WBMT.....What baffled me today

I have to ask, if these were sent to a "What'sAp" group, why haven't we heard anything about who sent them and, who else is in said group?
 
Jelster said:
I have to ask, if these were sent to a "What'sAp" group, why haven't we heard anything about who sent them and, who else is in said group?
Click to expand...

The Metropolitan Police said a 25-year-old paedophile called Alex Williams, who was sentenced to a suspended 12-month jail sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in Wales on 15 March, had shared indecent images of children with Edwards.
 
I replied to Pound Coin in The Politics thread just now re Musk and his X platform and brought up Zuckerberg's Meta ,too. saying how irresponsible they are and went on to comment on this Edwards case. I've just seen this thread so I've transferred it . I'll leave it as I wrote it and delete the other one.

Huw Edwards was involved in downloading child pornography through WhatsApp. It's end to end encryption and has been since April 2016. A criminal's and child pornographers paradise...just for starters. The Met police named 25-year-old Alex Williams as the man who shared the images with Edwards. One of children was between five and seven years old. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing category A, B and C images as well as possessing prohibited images of children. And what did he get at Merthyr Tidfil crown court in March ? A 12-month suspended sentence . A suspended sentence for that offence ? Amongst the images were those categorised as A..the most serious. It's as though the victims had been forgotten.It seems that a phone was seized in an unrelated inquiry and police found images had been shared with Edwards. My first question is how he..Williams.. came to do that ? Certainly not randomly so, Edwards must have initiated the contact. Here's an explanation by the Independent of what the offence involves. In the article it states.... quote..."The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) acknowledges that the offence has been widely interpreted over the years. I'm at a loss as to how images of that nature can be 'widely interpreted'...ie 'differently.

Huw Edwards: What does ‘making’ indecent images of children mean?​

The veteran presenter faces potential prison sentence after admitting number of offences
www.independent.co.uk
www.independent.co.uk

Scroll down to the paragraphs under the second photo of Edwards...wearing the bow-tie. They relate to what his defence barrister said. I'm at a lolss as to what he means.

Huw Edwards: What does ‘making’ indecent images of children mean?​

The veteran presenter faces potential prison sentence after admitting number of offences
www.independent.co.uk
www.independent.co.uk

A statement by Meta in March this year.

“All of your personal messages in 1:1 chats on Messenger will become end-to-end encrypted by default. During the roll out process, chats that become end-to-end encrypted will say “messages and calls protected with end-to-end encryption.” Like many other security features, once your chats are end-to-end encrypted by default, they’ll always be secured with end-to-end encryption to protect the content of your conversations.”.. Re those last seven words he could have added..'from anyone else, including law enforcement agencies'
 
JohnC6 said:
I replied to Pound Coin in The Politics thread just now re Musk and his X platform and brought up Zuckerberg's Meta ,too. saying how irresponsible they are and went on to comment on this Edwards case. I've just seen this thread so I've transferred it . I'll leave it as I wrote it and delete the other one.

Huw Edwards was involved in downloading child pornography through WhatsApp. It's end to end encryption and has been since April 2016. A criminal's and child pornographers paradise...just for starters. The Met police named 25-year-old Alex Williams as the man who shared the images with Edwards. One of children was between five and seven years old. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing category A, B and C images as well as possessing prohibited images of children. And what did he get at Merthyr Tidfil crown court in March ? A 12-month suspended sentence . A suspended sentence for that offence ? Amongst the images were those categorised as A..the most serious. It's as though the victims had been forgotten.It seems that a phone was seized in an unrelated inquiry and police found images had been shared with Edwards. My first question is how he..Williams.. came to do that ? Certainly not randomly so, Edwards must have initiated the contact. Here's an explanation by the Independent of what the offence involves. In the article it states.... quote..."The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) acknowledges that the offence has been widely interpreted over the years. I'm at a loss as to how images of that nature can be 'widely interpreted'...ie 'differently.

Huw Edwards: What does ‘making’ indecent images of children mean?​

The veteran presenter faces potential prison sentence after admitting number of offences
www.independent.co.uk
www.independent.co.uk

Scroll down to the paragraphs under the second photo of Edwards...wearing the bow-tie. They relate to what his defence barrister said. I'm at a lolss as to what he means.

Huw Edwards: What does ‘making’ indecent images of children mean?​

The veteran presenter faces potential prison sentence after admitting number of offences
www.independent.co.uk
www.independent.co.uk

A statement by Meta in March this year.

“All of your personal messages in 1:1 chats on Messenger will become end-to-end encrypted by default. During the roll out process, chats that become end-to-end encrypted will say “messages and calls protected with end-to-end encryption.” Like many other security features, once your chats are end-to-end encrypted by default, they’ll always be secured with end-to-end encryption to protect the content of your conversations.”.. Re those last seven words he could have added..'from anyone else, including law enforcement agencies'
Click to expand...
It seems a bit unfair that if someone sends you an unsolicited image, then you are guilty, just by receiving it.
Very odd interpretation of law.
 
I can think of scenarios where having truly private messages is entirely legitimate. Just because this technology is used for harm does not make it either wrong or bad. We need to be careful about what we approve or disapprove, as a reaction to the crimes of a minority.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I can think of scenarios where having truly private messages is entirely legitimate. Just because this technology is used for harm does not make it either wrong or bad. We need to be careful about what we approve or disapprove, as a reaction to the crimes of a minority.
Click to expand...
I seem to disagree with you a lot but it's honestly not deliberate!

The problem with allowing encryption is that it's too effective a shield for wrong doing. To live in a society where there are bad or mad people, we each have to give up a bit of freedom in return for the comfort of being safe. One of the things that good people have to give up is the ability to keep secrets from others. The half way house, I imagine, is that you may encrypt your messages but must hand over the key when asked for it, by an authorised person. So I would think that the offence would never be in the encryption, only in refusing to let suitable people decrypt it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
So I would think that the offence would never be in the encryption, only in refusing to let suitable people decrypt it.
Click to expand...

And who would these suitable people be? Police, army, government officials, business leaders? How would you justify giving encryption keys to western authorities but witholding them from Chinese, Russian, Indian, Turkish, middle & far-eastern governments? The western governments aren't the 'good guys' and the other governments all the 'bad guys' and you can't pick and chose who gets the keys. And as for back-dooring these services for the authorities, well, I think you know the reasons for not doing that.

In any case, the people passing round illegal materials who were not stupid would find alternative ways to distribute their materials quickly enough. All removing protection would acheive would be to expose those who needed to be able to send encrypted messages in order to remain safe from their governments while just mildly inconveniencing the criminals.

AndrewFlannigan said:
I seem to disagree with you a lot but it's honestly not deliberate!
Click to expand...

We have radically different world views, so it is not surprising we do not agree.
 
Cockney said:
It seems a bit unfair that if someone sends you an unsolicited image, then you are guilty, just by receiving it.
Very odd interpretation of law.
Click to expand...
Yesterday at #3995 I posted some info about what making indecent images means. The only defence appears to be if you are unaware of the nature of the images when you receive them but I assume(might be wrong) if you view them but then do nothing about them, eg inform the police you have received unsolicited indecent images, then you are guilty of an offence..

The comment from HE's barrister (in a link in John's post above) is confusing.

Dave
 
I don't see what is confusing about the following:


Speaking in Edwards’ defence, barrister Philip Evans KC said: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”

“It is important also to remember for context that devices, Mr Edwards’ devices, have been seized, have been searched, and there’s nothing in those devices.”

“It is only the images that are the subject of the charges that came via a WhatsApp chat. Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”
 
Eucris said:
I don't see what is confusing about the following:


Speaking in Edwards’ defence, barrister Philip Evans KC said: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”

“It is important also to remember for context that devices, Mr Edwards’ devices, have been seized, have been searched, and there’s nothing in those devices.”

“It is only the images that are the subject of the charges that came via a WhatsApp chat. Mr Edwards did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”
Click to expand...

Best leave to courts to deal with this then.

My own view is that if he is indeed guilty of something which could end with a criminal conviction I wouldn't be surprised as it'd probably fit in with what I'd see as a pattern of behaviour but then again everyone has their limits and perhaps these images were genuinely beyond HE's limits.

Over to the court.
 
woof woof said:
Best leave to courts to deal with this then.

My own view is that if he is indeed guilty of something which could end with a criminal conviction I wouldn't be surprised as it'd probably fit in with what I'd see as a pattern of behaviour but then again everyone has their limits and perhaps these images were genuinely beyond HE's limits.

Over to the court.
Click to expand...
My bold: He is,Alan. He's pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children. Sentencing will be on September 16th after the usual sentencing report.
 
A partial defence might have been that he deleted the images as soon as he knew what they were. That doesn't seem to have happened, giving the appearance that he was 'making images' for personal gratification.
 
Cockney said:
It seems a bit unfair that if someone sends you an unsolicited image, then you are guilty, just by receiving it.
Very odd interpretation of law.
Click to expand...

Re this 'making indecent images' of children. That's what he's pleaded guilty to and what news bulletins put out. So..what do people think he's done..me included ? It's that he somehow created the images..either by using whatever is used on a computer or took photos but as Tringa has pointed out the term has a wide interpretation and it really shouldn't. How about..it's an offence to download solicit, take and/or send photos etc.

Re your post,though.I've read a re-read accounts of what happened. It seems that Edwards only wanted legal..ie re age..images/photos of males but the man from Cardiff sent him underage photos so,I take your point. Not much Edwards could have done once they'd been sent to him. The police were ,obviously, able to retrieve the deleted images. Tbh, it's all bit confusing because the barrister representing Edwards said nothing illegal was found on any devices and the images his charges relate to came via a WhatsApp chat. So..are they sent in a different way than to a computer Email,I assume or a mobile ?

Also, quite apart from the charges he's pleaded guilty to, he paid ,reportedly, £7000 pounds to a 21 year old male to send indecent photos of himself. I expect in the light of all this he'll also get a suspended sentence as did the sender of the images which I think is outrageous considering the nature of them .Seven were category A.The very worst.
 
ancient_mariner said:
A partial defence might have been that he deleted the images as soon as he knew what they were. That doesn't seem to have happened, giving the appearance that he was 'making images' for personal gratification.
Click to expand...

In the light of my response to Brian, just now, more confusion, then.. :)
 
I had a lens arrive like that some years ago, large box, no internal padding. The AF didn't really work and it went back.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I had a lens arrive like that some years ago, large box, no internal padding. The AF didn't really work and it went back.
Click to expand...
I have had several packages arrive packed in a similar manner, as a result I never buy anything from Amazon which requires secure packing to prevent damage and/or is of a value over £50.
 
I bought a large lawn rake ... which arrived in a box with loads of paper to protect it!
 
I get the impression that the packers have very limited time to pack rack item.............hence I wonder if their 'station' has run out of a particular size of container they will grab anything to make sure they complete their shift???

On the silly to annoying "packing", I bought an A3 sized self healing cutting mat...now granted not the easiest thing to pack if kept flat......so it arrived folded! Not hard folded thankfully but still bent over. They are IIRC correctly labelled "do not fold" :headbang: , I left it to lay and it was OK.
 
That is quite common for Amazon, I've had many items that small delivered in similar (and larger) boxes. :rolleyes:
 
I returned two SD cards to Amazon once and the post office lady had to pack them in individual packages!
Amazon policy she told me :oops: :$
 
Box Brownie said:
I get the impression that the packers have very limited time to pack rack item.............hence I wonder if their 'station' has run out of a particular size of container they will grab anything to make sure they complete their shift???
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that, when we setup a new item to sell on amazon we have to provide carton dimensions for the packaged item.

Amazon then use this to tell the packers what carton size to use (based on the dimension of all the items in the consignment giving a cubic measurement).

This set of automated packing instructions drives the stock control processes that automatically reorder the packaging supplies, so the packers cannot simply use a different carton...

If the packers highlight an issue the warehouse management team will measure another item and adjust for future consignments, but the packers have target rates so normally just waive it through.

This was going on elsewhere when I first started working in non-amazon warehouses as a summer holiday temp and still goes on anywhere that automates packaging stock control.
 
The last time I ordered some SD memory cards , 5 , from Amazon they all came separately in 5 different packages :oops: :$
 
Conspiracy theory - Mike Lynch probably dead a couple of days after his co-defendent was hit by a car (Autonomy) - coincidence?
 
cambsno said:
Conspiracy theory - Mike Lynch probably dead a couple of days after his co-defendent was hit by a car (Autonomy) - coincidence?
Click to expand...
Only if you have the power to control the weather?

Having said that, I also read about his co-defendants demise.
 
Last edited:
WBMT: Gravitational Time Dilation.

I was actually fine with it until I started going down the rabbit hole.... or black hole? lol But it's seriously impressive that this was all visualised and researched before the internet and advanced technology was around.
 
gman said:
WBMT: Gravitational Time Dilation.

I was actually fine with it until I started going down the rabbit hole.... or black hole? lol But it's seriously impressive that this was all visualised and researched before the internet and advanced technology was around.
Click to expand...

A lot of Flat-earthers believe that gravity doesn't exist so that would really blow their brains apart!!!
 
Box Brownie said:
Only if you have the power to control the weather?

Having said that, I also read about his co-defendants demise.
Click to expand...
On the news this evening an Italian yachtsman..35 years at the location, doesn't think it was a case of that water spout hitting the very tall mast that took it down but something else. A hatch that was left open, maybe. There were weather warnings, why didn't the super yacht get into hartbour as other boats did ? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but how strange that both men involved in that US court case, which they won, die within days of each other but sometimes astonishing coincidences like that happen.
 
So a shop worker and warehouse person are the same then? And now they will look at why dinner ladies get less than refuse collectors... sheer madness!

www.bbc.co.uk

Next shop workers win equal pay claim

In-store staff, who are mostly women, should be paid the same as warehouse workers, a tribunal rules.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
With regard Next yes.

It would seem that a person in the warehouse is sorting stock and putting it onto a lorry. The person in the shop takes the stock off the lorry and sorts it out and puts it on sale.
As they are employed by the same company then they are seen to do the same job and therefore should be paid equally.
I would expect a forklift drive in the warehouse to be paid more.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
With regard Next yes.

It would seem that a person in the warehouse is sorting stock and putting it onto a lorry. The person in the shop takes the stock off the lorry and sorts it out and puts it on sale.
As they are employed by the same company then they are seen to do the same job and therefore should be paid equally.
I would expect a forklift drive in the warehouse to be paid more.
Click to expand...

It's not the same job - similar yes but not the same. Warehouse you are also bringing goods in AND doing goods out. Plus you have supply and demand, maybe retail work is more desirable (I did a Sat job on shop floor at 16) and easier to fill so wages less.

I am guessing that you could see 2 identical warehouse jobs and salaries would be different as different companies have different budgets and packages so having a different salary is not discrimination.
 
I'd pay those who work in the NEXT shops more - they have to deal with the public.

Dave
 
I think that people in the same organisation should all get much the same pay, because they all contribute to the bottom line.

If you want more, set up your own business and take the risks (I did for thirty five years).
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think that people in the same organisation should all get much the same pay, because they all contribute to the bottom line.

If you want more, set up your own business and take the risks (I did for thirty five years).
Click to expand...

But then you would end up paying them much the same as you earn? See your first point.

And yes, while everyone contributes, there are certain skills and responsibilities that mean people should get more or less. Are you really saying a school cleaner should get the same as a teacher, or that a receptionist should get the same a legal counsel in a software firm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top