this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
31 points (97.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4105 readers
130 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 months ago (5 children)

According to the article he was sent the images by another man, he repeatedly asked the man not to send underage images, and he didn't keep the images or forward them. He was charged with making indecent images of children and pleaded guilty. Does this mean that anyone who is sent such images can be legally guilty of this, even if they don't request or want the images and delete them right away? Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images? Or are there other considerations that go into making such a charge?

[–] TedZanzibar 23 points 3 months ago

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.

Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort."

I suppose the facts that he a) retained some of the images, b) didn't report having received them and c) continued talking to the man has some bearing on his charges.

[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago

Yes, and yes.

It's a very silly aspect of the law, which made sense before digital distribution (e.g making photocopies) but needs amending now.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.

Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort."


Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images?

Yes, I think so.

[–] gasgiant@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago

Only if they didn't report such a message/activity and fully cooperate.

My understanding is that if you are party to things like this and don't take the required action then you are liable to this wider definition of making.

So you are essentially complicit in the making of them because you didn't try and stop/report it in a timely manner.

Happens with loads of other stuff like murders, terror, theft etc... Basically if you know about serious crimes and don't take any action. Then you can be found guilty of a very similar offence as the people who committed the exact offence.

[–] wtfrank 2 points 3 months ago

Has anyone heard what's happened to the guy who sent the images? This presumably is the greater crime but there has been silence in the coverage I've seen

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's nice and all but did he report it to the police? CP is mandatory report by iirc every person in the eu and UK itself.