Unless I'm reading it wrong someone who he was chatting with sent him some underage porn pictures and Edwards told him to stop. I'm not saying there should be no consequences, but it doesn't sound like he's some sort of mega-nonce
As a defence that doesn't stack up if you kept the pictures or failed to report the source to the authorities. It seems that he admitted possessing 41 images which he had requested.
Some of the images were of a child aged between 7 and 9; the majority age 12 - 15. Not the 17 year old at all. He did tell the sender to stop sending them; apparently didn’t keep them or send them on. But he reported nothing. And the finer details don’t look good. The hearing for sentencing will no doubt have his legal team offering plenty of mitigation. Including his recent history of serious mental health issues. I suspect he won’t get a custodial sentence. Especially if he’s been co-operative throughout and has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
CP is a strict liability offence. If someone sends you some and you open it - you've broken the law. If you go to the authorities, you could well be charged even if it was unsolicited. They would also go after the person sending the images too. It does leave it open to ruin someone by sending them images that are illegal.
Pretty sure you are reading it wrong and I also think "underage porn" is a bit of a soft description "They included seven category A images, the most serious classification - two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine." That means they are photos of a small child being raped I cant believe he got sent those by accident. The guy sending them was a known nonce so why was Edwards chatting to him
That's it. He did the right thing in telling the person not to send underage, not keeping them and not sharing them. Where he messed up was not reporting it to the police and instead of blocking the person carry on chatting to them.
Obviously I totally condemn what he's done, and he should feel the full force of the law. However when I read up on the charges, I was surprised to see the legal definition of 'making indecent images'. I imagine most people will probably hear 'making indecent images' and assume the person has been directly involved in creating them. But that isn't necessarily the case, which I personally think is a misleading definition. "The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad and the following can amount to making indecent images; opening an email attachment, downloading an indecent image, storing an image, and accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up”. But just to be 100% clear, I'm not trying to defend him in any way. I just think the legal definition of the charge is potentially misleading.
I would imagine, although I don't know this to be the case, it's because a file is just zeros and ones, and it's not until a piece of software capable of reading that file and rendering it does it become an image. If I email a jpeg to you, created on my camera at the Barnsley match last night, I send a file, it's not until you open it in the relevant software that it is made into an image. They used to use the word pseudo-image as anyone who used this site back in the day will remember, but I'm guessing that proved too problematic.