- Joined
- Jun 30, 2018
- Messages
- 6,028
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the victims' families.Who the **** appointed them to defend the victims' families in this way. Pathetic.
Had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the victims' families.
I doubt it had anything to do with assaulting the cops either.
Twunts.But who throws bricks at a dog!!!!
I'm confused by reading the article. So if someone sends you illegal images, even if you didn't ask for them or know what they are and you delete them immediately, you are then guilty of making indecent images?Is this a case of the law being an ass?
My understanding on this brief statement because Edwards received the images he technically reproduced them and therefore guilty. Even though by the sounds he specifically asked not to receive any and was not informed they were.
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
Yeah but its more complex from the article it looks like he asked for reassurances and specifically asked for them not to be illegal.I'm confused by reading the article. So if someone sends you illegal images, even if you didn't ask for them or know what they are and you delete them immediately, you are then guilty of making indecent images?
If that's what happened then I don't understand why he's being prosecuted. (maybe I've missed something obvious) Did he not delete them?
Edit: Discussed with my wife who works in the legal field. She suggested that "He did not keep the images" doesn't mean he didn't watch or look at them. Also doesn't give a time frame. Did he delete them immediately, did he keep them for a week, then delete them?