4,224 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 1, 2024 8:31:21 GMT
What to say?
What a very sad state of affairs. What a fall from grace!
I feel very much for his family and (obviously) for the children captured in the WhatsApp images
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 1, 2024 8:51:16 GMT
It feels as if those that have been part of this are trying to save face, and have shown very little respect to the victims. Those mentioned on the news commenting on this have forgotten the most important tenet of our legal system; innocent until proven guilty. If what is reported is true, it is horrific but it all sounds like the bbc bosses were working overtime to save face, but were at least respecting the rule of law. It is standard for those suspended at work to carry on being paid whilst the investigation takes place and they are either re-instated or disciplined. I think we need a really clear timeline of events before any conclusions are drawn, and need to see clear evidence that the bbc did not pay him after being made aware that he had been charged. It’s all a big nasty grey mess at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Aug 1, 2024 10:09:31 GMT
With any scandal or crime that comes out like this, I'm always somewhat unsettled to see the glee with which people in the media watch each other's downfall. There's probably an almost festive atmosphere over at GB News right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 10:15:22 GMT
The law on this is extraordinary, and I think important to understand. This post is just about the law.
I'll copy and paste some of a longer article from the Telegraph. I would encourage folks to read the final section about Supt Robyn Williams (in bold)
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Aug 1, 2024 10:21:08 GMT
So essentially, anyone who knows your email or phone number can make you a perpetrator of this crime at their whim?
A court of law may later find you not guilty when the circumstances are examined, but if by that point the story of your being charged has reached the newspapers, your life is over whatever the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2024 10:53:21 GMT
If someone sent me indecent images I'd delete the images, block and report the sender to the police straight away. You don't just leave those images on your device and receive more. This isnt just one image we're talking about.
I agree the law could probably do with refining. But it's hard to see what grey area there is with Huw.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 1, 2024 11:13:16 GMT
If someone sent me indecent images I'd delete the images, block and report the sender to the police straight away. You don't just leave those images on your device and receive more. This isnt just one image we're talking about. I agree the law could probably do with refining. But it's hard to see what grey area there is with Huw. I think the point was that all you’d need to do was open the message and you’d be screwed ‘law-wise’. We don’t know time scales or details, or anything other than we’ve been fed. I’m not defending HIM, just being disillusioned with the dishonesty of a corporation that I partially fund. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 11:18:13 GMT
As I read it, all you need to happen is for the CPS to argue you saw a thumbnail in Whatsapp (as pr the Met Police Superintendant) Is the issue the interpretation by the CPS of the word "making" (which was likely a politically influenced decision, anyway)?
Of course, the longer they leave this, the more people get convicted and the harder it is to change - not the law - buut the interpretation of the law. Or just leave it as it is as a deterrant.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2024 11:22:25 GMT
Yes, if you get sent something you must immediately delete/destroy and report to the police. But there are instances where people don’t quite realise what they have been sent from the thumbnail and are technically guilty of the offence, which is not well-understood by the public.
It sounds as though this is a case where hundreds of images were sent at a time in a data dump - the reported reply by Edwards was ‘don’t send me pictures of anyone underage’, which suggests he was slow to realise what exactly he was being sent.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Aug 1, 2024 11:26:28 GMT
To add to that, if you are part of a whatsapp group chat, you may notice that your phone automatically saves images posted there. If you go to your "recent pictures" on your phone, you may see images downloaded that you don't even recognise because they were posted in a chat you have muted or barely even interact with.
Again, that may not be enough to technically find you guilty, but it can be enough to charge you, and once news gets out that you've been charged...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 1, 2024 11:39:55 GMT
With any scandal or crime that comes out like this, I'm always somewhat unsettled to see the glee with which people in the media watch each other's downfall. There's probably an almost festive atmosphere over at GB News right now. Matched only (and there's no "probably") by total silence from The News Agents Maitliss/Sopel/Goodall who previously vociferously defended their old mate Edwards and wanted The Sun punished. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 1, 2024 11:44:16 GMT
I think we need a really clear timeline of events before any conclusions are drawn, and need to see clear evidence that the bbc did not pay him after being made aware that he had been charged. He was charged on 26th June 2024 at which point he wasn't working for the BBC anyway. He was arrested om 8th November 2023. I'm not sure on what legal basis they could stop paying him at either of those two points - surely only the point at which he was found (or pleaded) guilty would allow them to do that ? |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 1, 2024 11:49:08 GMT
The BBC have serious questions to answer
They have already changed their story since this broke
They knew about the arrest and knew the nature of the crimes
They didn't act and are using Edwards mental health as a reason/excuse not to act at the time.
Yes, there is a duty of care to an employee and people are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
But surely a conversation could still have been had that way they could now be seen to have acted properly rather than giving the impression of colluding in a cover up.
At least one BBC head has to roll over this
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 1, 2024 11:49:21 GMT
Because of the nature of his work, it's possible his contract had clauses about public behaviour. I'd imagine it's a standard thing for some types of contract in that field.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 1, 2024 11:49:58 GMT
I think we need a really clear timeline of events before any conclusions are drawn, and need to see clear evidence that the bbc did not pay him after being made aware that he had been charged. He was charged on 26th June 2024 at which point he wasn't working for the BBC anyway. He was arrested om 8th November 2023. I'm not sure on what legal basis they could stop paying him at either of those two points - surely only the point at which he was found (or pleaded) guilty would allow them to do that ? Maybe ‘when they actually knew’ vs ‘when they acknowledged that they knew’ is clearer. NB -: Josie Gibson calling out the BBC for continuing to pay him his massive salary just smacks of ignorance. If she accidentally ran over a child whilst employed by ITV would she still expect to be paid while the investigation took place? The law is the law, however unpleasant the ramifications. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2024 12:31:55 GMT
It’s rather unfair to accuse the BBC of a cover up - the original complaint was without merit, with no charges brought, and did affect his mental health.
The images surfaced on a forensic examination of the devices - which really does take some time, and police will not actually reveal what they have found to the suspect and bring charges until they have all the possible evidence in hand.
From the BBC’s perspective the story really did change.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 1, 2024 12:43:55 GMT
It’s rather unfair to accuse the BBC of a cover up - the original complaint was without merit, with no charges brought, and did affect his mental health. The images surfaced on a forensic examination of the devices - which really does take some time, and police will not actually reveal what they have found to the suspect and bring charges until they have all the possible evidence in hand. From the BBC’s perspective the story really did change. You make a good point. I think the real problem is that our gutter press get hold of/are fed any morsel of celebrity tittle tattle before it has a chance of being thoroughly examined or properly prosecuted. Since when did they decide which stories are in the publics best interest? |
|
1,519 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 12:53:51 GMT
If someone sent me indecent images I'd delete the images, block and report the sender to the police straight away. ... Would you though? The report to the police bit I mean. You'd know full well that would mean all your electronic devices, including those you have access to at work, would likely be seized by the police for forensic investigation. Apart from the massive inconvenience, you've got to explain this to your employer and fellow householders. Your job would be seriously at risk. The "no smoke without fire" mob mentality would judge you. I expect that most people would delete and block, and pray that was an end to it. The law here is not fit for purpose. Anyone of us could unwittingly fall foul of it. The appalling prosecution of the Metropolitan Police chief is a case in point. |
|
2,780 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 1, 2024 12:53:55 GMT
The images surfaced on a forensic examination of the devices - which really does take some time, and police will not actually reveal what they have found to the suspect and bring charges until they have all the possible evidence in hand. And the devices were not searched on the basis of the original story, it was following a search of the devices of the man who had been messaging Edwards, who was charged last year and convicted earlier this year. So this charge is genuinely completely unconnected to the story that broke last summer. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 1, 2024 12:57:26 GMT
It is not true to say that the original complaint was without merit. The police decided it didn't reach the threshold to bring charges but that is not the same as being without merit
Behaviour/actions can be deeply unpleasant, damaging and/or unethical and still not lead to a criminal charge
Edwards is clearly a troubled man and it is absolutely right that his career is now at an end.
I am almost certain he won't serve any prison time for this given that the other party to these exchanges only got a suspended sentence.
|
|
1,519 posts
|
Post by mkb on Aug 1, 2024 13:02:42 GMT
With any scandal or crime that comes out like this, I'm always somewhat unsettled to see the glee with which people in the media watch each other's downfall. There's probably an almost festive atmosphere over at GB News right now. Matched only (and there's no "probably") by total silence from The News Agents Maitliss/Sopel/Goodall who previously vociferously defended their old mate Edwards and wanted The Sun punished. I would join them in not condemning (yet). Based on what has been reported so far of court proceedings, it's difficult to see what Edwards could have done differently, unless you advocate people not being allowed to access legal porn online. If further facts come to light, I'll revise my opinion accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Aug 1, 2024 13:30:24 GMT
If someone sent me indecent images I'd delete the images, block and report the sender to the police straight away. ... Would you though? The report to the police bit I mean. You'd know full well that would mean all your electronic devices, including those you have access to at work, would likely be seized by the police for forensic investigation. Apart from the massive inconvenience, you've got to explain this to your employer and fellow householders. Your job would be seriously at risk. The "no smoke without fire" mob mentality would judge you. I expect that most people would delete and block, and pray that was an end to it. The law here is not fit for purpose. Anyone of us could unwittingly fall foul of it. The appalling prosecution of the Metropolitan Police chief is a case in point. Yes, exactly. It seems ridiculous that you cannot report such a serious crime without being automatically implicated yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 1, 2024 13:34:16 GMT
Yep, you’d hope that common sense would prevail but then out of date rules of law make it impossible for common sense to make a difference, or conversely when morally bereft lawyers know what loopholes to exploit.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 1, 2024 13:50:36 GMT
It is not true to say that the original complaint was without merit. The police decided it didn't reach the threshold to bring charges but that is not the same as being without merit Behaviour/actions can be deeply unpleasant, damaging and/or unethical and still not lead to a criminal charge Edwards is clearly a troubled man and it is absolutely right that his career is now at an end. I am almost certain he won't serve any prison time for this given that the other party to these exchanges only got a suspended sentence. The original complaint was from estranged family members of a young man. It was found to be without merit in part because the young man himself insisted there was nothing to complain about. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that the story the family members sold the papers was actually true in its details. There was contact between the two men as mutually consenting adults. The rest of the accusations were not evidenced. I am sure you don't want people to assume that all such accusations from family members are true without any evidence or a victim’s testinony, given the homophobia that still exists among certain pockets of the population. Edwards is clearly a troubled man, yes. And troubled people make bad decisions and get themselves embroiled in situations that mentally healthy people would avoid. And yes, his career is now over and his life ruined, even without a custodial sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 1, 2024 13:51:40 GMT
I had to deal with a case not too many years ago.
The time between his arrest and court appearance was over 2 years.
In the interim, he kept it to himself and was active in the local arts community throughout that time. At times, this brought him into close contact with children.
When it all finally came to light after he pleaded guilty, the sense of betrayal was huge. It was deeply distressing not only to have his crimes revealed but also the fact that a friend for close to 15 years thought he could continue as if nothing had happened even though he was planning on pleading guilty all along.
This was the fourth time in my life that someone I knew was convicted of this sort of offence.
And so my perspective of such matters is going to be different as a result.
My distress is nothing compared to the damage done to the victims of sexual abuse. And the court system needs to be sped up to keep delays between charge and trial to an absolute minimum.
But if a perpetrator is going to not contest the charges, then their honourable course of action is to be honest about this in all relevant areas of their life and not to pretend that nothing is happening until the last possible minute.
Edwards was wrong to engage in image sharing with this person.
But he was also wrong not to immediately sever all links with the BBC as soon as this started to come to light. This needs not have been made fully public at the time and would have saved the BBC from the reaction that has hit them this week.
|
|
