted the image straight away. 

[naomi24]

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

[davebro3]

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

[ToraToraTora]

He'll be in the Dutch Olympic squad next.

[barry1010]

No he was not, dave, that is a different offence altogether.

[barry1010]

Naomi, it does not mean 'making' in the sense of having real time contact with a child either in the same room or on a webcam.  It means:

Opening an attachment to an email containing an image

Downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen;

Storing an image in a directory on a computer;

Accessing a website in which images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism

[naomi24]

Do we know that, Barry?

[naomi24]

Cross-posted.  I mean do we know for sure what he's actually being accused of?

[barry1010]

This is what the law states:

"Making

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13

downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13

storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248

accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29

receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group

live-streaming images of children"

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

[douglas9401]

'We' will know in the fullness of time.

[barry1010]

The DM says "three charges of making indecent images of children between December 2020 and April 2022"

Confirmed by the BBC "Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with three counts of making indecent images of children."

[naomi24]

Barry, your copy and paste says it's 'widely interpreted' and 'can include'.   We don't know what he's actually being accused of.

[barry1010]

If he was involved with the child and the initial creation of the images he would be charged with different offences.

[naomi24]

Children, Barry.  More than one.  

[barry1010]

We don't know how many children - we know there were more than 20 images but not how many different children.  If he were directly involved with the initial creation of even one of the photos the headlines would be citing the more serious charge and not 'making'.