Huw Edwards' BBC pay increased by £40,000 last year

[Stu]

Because he has saved them. If he had viewed them and instantly deleted them then no issues.

Sadly, the way Whatsapp works is that by viewing them, they're saved to your phone.
As I've said above, an iPhone not only saves them, but it saves them to your photo gallery, so they're mixed up with the 1,000s of other photos you have.

At least Android puts them in a separate folder.

The number of times I go through my pictures and go "Hang on, what's this one? where did this come from?"
Whatsapp downloads them even if you haven't stopped to look at them.

Can I point out btw, I'm not apologising for anyone. He deserves the full force of the law and technological ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

What is WhatsApp

Seriously I don't bother with these things FB and X are bad enough.

 

[MashBag]

Do we think it's a badly written law?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I

Do we think it's a badly written law?

I would say yes, if people are too scared to report child abuse because they believe they may get into trouble for reporting a picture they accidentally viewed on a site that was not about child abuse it will stop them reporting.

 

[Stu]

What is WhatsApp

Seriously I don't bother with these things FB and X are bad enough.

Ah ok. Fair question.

Whatsapp is a phone application that's similar to SMS texting. But you can also create groups and add people to it.
You can also send photos and things, so it's not just text.

The last big issue was with Boris during Covid. He created a Whatsapp group where he was communicating with his cabinet but it couldn't be used in the enquiry, because somehow he managed to wipe his entire phone and the evidence was washed away.

It was also used in those scumbag Policemen that were sharing pictures of dead bodies around and laughing about them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...affer-jamie-lewis-nicole-smallman-bibaa-henry
And another
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...messages-friends-family-jailed-two-years.html

And also those who shared racist jokes and so on
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...-priti-patel-prince-harry-queen-b1105370.html

The problem with it is, because it's private, people often share stuff close to the bone (hence why I mentioned above about nefarious stuff, racist videos and in this case, paedophilia - fortunately, I've not been sent anything of the latter and yes, as someone with a DBS who volunteers with young people, I would absolutely report it).

 

[Leon103]

Sadly, the way Whatsapp works is that by viewing them, they're saved to your phone.
As I've said above, an iPhone not only saves them, but it saves them to your photo gallery, so they're mixed up with the 1,000s of other photos you have.

At least Android puts them in a separate folder.

The number of times I go through my pictures and go "Hang on, what's this one? where did this come from?"
Whatsapp downloads them even if you haven't stopped to look at them.

Can I point out btw, I'm not apologising for anyone. He deserves the full force of the law and technological ignorance is not an excuse.

You can change the settings that allows you to download them and not auto-download them. I have this, stops all the spam kids photos in the various family groups. Delete in WhatsApp will delete from gallery.

End of the day he was in a group chat with a bunch of paedo's sharing children's photos. He knew what he was doing. There are plenty of legal arguments and stated cases he could have gone down if he genuinely didn't know there were there and didn't access them. I guess there was evidence that he had viewed them on multiple times or talked about them in thr chat.

 

[Stu]

You can change the settings that allows you to download them and not auto-download them. I have this, stops all the spam kids photos in the various family groups. Delete in WhatsApp will delete from gallery.

End of the day he was in a group chat with a bunch of paedo's sharing children's photos. He knew what he was doing. There are plenty of legal arguments and stated cases he could have gone down if he genuinely didn't know there were there and didn't access them. I guess there was evidence that he had viewed them on multiple times or talked about them in thr chat.

Oh completely agree about the privacy settings. It's just many people don't know how to change their settings.

And I absolutely agree - he's pleaded guilty and will likely end up with a suspended sentence.
I'm just glad that the scumbag that sent them will be sent down too. And hopefully if he or whoever filmed them is caught, they'll have their knackers chopped off.

 

[dad_of_jon]

I used to 'police' the IT image filter as IT manager at a previous job. one or two images I did have to look into the law to see if they were illegal. when I introduced the filter I gave all staff prior warning in line with the IT usage policy everyone singed up to and all new staff were informed about when they had their IT induction. for new starters no it induction no login details.

This didn't stop stuff coming in externally that the filter picked up on. Unless there was evidence the person who received them asked for them the receiver was not held responsible for images sent. I would block the email if inappropriate or if illegal the police/isp would be informed.

It would be relatively easy to try and stitch a work colleague up by sending inappropriate content to someone with an email address that would seem to imply it has been sent by the receiver eg from [email protected] to [email protected] forum.

only a few daft so and so's tried to send stuff out. they'd cut and pasted some pics from an unfiltered website then tried to email them out. Our filtering was designed to protect staff from receiveing disturbing email/communications and also to protect the reputation of the company. in a later upgrade to the image filtering software I was able get the software to forward a filter failed email to their staff members line manager and let them deal with it as appropriate. I was just the system admin it was for a persons line manager to deal with inappropriate communications. (of course if it was hacking related or breach of security that was different)

I'd never felt such a relief when I didn't have to deal with image filter fails anymore :-)

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Disgraced BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been given a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after he admitted charges of making indecent images of children.

The court heard that Edwards replied "yes xxx" when asked in a WhatsApp chat whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16".

He will be placed on the *** offenders' register for seven years.

In July, the former newsreader admitted having 41 images, which were sent to him on WhatsApp – including some showing a victim aged between seven and nine.

During his sentencing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court he was also told to attend a *** offender treatment programme.

Edwards was sent images by a 25-year-old convicted *** offender called Alex Williams. The court heard that when Williams asked Edwards if he wanted more images of young people, Edwards replied: "Go on." Another time he said: "Amazing."

The judge remarked that the former broadcaster's "long-earned reputation" was "in tatters".

A BBC spokesperson said the corporation was "appalled" by Edwards' crimes.

"He has betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him.”

Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children. Under the law, images can mean photos or clips.

The court previously heard that Edwards sent hundreds of pounds to a convicted *** offender after they sent him ****ographic images.

While most of the images were of adult men, a significant proportion of the images were of children.

Of the 377 images, 41 were indecent images, which means they were underage.

The court heard that the Category A images Edwards was in possession of were mostly children aged 13-15.

One child was aged between seven and nine.

Full article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

 

[Druss]

I was watching the report on this earlier, the judge apparently went on and on about how Edwards' mental health was problematic, he was at risk of self harm and was a very fragile individual who just shouldn't be imprisoned under any circumstances.

All but patting him on the head and saying 'there there, nothing bad will happen to you, just don't do it again'.

Meanwhile people are in jail, in some cases for years, for hurting somebody's feelings on Facebook with their terrible, terrible words.

The English judicial system ladies and gentlemen...

 

[The Baron]

The question is how long has this been going on probably well before his mental health really became a issue.
the judge/magistrate seems to accept that he is really sorry, the only reason he is sorry is because he was caught and it would still be going on had he not been caught

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Meanwhile people are in jail, in some cases for years, for hurting somebody's feelings on Facebook with their terrible, terrible words.

Apparently the guy that sent Edwards the images has only got 12 months suspended its a crazy world we now live in.

 

[LeeH]

Meanwhile, pensioners are freezing to death, boat people get all expenses paid and you get jailed for a slightly edgy tweet.

 

[Clint]

He's only sorry he got caught.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

He's only sorry he got caught.

Exactly.

 

[Stu]

Apparently the guy that sent Edwards the images has only got 12 months suspended its a crazy world we now live in.

That for me is a bigger crime.

Edwards got 6 months suspended for RECEIVING moody pictures and the guy that SENDS them gets 12 months suspended?

That's what is wrong with this world!

 

[Rodcx500z]

They need room for all the far right thugs in the country

 

[Stu]

Just reading through the article, a couple of things stand out to me.
So here goes....
"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says it can include:

• opening an email attachment containing an image
• downloading an image from a website to a screen
• storing an image on a computer
• accessing a ****ographic website in which an image appears in an automatic "pop-up" window
• receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
• or live-streaming images of children

You may not know this or not, but when you visit a website, any images you see are automatically store in your "cache", so downloaded to your computer.

So let's look at a theoretical example. You often look at BBC for your news.
Except one day, someone hacks the BBC and uploads a picture on a news article of an underage child (boy, girl, bestiality, basically something illegal)

In theory, that's illegal. You could be sent to prison for that.
If it's not the BBC, it's this forum. I mean, there's no filter on what images I can post. I wouldn't, but if I had such pictures, they could be posted here. Chippy would take them down, but not before many of you had viewed them (been disgusted and reported them, but they're now downloaded to your computer)

As for the second point, you're on some **** site, enjoying yourself and a pop-up comes up, with an image of an under 18 year old, you're now nicked. There's nothing you can do about it (other than have pop-up blockers or whatever).

These laws need looking at. You could end up on the *** offenders register with a criminal record for minding your own business.

I mentioned elsewhere that in the early days of the internet, it was like the Wild West. Genuinely, I have never seen any child ****, underage nakedness or whatever, but I've seen some stuff that can't be unseen. For instance, a site called "Dan's Gallery of the Grotesque" had pictures of people after car accidents, shot and so on. Another chatroom I used to frequent, we used to get the odd troll who would post up bestiality. My missus confirmed she has also seen stuff like this.

I'll confirm, what has been seen, cannot be unseen. But in theory, had the laws been in place today, I'd be nicked.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Edwards got 6 months suspended for RECEIVING moody pictures

Several of these pictures involved very young children they were not moody.

Of those images shared over WhatsApp, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, while one was aged as young as between seven and nine.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

So let's look at a theoretical example. You often look at BBC for your news.
Except one day, someone hacks the BBC and uploads a picture on a news article of an underage child (boy, girl, bestiality, basically something illegal)

In theory, that's illegal. You could be sent to prison for that.
If it's not the BBC, it's this forum. I mean, there's no filter on what images I can post. I wouldn't, but if I had such pictures, they could be posted here. Chippy would take them down, but not before many of you had viewed them (been disgusted and reported them, but they're now downloaded to your computer)

In theory you are correct but if you are visiting a site like this that is not known for hosting pictures of child abuse no court is going to prosecute any member for accidentally viewing them while looking at a brewing related thread.

Its fairly unlikely they would appear here in the first place or on any site where the Admins/Mods are vigilant, stop forum spam is also good at flagging people who have been banned from sites and we check every new members IP, email address and location if anything looks dodgy they don't get in.