[News] Huw Edwards

[DJ NOBO]

Towards the end of my working career this was becoming a very real issue.....Group CEO went very public with a big initiative on how colleagues needed to be supported when suffering MH issues etc, which unfortunately resulted in 'MH issues' being used as a defence mechanism/excuse left right and centre. Examples such as picking someone up for a poor piece of work/underperformance................next thing would be a formal complaint to the next level up along the lines of 'my manager is having a negative impact on my MH by being critical of my work.....the CEO has expressly said we need to support staff' etc etc.

No, you just aren't doing your job well enough.

i worked with a guy who was a proven bully, lazy, made serious errors of judgment….but boy did he know how to play the system. Initially he would try to intimidate any manager that pulled him up, if that failed would lie, and if that failed he would cry and claim MH affected. The managers would always back off.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children

The former BBC newsreader will be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to three charges.

www.bbc.co.uk

So it seems that the creation of this content, is basically him being sent illegal material. At times he asked the sender not to send illegal material.

As discussed earlier, the better action if this happens is either to block the sender and immediately delete the material or better to contact the police and tell them you have witnessed a crime.

He hasn't done this and been caught out. I wonder what the sentence will be under those circumstances. I guess I'll find out soon enough

 

[Brian Fantana]

To be clear, nothing involving children. That would get the certain individuals sending bad content a proper slap and consequences. I'm more talking about questionable memes and intentionally offensive visual content. Nothing illegal, but things you wouldn't really want to receive. People in person and people in Whatsapp can be very different - there are several fellas of middle age who seem hooked on sharing "controversial" content but who are nothing like their Whatsapp/Facebook personas in person. In person they're good people, but you wouldn't know that from their content sharing behaviours.

It is an interesting point, because it was only reading the actual details of the offence guidelines in this case that it became obvious to me that even being inadvertently sent something via Whatsapp for instance could potentially meet the definition.

 

[jcdenton08]

Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children

The former BBC newsreader will be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to three charges.

www.bbc.co.uk

So it seems that the creation of this content, is basically him being sent illegal material. At times he asked the sender not to send illegal material.

As discussed earlier, the better action if this happens is either to block the sender and immediately delete the material or better to contact the police and tell them you have witnessed a crime.

He hasn't done this and been caught out. I wonder what the sentence will be under those circumstances. I guess I'll find out soon enough

“Making” images is deliberately misleading. It was written that way to sound stronger to juries. It creates the image (pun not intended) of a suspect having physically committed the criminal act and recorded it.

In this case, his career is over obviously, and he will on the basis of these charges and being a first time offender, be given either a community sentence or a suspended prison sentence, and be made to sign the sex offenders register and possibly be given a sexual harm prevention order for a period of 5 or 10 years.

The real interesting thing to me here is that these aren’t even the original allegations. It is possible that his phone was seized by police in relation to a different allegation and that’s when this illegal CSAM was discovered.

Or in other words, there might be more to come.

 

[jcdenton08]

It is an interesting point, because it was only reading the actual details of the offence guidelines in this case that it became obvious to me that even being inadvertently sent something via Whatsapp for instance could potentially meet the definition.

“making” means saving/downloading in such a way that the image can be retrieved. It can be used for basically everything. If it can be retrieved with a search warrant from a server they have access to (such as WhatsApp) then it’s been “created”, even if the offender never saved the illegal material.

It’s there to stop a potential defence such as would’ve likely been offered in this case, namely “I never wanted these images”

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

“Making” images is deliberately misleading. It was written that way to sound stronger to juries. It creates the image (pun not intended) of a suspect having physically committed the criminal act and recorded it.

In this case, his career is over obviously, and he will on the basis of these charges and being a first time offender, be given either a community sentence or a suspended prison sentence, and be made to sign the sex offenders register and possibly be given a sexual harm prevention order for a period of 5 or 10 years.

The real interesting thing to me here is that these aren’t even the original allegations. It is possible that his phone was seized by police in relation to a different allegation and that’s when this illegal CSAM was discovered.

Or in other words, there might be more to come.

Yeh, when I heard making images, I imagined it was like Rolf Harris drawing it or that he had filmed something.

On the face of it this doesn't sound as bad. However some of the estimated ages were as young as 7 - 9, surely you have to do more than tell the sender you don't want it and continue to receive further images.

I think he'll be lucky to get the sentencing you're suggesting

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

“making” means saving/downloading in such a way that the image can be retrieved. It can be used for basically everything. If it can be retrieved with a search warrant from a server they have access to (such as WhatsApp) then it’s been “created”, even if the offender never saved the illegal material.

It’s there to stop a potential defence such as would’ve likely been offered in this case, namely “I never wanted these images”

If that's the case, then a nailed on prison sentence. However, whenever i'm sent a whattsapp image it just auto downloads to my picture gallery and I think my phone. I don't have to take any positive action for this to happen, though at some stage I presumably ticked a box to allow that to happen.

But if someone has not taken any positive action, surely that has to be a lesser sentence?

 

[jcdenton08]

Yeh, when I heard making images, I imagined it was like Rolf Harris drawing it or that he had filmed something.

On the face of it this doesn't sound as bad. However some of the estimated ages were as young as 7 - 9, surely you have to do more than tell the sender you don't want it and continue to receive further images.

I think he'll be lucky to get the sentencing you're suggesting

Possibly, I’m just judging based on average sentences received when I googled official statistics. Obviously it’s case by case but the guidelines do most of the heavy lifting.

It’s a terrible crime with real victims and any perpetrator frankly deserves whatever they have coming to them.

 

[jcdenton08]

If that's the case, then a nailed on prison sentence. However, whenever i'm sent a whattsapp image it just auto downloads to my picture gallery and I think my phone. I don't have to take any positive action for this to happen, though at some stage I presumably ticked a box to allow that to happen.

But if someone has not taken any positive action, surely that has to be a lesser sentence?

That would be a case for the defence to put forward at sentencing when requesting leniency and one the judge will consider, along with his personal circumstances, any dependents, prior criminal history and acceptance of guilt and remorse.

 

[nicko31]

Reading this case worries me. I've been sent some extremely unwelcome content on Whatsapp and my usual reaction is to roll my eyes and give negative feedback. But it doesn't stop the flow of hugely controversial content coming in. I'm going to either have to drop out of many groups, block some contacts or wait for a knock on the door from the Rozzers.

I'm no monk but I've never received content anything like this.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

That would be a case for the defence to put forward at sentencing when requesting leniency and one the judge will consider, along with his personal circumstances, any dependents, prior criminal history and acceptance of guilt and remorse.

Yeh, I guess I'm trying to get to what this crime is (from the point of view as someone who generally wishes the health and continuation of the BBC rather than that of sex offenders)

So if someone gets sent an illegal image, in theory out of the blue, (though I understand that isn't the case here), and then the whattapp settings back up the image, in theory without any deliberate act from the person sent the image. The police later look at the phone. Is that covered by this crime?

 

[jcdenton08]

Yeh, I guess I'm trying to get to what this crime is (from the point of view as someone who generally wishes the health and continuation of the BBC rather than that of sex offenders)

So if someone gets sent an illegal image, in theory out of the blue, (though I understand that isn't the case here), and then the whattapp settings back up the image, in theory without any deliberate act from the person sent the image. The police later look at the phone. Is that covered by this crime?

In all likelihood yes.

 

[rippleman]

Yeh, when I heard making images, I imagined it was like Rolf Harris drawing it or that he had filmed something.

On the face of it this doesn't sound as bad. However some of the estimated ages were as young as 7 - 9, surely you have to do more than tell the sender you don't want it and continue to receive further images.

I think he'll be lucky to get the sentencing you're suggesting

Well it depends what you consider to be "bad". Seven of the images were Cat A.

Category A: ‘Images involving penetrative • sexual activity’; ‘possession of images involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism’.

The starting point for possession of Cat A is a year inside. Unlikely the nonce will get banged up; he will just play the "do you know who I am" and "I've got mental health" cards.

The sentencing guidelines can be found here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%2520offences_Indecent%2520images%2520of%2520children.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjUq_7kj9GHAxW7UEEAHewMAVcQFnoECBgQAw&usg=AOvVaw0Elwk7p71QOZxJjUXnBeYt

 

[marlowe]

It's interesting; I know someone who is a psychologist. They work with all sorts of people with all sorts of problems and they would probably argue that every single decision we make comes down to our mental health at its root. Which would then mean that every negative in a persons life is down to their mental health.

I don't necessarily subscribe to that belief personally but it's an interesting thought experiment: are terrible things done by people because they suffer from poor mental health or are some people just wrong'uns. Both?

I've no idea. But this thread and the Southport tragedy lead me to believe some people are just wrong at their core.

That could indeed be argued but there are many different variables which should be considered such as what was the root cause of the mental health issue, was that root cause something they were innocent victims of, and was that root cause directly linked to the act that they committed, ie as a means of reacting directly against, or seeking understandable retribution against that root cause.

So for instance in the case of Savil, if his crimes had been a result of his compromised mental health which was the result, for example, of abuse by his father then the crimes he commited against his victims could not be directly linked to the root cause, as a means of reacting against it, as his victims had done nothing to Savil which had directly caused his mental health issues. Whereas if Savil had assaulted or murdered his hypothetical abusive father then his mental health could be used in mitigation as his hypothetical abusive father had been the cause of his mental health issues.

In the case of Huw Edwards there is no such mitigation as the children in the photos he downloaded were not responsible for his mental health issues. But he might argue in mitigation that his mental health issues were caused by abuse he himself suffered as a child, which could then be linked in some way to the type of offences he commited. Whereas if his mental health issues were merely inherent or were not associated with any abuse he personally suffered then the issue of his mental health is less of a mitigating factor in the offences he committed.

So just stating "mental health issues" is not sufficient. You have to also consider cause and effect, and also motive.

 

[Lenny Rider]

So sad that the passing of one of the greatest women this country ever produced will always be tarnished now.

What would be even worse would be if it transpired that people within the corporation knew he was a wrong 'un.

 

[marlowe]

I especially like it when thickos say “I’ve got mental helath”.

No. What you have, Dear is a lack of education.

As in helath no fury....?
or in this case, mental helath no fury....

 

[amexer]

When people like Edwards are up to receiving this type of material does make you realise what a big problem it may be and perhaps realise why parents are now more protective of ther children. My wife reminds me at 11 she was put on a train at Brighton on her own by her parents to visit an Aunt in the midlands.
Sad world now in so many ways

 

[GT49er]

So sad that the passing of one of the greatest women this country ever produced will always be tarnished now.

No it won't - it's only Huw Edwards' who is tarnished, not the job he did.

 

[chip]

I hope there has been some effort to identify and locate the victims. I would like to think that some can be identified and made safe.

I don't care what happens to paedophiles as long as it is very bad. Could start by confiscating their wealth to improve child protection and help any identifiable victims,

 

[Thunder Bolt]

When people like Edwards are up to receiving this type of material does make you realise what a big problem it may be and perhaps realise why parents are now more protective of ther children. My wife reminds me at 11 she was put on a train at Brighton on her own by her parents to visit an Aunt in the midlands.
Sad world now in so many ways

It always was, it's just we hear about it nowadays. Brady and Hindley in the 60s etc.

Kids were told nobody would believe them.