Blimey! So it was him!
π³
shareThe teen was 17, legal here.
shareLegal as in AOC, but illegal in respect of 'indecent' images (for which the age is 18).
shareBut the Met Police have concluded their investigation and "determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed":-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469
So basically, no crime and no privacy respected whilst it was under investigation. Another "win" for the Sun "newspaper"...
Yes, I presume that means there's no evidence that any images were made/obtained whilst the young person was 17.
shareYeah, that's what I thought too.
Although someone did say it was discretionary whether they'd prosecute. So maybe the kid was 17 turning 18 soon or maybe they'd sold loads of pictures to other people as well, so it was clear they weren't being exploited. Who knows...
But basically, we, the public, shouldn't have known anything about this. Just another feeding frenzy induced by The Sun.
The CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] has discretion over prosecutions. There needs to be evidence of a crime (supplied by the police investigation) and the prosecution needs to be in the public interest (decided by the CPS).
So, say, a sixteen year old consensually sends saucy photographs to their eighteen year old partner. That could technically be a crime. And there would likely be evidence of that crime. But no-one in their right mind could possibly give a crap about that. So the CPS would likely decide it was not in the public interest to prosecute if it ever got that far.
But this matter doesn't even appear to have gone to the CPS. The Metropolitan and Welsh police have simply found no evidence of criminal activity during their investigation.
This appears to be a case of The Sun destroying a man's career and life because they're overly eager to score points against the BBC.
Looks like they dug deeper and he was properly guilty - i.e. not just a technicality in the 16-18 bracket.
Images of kids under 10 years old:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o
Yeah. I've seen that. Naturally enough, when the (available) facts change, my opinion changes. I hope he gets plenty of jail time -- and I couldn't give a crap if he was having mental health issues. Lots of people have mental health issues without turning into nonces. Screw him.
Yeah and sorry - Didn't bump to prove you wrong or anything, just remembered there'd been this discussion on here re the age of the person he was actually conversing with...
Still, it's funny though. You probably weren't wrong that The Sun overstepped the mark on the original allegation but then, by doing so, it's uncovered the rest.
Oh, it's alright. I didn't think you had.
But, yeah, if this charge is a direct result of The Sun story leading to further investigation, then it's 1-0 to The Sun, isn't it?
I still can't abide the Murdoch press, but I dislike people like Huw Edwards far more -- so if they're ultimately responsible for getting him, then... good.
Yes, it's a weird one ethically.
Like you said, The Sun technically gets the win now.
But I'd be interested to see if we find out any blackmail angle comes out of this. I don't know if that was how the initial story was leaked to The Sun by the seventeen year old he was messaging.
Or alternatively, this other person who he seems to have been caught as a result of messaging. The report does say he kept messaging saying nothing illegal but it looks like the guy sent them anyway...
I never said that he did anything illegal, just that he was the presenter involved.
shareit's a good thing edwards asked for a birth certificate.
share