Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:38 am
From an article on the Edwards case, this case is also mentioned. This seems particularly harsh.
Last year, Metropolitan police chief, Supt Robyn Williams, was found guilty of possessing indecent images on her phone after she received an unsolicited WhatsApp message that included a video of child sexual abuse.
The jury at the Old Bailey was told how Williams was attending a gym class when she was sent the video by her sister, who wanted the person who made the video caught by police and charged.
The point in the full article (not in this quote) about 'making images' is that it is deemed so because the phone 'makes' a copy when it receives the image.
I remember that one. Seemed harsh at the time the issue being though that she didn’t immediately report it.
The phone makes a copy..( i think this is a settings option on WhatsApp), so we really need a 'dangerous phones act' or similar..: .it does seem harsh when unsolicited calls are widely accepted - It's akin to a stranger leaving a vile message (eg. racist/sexist) on your answerphone or voicemail and you copping for it. I'm assuming context etc gets factored in.
Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:38 am
From an article on the Edwards case, this case is also mentioned. This seems particularly harsh.
The point in the full article (not in this quote) about 'making images' is that it is deemed so because the phone 'makes' a copy when it receives the image.
I remember that one. Seemed harsh at the time the issue being though that she didn’t immediately report it.
The phone makes a copy..( i think this is a settings option on WhatsApp), so we really need a 'dangerous phones act' or similar..: .it does seem harsh when unsolicited calls are widely accepted - It's akin to a stranger leaving a vile message (eg. racist/sexist) on your answerphone or voicemail and you copping for it. I'm assuming context etc gets factored in.
That would be taken as mitigation during sentencing. If she had reported immediately that an image had been received, I doubt that it would ever have gone to court. The fact she didnt was the problem. She did claim in court that she hadnt realised that she had been sent the image, but that wasnt believed.
I'd not paid any attention to this. Had got the impression it was all "borderline" stuff (for want of a better phrase) but this sounds pretty grim and he seems to have basically gotten away with it? This £300k a year BBC pension figure I just read must surely be bullshit. That seems like an insane number.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:50 am
I'd not paid any attention to this. Had got the impression it was all "borderline" stuff (for want of a better phrase) but this sounds pretty grim and he seems to have basically gotten away with it? This £300k a year BBC pension figure I just read must surely be bullshit. That seems like an insane number.
He hasn't basically got away with it. He's got at the heavy end of what anyone gets for pleading in similar circumstances.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:38 am
From an article on the Edwards case, this case is also mentioned. This seems particularly harsh.
The point in the full article (not in this quote) about 'making images' is that it is deemed so because the phone 'makes' a copy when it receives the image.
I remember that one. Seemed harsh at the time the issue being though that she didn’t immediately report it.
The phone makes a copy..( i think this is a settings option on WhatsApp), so we really need a 'dangerous phones act' or similar..: .it does seem harsh when unsolicited calls are widely accepted - It's akin to a stranger leaving a vile message (eg. racist/sexist) on your answerphone or voicemail and you copping for it. I'm assuming context etc gets factored in.
To be guilty of "making" the person needs to have done some positive act, eg clicking a link or downloading a photo. They probably have a defence if they had no way of knowing or suspecting what was contained therein and they probably wouldn't get prosecuted if they deleted immediately.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:50 am
I'd not paid any attention to this. Had got the impression it was all "borderline" stuff (for want of a better phrase) but this sounds pretty grim and he seems to have basically gotten away with it? This £300k a year BBC pension figure I just read must surely be bullshit. That seems like an insane number.
He hasn't basically got away with it. He's got at the heavy end of what anyone gets for pleading in similar circumstances.
Yeah fair enough, I was also thrown off by the use of the word ‘making’.
.it does seem harsh when unsolicited calls are widely accepted - It's akin to a stranger leaving a vile message (eg. racist/sexist) on your answerphone or voicemail and you copping for it. I'm assuming context etc gets factored in.
