Jokes aside about nothing of value lost because it was a shit episode (it really was), this isn't a good thing. It's just another in a long line of post-humorous censorships. Attempts to hide, deny, and revise history. It might seem minor, and individually it is. But this shit is a cancer that will get worse and worse and worse, all in the efforts and worship of ideological purity.
Under British law, images can mean photos or videos.
Sounds like it would not cover drawn images. Which makes "making indecent images of children" sound quite bad.
“Making” indecent images covers a range of actions per its legal definition. It can, for example, include opening an email attachment with an image, downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which images appear in “pop-up” windows; or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and if part of a group; as well as live-streaming images of children.
On the other hand, it seems that receiving an unsolicited image counts as "making," which throws actual severity of whatever he did up in the air again.
This, a victim of Edwards giving his testimony to a national newspaper that makes Edwards look worse than he already does and now the BBC has had to remove a video of the Southport suspect who appeared in their Children in Need campaign video.
I'm confused. Isn't that a requirement to work for the BBC?
Jimmy Savile would approve this message
They've still got Eric Gill's indecent image of a child over the front door of the BBC Broadcasting House.
Jokes aside about nothing of value lost because it was a shit episode (it really was), this isn't a good thing. It's just another in a long line of post-humorous censorships. Attempts to hide, deny, and revise history. It might seem minor, and individually it is. But this shit is a cancer that will get worse and worse and worse, all in the efforts and worship of ideological purity.
I think you mean posthumous, but are also right about it not being funny anymore.
I'm wary of any article that refuses to use the word photos, and instead uses images.
So did he crop and share hentai doujins or what? Was he caught uploading Morty/Beth images to gelbooru?
I wish any article anywhere would say.
Sounds like it would not cover drawn images. Which makes "making indecent images of children" sound quite bad.
On the other hand, it seems that receiving an unsolicited image counts as "making," which throws actual severity of whatever he did up in the air again.
That’s considered a terrible episode of Doctor Who so no loss there.
This, a victim of Edwards giving his testimony to a national newspaper that makes Edwards look worse than he already does and now the BBC has had to remove a video of the Southport suspect who appeared in their Children in Need campaign video.
Not a good week for the BBC.
And no one noticed.