RugbyRebels

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:21 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:05 pm
Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:50 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:46 pm

I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja
I would argue that cannot be proven. I think the main point is that he posessed them at some point.
The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).

Maybe, although I guess it just isn't relevant. It's probably too tricky to prove intent, so I assume the law steers away from that completely and sticks closely to posession which can be proven easily.

Mens rea is quite fundamental to justice.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:25 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:05 pm The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).

If it was, he probably wouldn't plead guilty

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:45 pmLike I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.

Wait, what?

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:30 pm**

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:21 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:05 pm
Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:50 pm

I would argue that cannot be proven. I think the main point is that he posessed them at some point.
The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).
Maybe, although I guess it just isn't relevant. It's probably too tricky to prove intent, so I assume the law steers away from that completely and sticks closely to posession which can be proven easily.

Mens rea is quite fundamental to justice.

Normally yes. There's a host of criteria that needs to be examined in cases like this. The type of image (I.e. how horrific is it on the Copine scale), plus the role of the offender in holding that image.

If the prosecution are looking at charges of making or distributing then thats different to possession, where having that image on a device is sufficient unless there is a lawful excuse. A mitigating factor could be, for example, I was sent an attachment unsolicited, opened it and saw something horrific. I reported it to the police and handed my device over to them immediately. Forensics will show when the image was received, whether it was opened and whether it was forwarded in any way.

It may also be an excuse to argue that the owner of the image didnt realise that the child was in fact a child. I cant remeber the details of this so not sure how valid that excuse would be in this case. Clearly that depends on the maturity of the victim as some children are very obviously children.

Generally speaking though, an offence is committed if that imagery is found on ones mobile phone and the defendant cant provide a reasonable explanation.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:31 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:25 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:05 pm The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).
If it was, he probably wouldn't plead guilty

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:45 pmLike I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.

Wait, what?

You would only be able to claim this defence if you genuinely didnt realise an offence has been committed. If the victim didnt appear to be a child for example then you could make a case that a reasonable person receiving that image wouldnt assume it was a child.

But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you drive in France without a hi vis vest for the driver and every passenger in the vehicle you will get fined. Not knowing that was a law is no excuse.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:35 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:25 pm
Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:45 pmLike I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.
Wait, what?

I have since looked it up, and it concerns not all sunglasses, but the most tinted sunglasses. However, my example of how something innocent can become illegal still holds true. It is not always simple to keep up with the latest law, especially if you don't live in the UK or don't follow UK news.

Obviously I'm digressing from the Huw Edwards case, which seems an open and closed case given he's pleaded guilty.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:36 pm**

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:45 pm
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:07 pm How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?
The law is always fascinating when it gets close to blurred lines. Not that I'm saying the lines are blurred in this case, but it does make you think about hypothetical circumstances, like if someone can get done under explicit content laws more due to negligence and irresponsibility than actual current sexual interest.

For exmple hypothetically if there was group chat with lots of pictures almost all very legal, totally arousing, and totally up your street in terms of your particular predeliction, but a tiny minority crossed the line.

I mean how many of us have browsed porn websites in the past when it was less corporate and sometimes there was content that was on the line. Like she could be 18 or 19 years old, but also could be 17 theoretically. That sort of thing.

When I was younger I had a phase when I was into voyeur pictures, things like accidental exposure, that sort of thing. Back then that was totally legal, hell, paparazzi were doing upskirt shots and they went in the newspapers, but these days it gets closer and closer to being illegal (due to maybe counting as non-consensual). Now imagine if the police got hold of my devices and found something from a while ago that used to be legal but has since become illegal technically. Maybe I would be technically guilty, who knows.

The interest can sometimes be about when what you're doing used to be legal and you didn't keep up-to-date with the latest law. Like I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.

Er... Ok. I mean, there's a decent point in there, but my main takeaway away is that I think you should drink less coffee?

I'm also pretty sure it's not illegal to wear sunglasses while driving? I stand to be corrected.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:36 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:31 pm You would only be able to claim this defence if you genuinely didnt realise an offence has been committed. If the victim didnt appear to be a child for example then you could make a case that a reasonable person receiving that image wouldnt assume it was a child.

But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you drive in France without a hi vis vest for the driver and every passenger in the vehicle you will get fined. Not knowing that was a law is no excuse.

Errr, I think you misunderstood.me. I'm well aware that ignorance is no excuse - and I do t think anyone is claiming it as an excuse either.

I didn't know it's now illegal to drive safely. To the point where I'm not going to assume accuracy just because it's claimed on RR

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:38 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:46 pm
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:07 pm How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?
I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

How hard is it to change the wording so as to be clear? Genuine question. Surely this sort of spread while keeping the same wording can only lead to confusion? At least among plebs on RR.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:41 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:31 pm
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:25 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:05 pm The fact he has them is proof enough (unless he had a lawful excuse which I have no idea on whether that would be the case).
If it was, he probably wouldn't plead guilty

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:45 pmLike I live abroad and recently rented a car in the UK during a trip home, and I found out that it's now illegal to wear sunglasses while driving. If that person had not told me, I could easily have accidentally broken the law. Hell, when I learnt, this was even recommended to do on a sunny day.

Wait, what?
You would only be able to claim this defence if you genuinely didnt realise an offence has been committed. If the victim didnt appear to be a child for example then you could make a case that a reasonable person receiving that image wouldnt assume it was a child.

But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you drive in France without a hi vis vest for the driver and every passenger in the vehicle you will get fined. Not knowing that was a law is no excuse.

I'm probably guilty of this, unless it was in the boot of the rental car I was driving. Never realised I was such a criminal - first sunglasses and now this!

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:43 pm**

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:38 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:46 pm
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 1:07 pm How come he's pleaded (pled?) guilty of making illegal images but his barrister says "... there is no suggestion that he has created any image of any sort."?

It's clear he's a nonce so hell mend him, but it seems a weird way to describe a crime, so I guess I'm just curious about the legal niceties?
I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

How hard is it to change the wording so as to be clear? Genuine question. Surely this sort of spread while keeping the same wording can only lead to confusion? At least among plebs on RR.

I think the issue is that it would require creating a new law, specifically for the purpose, which would require getting it through committees and jobsworths like Christopher Chope objecting and saying that it's already perfectly well covered by existing legislation, etc. I'm sure it could be done if the will existed, but I suspect it's low on the list of priorities for Parliamentary time if the current situation is functional.

Puja

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:55 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:36 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:31 pm You would only be able to claim this defence if you genuinely didnt realise an offence has been committed. If the victim didnt appear to be a child for example then you could make a case that a reasonable person receiving that image wouldnt assume it was a child.

But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you drive in France without a hi vis vest for the driver and every passenger in the vehicle you will get fined. Not knowing that was a law is no excuse.
Errr, I think you misunderstood.me. I'm well aware that ignorance is no excuse - and I do t think anyone is claiming it as an excuse either.

I didn't know it's now illegal to drive safely. To the point where I'm not going to assume accuracy just because it's claimed on RR

Sorry I was responding to the post you quoted, Zhivagos. That wasn’t clear

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:57 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:43 pm
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:38 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:46 pm

I thought that so I looked it up. Turns out "making indecent images" is a law that's spread from its original intent to include facilitating making them, passing them on, and accessing/receiving them. So, despite him not making anything, he's guilty under the legal definition of "making indecent images" because he willfully received them.

It does mean that the headlines on a lot of sites of "Edwards pleads guilty to creating child abuse videos" are a bit shitty and give a misleading impression of what the situation is, but he's not exactly in a place to be suing for defamation over what degree of a nonce he is.

Puja

How hard is it to change the wording so as to be clear? Genuine question. Surely this sort of spread while keeping the same wording can only lead to confusion? At least among plebs on RR.
I think the issue is that it would require creating a new law, specifically for the purpose, which would require getting it through committees and jobsworths like Christopher Chope objecting and saying that it's already perfectly well covered by existing legislation, etc. I'm sure it could be done if the will existed, but I suspect it's low on the list of priorities for Parliamentary time if the current situation is functional.

Puja

There’s a lot of legal advise
Online on hose to determine the defendants involvement with n the production of the imagery and thus how heavily the law will
Hit them.

I’ve just read that Edwards has pleaded guilty to making an image of a 5 year old so any excuse of not knowing that the child was actually under age is gone out the window.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:02 pm**

Clearly the law didn’t anticipate the mass dissemination of imagery online. I also think that the original offence was called such in order not to differentiate between the creator of the content and the customer, the latter actions driving demand after all.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:03 pm**

Hang on. Are we saying that if Edwards was wearing sun glasses and a hi vis whilst looking at the illegal pictures he’d be innocent (dependent on the tint of the lenses, obvs)?

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:11 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:03 pm Hang on. Are we saying that if Edwards was wearing sun glasses and a hi vis whilst looking at the illegal pictures he’d be innocent (dependent on the tint of the lenses, obvs)?

Because he couldn't see what he was looking at! Better Call Mell!

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:15 pm**

That argument does have a ring of Saul Goodman about it!

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:20 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:15 pm That argument does have a ring of Saul Goodman about it!

Best lawyer of all time.

Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, call me

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 5:02 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:03 pm Hang on. Are we saying that if Edwards was wearing sun glasses and a hi vis whilst looking at the illegal pictures he’d be innocent (dependent on the tint of the lenses, obvs)?

I think only if he was driving in France?

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:20 pm**

The Beeb must have had some idea that these things had been unearthed; suspended on full pay may be the norm. process, but a 50K pay rise too doesn't present a good look.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:33 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:36 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:31 pm You would only be able to claim this defence if you genuinely didnt realise an offence has been committed. If the victim didnt appear to be a child for example then you could make a case that a reasonable person receiving that image wouldnt assume it was a child.

But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you drive in France without a hi vis vest for the driver and every passenger in the vehicle you will get fined. Not knowing that was a law is no excuse.
Errr, I think you misunderstood.me. I'm well aware that ignorance is no excuse - and I do t think anyone is claiming it as an excuse either.

I didn't know it's now illegal to drive safely. To the point where I'm not going to assume accuracy just because it's claimed on RR

I always get my legal advice from RR.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 8:35 pm**

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:57 pmI’ve just read that Edwards has pleaded guilty to making an image of a 5 year old so any excuse of not knowing that the child was actually under age is gone out the window.

That appears not to be true now that the dust has settled a bit, so I think that's a website getting overexcited with rumours.

Puja

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:38 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 8:35 pm
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:57 pmI’ve just read that Edwards has pleaded guilty to making an image of a 5 year old so any excuse of not knowing that the child was actually under age is gone out the window.
That appears not to be true now that the dust has settled a bit, so I think that's a website getting overexcited with rumours.

Puja

Sky News was reporting that. Wait and See I suppose.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:38 am**

From an article on the Edwards case, this case is also mentioned. This seems particularly harsh.

Last year, Metropolitan police chief, Supt Robyn Williams, was found guilty of possessing indecent images on her phone after she received an unsolicited WhatsApp message that included a video of child sexual abuse.

The jury at the Old Bailey was told how Williams was attending a gym class when she was sent the video by her sister, who wanted the person who made the video caught by police and charged.

The point in the full article (not in this quote) about 'making images' is that it is deemed so because the phone 'makes' a copy when it receives the image.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2024 7:04 am**

If it's as simple as that (presumably it isn't) that's a clear case for jury nullification.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2024 7:50 am**

Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:38 am From an article on the Edwards case, this case is also mentioned. This seems particularly harsh.

Last year, Metropolitan police chief, Supt Robyn Williams, was found guilty of possessing indecent images on her phone after she received an unsolicited WhatsApp message that included a video of child sexual abuse.

The jury at the Old Bailey was told how Williams was attending a gym class when she was sent the video by her sister, who wanted the person who made the video caught by police and charged.
The point in the full article (not in this quote) about 'making images' is that it is deemed so because the phone 'makes' a copy when it receives the image.

I remember that one. Seemed harsh at the time the issue being though that she didn’t immediately report it.

RugbyRebels

Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards

Re: Huw Edwards