Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Huw Edwards Admits Child Porn Charges
58 Answers
37 disgusting images of which 7 were cat 'A'
Vile beast needs a lenghty sentence.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I started my first job at 15 in an all male environment.
Some of the men thought it funny to show me a magazine of the most vile pornography you can imagine. I was violently sick.
These days those men would have sent them in an email for a laugh. I find nothing amusing about it at all and firmly believe the law isn't tough enough and as a result morals are declining. I'm just an old fashioned, straight laced bloke with a strong sense of right and wrong
If I received such images I would report it to the police immediately as would any decent person.
Hmm. I think I may call in at a solicitors on my way to a station. By admitting 'receiving' you are pleading guilty to making. You can't choose.
(Barry is another mod who loves a tortured analogy. Poor nurse Plummer did time in an Egyptian women's prison after being caught on her way in with 300 Tramadol ( tabs not mg). " Oh", said the pretty girl, "they are not for me, they are for my boyfriend!" - Doiiing ! She had said she is guilty of supplying / trading. Three years) - oo-er Qadi !
and that is why tramadol is nick-named slammer-dol
"Perhaps someone can confirm or correct"
The law doesn't mention "quasi-children", barry, but it does mention "pseudo photographs". According to CPS guidance:
“A pseudo-photograph is an image made by computer-graphics or otherwise which appears to be a photograph.
This can include:
- photos
- videos
- tracings and derivatives of a photograph
-data that can be converted into a photograph”
Perhaps that’s what you mean.
PP, I am not acting as a mod when I post on threads.
I would report it immediately and rely on the defence 'that the photograph was sent to you without any prior request and that you did not keep it for an unreasonable time.'
I have no fear of my devices and search history being forensically examined.
I don't turn a blind eye to wrongs.
Maybe my thinking in this matter is too simplistic, but I can see only two alternatives here.
If someone sent me pornographic images of a child or children, I would take them straight to the police, tell the police who sent them, and give up my phone to their custody.
I would expect anyone else to do the same.
If a person keeps the images, or passes the images on, that person is guilty of a criminal act.
To me, it is as simple as that. There is no need to quibble about how you are not responsible for the images because you did not "make" the images. If the images are in your possession, and you have not reported it to the police, you are a criminal.
“NJ, does UK law specifically refer to photographs (and pseudo-photographs and I suppose film)?”
It refers specifically to photographs and pseudo-photographs only.
“Would that include cartoons, CGI....
I would think not, barry. As above, the legislation refers only to photographs and pseudo photographs. Delving a little deeper into the CPS guidance I found this:
In deciding whether the image is a photograph/pseudo-photograph or a prohibited image, prosecutors should ask themselves whether the image, if printed, would look like a photograph/ pseudo-photograph. If it would, then it should be prosecuted as such. Some high-quality computer-generated indecent images/AI Generated images can pass as photographs and it is possible to prosecute on the basis of quality computer-generated images as pseudo-photographs. Technology exists to alter photographs to appear as though they are AI-generated images. The law applies equally to photographs and pseudo-photographs, regardless as to their method of creation.
"...and older women purporting to be children?”
As far as women purporting to be children goes, I imagine that would fail to secure a conviction. The legislation is specifically aimed at protecting children (i.e. those under 18). If it could be shown the person in the image was over 18 (however she presented herself) I imagine that would not fit the bill.
Of course ,as with all these things, if a charge was defended on the basis that (say) the image was not a photograph or a pseudo-photograph or that the subject was over 18, it would be for a court to decide the issue if the defence was not accepted by the prosecution.
ringlet: "If someone sent me pornographic images of a child or children, I would take them straight to the police, tell the police who sent them, and give up my phone to their custody. " - where as that would be the correct thing to do, they'd probably arrest you and brand you a paedo and your life would be over. Just delete.
I expect you are right, clone. The man who sent him the photos got a suspended sentence despite the addition of distributing the images, which Edwards wasn't charged with
The man who shared indecent images of children with Huw Edwards - and how he led police to star https:/
cartoon porn
try this: https:/
or this : https:/
put not your faith in AB pundits ( luckily noone reads my posts anyway)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Is Farage Labours Secret Weapon ?.
Politics5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.