Hi
Re NC:
Obviously with his reported childhood trauma he does have an "interest" in discussing this topic but, to be a presenter there has to be a balance else we just end up with "Trump" style talk shows i.e. no debate.

I have called into and spoke on the show on numerous times for discussions on numerous topics and to be blunt, he does has have an agenda to "rile" callers so they are more expressive. That is the aim of these types of shows and hence there and his popularity, which to an extent I have no issue with.

In various topics I have "echoed" the statement that an image offence is not a victimless offence and I have attempted (kindly) to word my opinion in a way not to ostracize anyone further than "society will and does do.

My point is, as you highlighted, the " two-faced soap box moralizing" that I feel he showed and I quoted. 
Not withstanding anything else, I do feel his manner and tone was aimed more at influencing his listeners and overall "society", that rehabilitation is not possible for an "SO"!
We know that is not the fact but, this is an example of the barriers we face in rehabilitating "society".

As I suggested, I do think the podcast is worth a listen, even if only to hear a Probation Officer standing firm on "rehabilitation" is possible.




Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

Nicky Campbell has always been a zero tolerance campaigner. Whether we like it or not, it is a perfectly reasonable POV for a person to hold as long as they don't show hypocrisy like James "I Believe Carl Beech" O'Brien does. I have a lot less respect for his two-faced soap box moralising.

And of course, we all know that rehabilitation is possible, or we probably wouldn't be on the Unlock forum, but it is difficult to take part in such programmes with also revealing how we know that rehabilitation is possible!

Hi
I am not sure if you listened to the Radio 5 Nicky Campbell show on the 17th? To be honest I listened to some then decided to just download the Podcast.
In the first slots there was a lot of "official" explanations surrounding many of the points raised in this topic; however not the one why didn't it go to the Crown Court.

For instance he was giving a SHPO as the Magistrate thought he had shown already he willingness to rehabilitate and in fact was already on that journey so didn't need one.

Listen to the PO gent as he was a strong believer in the true that rehabilitation is possible.

Nicky Campbell showed his true opinions in questioning the honesty of an ex Image offender but immediately believing "EVERYTHING" a self acclaimed "pedo hunter" said.

It is worth listening to though I am sure many will feel aggravated at the opinions and words spoken by some contributors. 




Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

In terms of time, I wasn't thinking about the time they spend in court. I was thinking about the time they have to prepare. I know they were published a while ago, but The Secret Barrister and also In Your Defence by Sarah Langford are quite revealing, and Sarah Langford's book also shows the effect that certain accusations can have on the accused. Beyond that, there probably is a culture of disapproval, especially among magistrates. I used to work with one and he told me that he decided what verdict and punishment he has in mind before anyone has said anything.

The guidelines on SHPOs are quite clear - they should not be suddenly revealed at the last minute, they should be given to the defence at least two days before the hearing. Of course, no court is going to reject one on that basis, although it would certainly make the CPS sharpen up, because certain tabloids would instantly be labelling them as Enemies of the People. So, they fail to enforce their own guidelines. Easy solution? Make it clear to the prosecution that they need to produce the SHPO text at least two days before the hearing, or no SHPO. Won't happen, though, as there is no public sympathy.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

I'm not convinced that legal aid barristers don't have the time to argue against an SHPO. Mine spent a long time quibbling with the judge over the exact wording of it. I think this has more to do with the culture surrounding these offences. It's become the norm for judges to impose SHPOs without really thinking about it. That may have something to do with the pressure they are under to hear so many cases. It was obvious in my case, that the judge didn't really want to argue about the SHPO, he wanted to move on to the next hearing. In the end, he just ordered the CPS to rewrite the SHPO and send him a copy later.

There is an issue with the SHPOs being poorly written by the CPS and dropped on the defence at the very last moment. The barrister has to think about mitigating that, on top of whatever mitigation they have already prepared. The difference in the Huw Edwards case was that they had a lot of mitigation to put forward. Detailed psychological reports that I bet the magistrate didn't even read. They took the psychologists word for it that he was getting better and therefore was no longer a risk.

The problem for other people who don't have these reports, is that they have no proof that they are getting better. They may have been to therapy, but probably don't have anything in writing from the therapist to say how well they are doing.  

The law has always taken rioting more seriously. Any incitement was always going to be stomped down hard, whether a keyboard warrior or an actual participant.

Whilst the current state of the probation service is a disgrace, there is always the belief that online offences can be "managed" which doesn't apply to mobs.

Actually, beings sentenced to six months suspended means he will be on the SOR for seven years, not ten.

On the question of whether he should have been sent to prison, there has been guidance for some time now that any sentence of a year or less should be suspended. Given the current situation with prison capacity, there are more arguments for suspension rather than imprisonment, and it does mean that the six months can be activated at any time in the next two years. If that ever happens, I think that would mean he could then enjoy post-licence supervision by probation before experiencing the tender mercies of the police.

I'm not surprised that his barrister made strong arguments against an SHPO, as he would be paying them to do that. Legal Aid barristers and solicitors don't necessarily have the time to do stuff like that, regardless of their views on the subject. Many other offenders are surely in a similar situation with regard to their mental health, but they are in a different league when it comes to Legal Aid funding.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

The Huw Edwards sentencing was broadly in line with what we might expect for these offences nowadays. However, there were some unusual elements to it.

First, it was dealt with at the magistrates and not referred to the crown court. If there were only Cat C images involved, then that would be understandable, because the maximum sentence for possession is 1 year and that's within the magistrates powers. But there were Cat A images too, which means the maximum sentence is 3 years. So it should have gone to Crown Court. The fact that the magistrate didn't send it up, would suggest they had already decided what the sentence was going to be, before having heard all the evidence.

Second, there was no SHPO. I suppose this emphasises the importance of having a good legal team, because his barrister questioned the need for one, which most barristers sadly fail to do. I thought it was amusing to hear the media report that Edwards "glared" at the prosecution, when they described him as a risk to children, because it's the job of the CPS to make things sound as bad as possible and to exaggerate any possible threat. The chief magistrate said that it was not necessary to subject Edwards to the additional SHPO conditions, given the progress towards rehabilitation already underway. That is interesting, because many of those sentenced are already on the road to rehabilitation, but still they get given SHPOs.

The fact is, that we know almost all of those convicted of image offences, pose no risk to children. Most will not re offend, so an SHPO is not necessary in almost all of these cases, apart from the most high risk individuals. The barrister said the SHPO was not required because the offences took place a long time ago. That's true of nearly everybody who goes to court. But what's different about the Huw Edwards situation, is that we do have allegations of him contacting a 17 year old and offering money for images, as well as allegations of inappropriate behaviour at work. It appears these allegations were not considered, as part of his risk assessment.

On the face of it, there are good reasons to believe that Huw Edwards might be at risk of committing contact offences, unlike most image offenders, so he should have been given an SHPO with contact restrictions, but now he has no restrictions at all on his internet use, or where he can go.

Third, there were extensive psychological reports, detailing issues with his father, impulsivity and alcohol misuse. Again, if you were to look into the background of most image offenders, you would find mental health problems, it's just that most of us cannot afford to pay for a psychiatric report.

On the whole, it was well reported, including all of the defence team's mitigation, and not just the prosecution's case. But why was he described as a convicted sex offender, while the person who sent the images to him was labelled a convicted paedophile? Surely either both men are sex offenders, or both are paedophiles?

Also, why did the police release a custody photo of Edwards, when everybody already knows what he looks like?

There will inevitably be a debate about soft sentencing, with many pointing out that people who said nasty things on social media, during the recent riots, were given jail time, yet Edwards was not. Again, we know why this happens, because jailing everyone convicted of image offences would mean a big and more importantly a long term increase in the prison population, and the riots were most likely a one off event. It's just a numbers game at the end of the day.

It is, as you put it, quite deliberate. However, as a techie, I think it is a reasonable word to describe the situation without requiring the law to maintain a list of different terms to describe all situations which would necessarily also have to try to predict future technology. You can't view an image without it being "made" in some shape or form. If a person is not charged with possession, then that difference will be explained to the jury before deliberation. I pled guilty (no possession or distribution charges) and in  my case I'm pretty sure the judge understood the difference.

Back to Huw...

6 months suspended is probably what I would have predicted after seeing the prosecution case and the defence mitigation reporting this morning. 6 months will mean he is on the SOR for 10 years.

All this stuff about making vs possessing vs receiving vs distributing is an interesting topic for us, but we have to accept that it's not for those with "normal" mindsets. I was convicted of an offence I didn't commit. Someone managed to access zoom and appear as if they were using my IP address.

Police officers were present in the chat room for a period of two hours or so. That in itself gives me pause. In what other sort of crime investigation would that happen? If two people were looting a store, would officers arrive and rather than arrest the two and secure the store, decide to just sit around an wait for other looters to arrive?

The person using my address didn't upload any images to zoom, merely typed a request for images of a different gender to those that others were showing. They typed about five lines of text. No mention of age or activity was made, just an offensively worded preference for a particular gender (in fact, a specific genitalia). A total of ten videos were shown by other users  whilst the officers were present, of which four could have been regarded as "in response to" the person's requests.

I was charged and convicted of "making an indecent image", despite a police forensic examination of all my devices revealing nothing illegal or even immoral. I was even able to show that the userID associated with this person was different to the userID on my phone. I believe I was convicted solely on the strength of a previous caution from 2010 for possession of 50 category D images, which the prosecution and judge decided should be revealed.

I was convicted on four counts of "making" indecent images. My barrister said there is previous case law that "making" should not be interpreted differently in a digital environment than it is in the real world. This if you ask for a coffee in Starbucks, you would not say you "made" the coffee. However since my defence was that I was not this person, my barrister spent little time on defending or mitigating the actual offence, focussing more on the lack of evidence.

Initially, the prosecution were going to charge me with "assisting an offender in the commission of an offence". However, my barrister blocked that because apparently the user who actually posted the images was overseas, and apparently they needed the home secretary's approval to proceed in that case. The prosecution didn't bother, and came back with the four "making" charges.

As I said, all very interesting to me...but as soon as I reveal that 2010 caution (which I admit was me) the rest of the world stops caring. Like the jury, they simply label you and dismiss you. No one cares about a fine distinction between "viewing", "making" and "distributing"; you're just a pervert if you did any of them, and you got what you deserved.

How we got to that state of affairs is perhaps more interesting. Why would someone write into a pornography law an offence of "making", but ignore the obvious term of "copying"? That could be applied to older technology just as easily; VHS videos, CDs, even magazines could be copied, and copying is arguably a worse offence than mere possession since it increases the quantity of said pornography in society.

But no, we are stuck with "making"; and I believe it's deliberate. It gives the general public one one clear mental image when hearing about any case; a simple image of creation, recording the abuse of a child. That leads to the sort of investigation we see, with authorities leaving known illegal material online, lying in waiting for those who come to find it.

True "creators" are rarely arrested. Why would they be? Thanks to these wild definitions, they can arrest and convict anyone and call them a "creator"; and why arrest true creators when without them the material disappears and the police lose their source of an everlasting supply of always-popular-with-the-public convictions?

To my knowledge, no one else in the chat room was ever convicted, or even charged.

Hi
Thanks but I suppose I am always disappointed that the Police provide and the media report, on aspects of a persons private life when the activity is legal.
In reality though I assume it is to gain support - in what they try to promote as not normal behavior - when in fact purchasing "legal" material has and is a common practice by the majority of society.

Anyway it will be interesting to read about his sentence.




Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

They probably met on another app and then moved to Whatsapp later, because it's regarded as more secure. There were other allegations about meeting young men on dating apps and offering them money in return for pictures too. That was also investigated by the police but nothing illegal was found.

Hi
I heard today about the suspended sentence for the sender during a discussion about the "riot" justice fast tracking; but not to diagress
To be honest I hadn't seen the "other" words used to describe the offence in the media so thank you for that update.
As this is "labeled" as being in the Public interest, I suppose in ways I was "thinking about how they term many offences under one description, which can possibly confuse thoughts or understanding of the true details. Example being the term "pedo" is used for every SO but in reality should only be used for acts with under 13 year old- so I have been led to believe.

Back to Huw, I tried to explain the term "making" to someone in that it does not mean they took a photo or drawn the image necessarily, but their devices process of storing the image "makes" a copy to the storage so yes that is "making".

The receiving element is interesting on 2 points: (1) how did the sender get Huw's whatsapp number as i would of thought it would be private etc? (2) I remember back in 2011 the media (SUN) reported how a grandfather had clicked on an email from an unknown source and an "image" was displayed. Short story he reported it to Mr PC who took his computer away. Social Services became involved and a "supervised only" order was given to him etc whilst the inspection happened.
6 months later, and depressed with the public gossiping and accusations he took his life. The police said sorry for being slow in confirming he was not responsible and not a danger.
Hence I also wonder how the "not requesting" images will be handled.



Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

The reporting did change slightly, as the story developed. First they said 'making', then they said 'accessing' images, then they said, correctly, receiving images. So he didn't create them, he was sent them by another person, but legally that is still called 'making'.

It was also reported that he told the other person not to send him underage stuff, yet he didn't delete the things that had already been sent. That might affect the sentencing as well. The person who sent him the images got a 12 month suspended sentence, so if he gets any more than that, then it would because of who he is, rather than what he did.

Hi
I think we all look at this case with a tinge of bias and interest, as though we would want justice for the victims, our own experiences wonder if - as mentioned - his money to pay for very expensive legal support, will in fact lessen any punishment; whatever that maybe.

I would be confident that the "mental health" aspect will be used as a mitigating factor; as I assume it was before these recent relavations! I know from experience that one of those arrested in the same police operation I was, used "mental health issues" for 2 years after all others had been sentenced as a delaying tactic; and then he was only given a suspended sentence, and he was a child care worker!!

As mentioned the "media reporting" has been varied be it from the "holy than thou" brigade or the infamous "lets crucify SOs for our own agenda!" brigade.
Some reporting says he did not "open" the images sent to him, therefore if correct how should he be judged on those? 

One simply statement published I know has caused confusion with friends is the charge of "creating or making" images. Though I will always argue "viewing does create a victim", why if he did not  actually "create/make" the images is it worded that way? This does cause confusion with the public and does has consequences!

I am not trying to support his actions in any way but I do think if any of us was in his shoes, we would be questioning the targeting and political bias he is receiving becuase of his job which is not a role of trust anyway!



Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

I expect he will play the mental health card and say he was depressed when he did it. That may well be true. He's been hiding his true sexuality for years, like a lot of celebs and that takes its toll. The judge may accept that, because he will probably have lots of psychiatric reports from Harley Street experts, saying how ill he was, but as we've seen with Caroline Flack, the system doesn't always go easy on someone, just because they are at risk of suicide. If they did, there would be a lot less people in jail.

It was the police who tipped off the BBC, presumably after Saville, they wanted to cover themselves in case it went public and when the arrest happened, I think he was already suspended because of earlier and completely separate allegations in the Sun about his conduct, so maybe that was their justification. I agree that he has no obligation to return the money, and its been poorly reported, with some news outlets saying the BBC 'told' him, or 'ordered' him to return the cash. Totally wrong. They only asked him to return it. His legal bills will be pretty big, but I would suggest for his own reputation, he ought to donate it to a charity like StopSO, or Unlock.

When it comes to living abroad, most of Europe, except for Ireland, has no SOR and so I assume he would left alone. Any SHPOs etc would not be enforceable in a foreign country.

Well, while I was inside, one of my mates was told by the judge that he was "going to make an example of him" as he was a public servant. This isn't exactly the same, as I'm betting he has a very good legal team, and they won't be telling him to shut up and take what he's given. I'm sure if there are any misgivings at all about his behaviour, the prosecution will go for an SHPO as a default. I'm certainly not unsympathetic to anyone in these circumstances, but when I was assessed for my OBP, the facilitator told me that feelings of anxiety and depression were expected in people who had been arrested for that, so was he diagnosed before the arrest or after?

He may well have a second home abroad somewhere, but if he needs to live somewhere he will need a police certificate to support his visa application/renewal. It's not as if he is likely to fly under the radar. Who knows what a foreign country would make of his record? Mind you, it has been said that other countries have a different attitude to rehabilitation. I'm thinking Netherlands and volleyball, for some reason, but I'm sure there are plenty of other cases.

Moving on to the BBC's handling of the aftermath, that is driven by their need to be seen to be Doing Something about all this and expressing moral outrage. He was off work due to sickness, so the only thing they might have done wrong was to give him that pay rise, unless they were contractually obliged to do it. I don't know why someone felt the need to tip them off about the arrest, as it's not like he was in a safeguarding role, but if they'd said they weren't going to increase his salary, would he have sued them? He did the smart thing and resigned before they could sack him, so that is effectively the end of it. I'd say he is under no moral or legal obligation to return that money, even though my TV licence payments cover a tiny part of it....

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Good to see the forum is back. It's going to be interesting to see how this case is dealt with. Will he get a tougher sentence, for being a high profile and 'trusted' figure? or will his mental health issues result in a lighter sentence? Do the other allegations about his behaviour mean an SHPO with contact restrictions will be imposed?

Personally if I were in his position, I would just leave the country after sentencing, then he wouldn't be subject to any of the restrictions, or home visits etc. There will be limits on where he can travel to, but maybe he already has a second home in France for example.