Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

I’m astonished by the vicious nature of most of these replies. I think the sentence is lenient at all.

The replies to most things are vicious lately.
Starmer is to blame for it all. (Apparently)

Rosie51

Casdon

I’ll ask again, does anybody know if this is the same length of sentence that would be given to others who had committed the same offence? If it isn’t, that’s not right, but if it is then the anger should be directed at the justice system?

I refer you to my post just above yours which I assume you hadn't seen

Sorry Rosie51, I hadn’t because your post came on while I was typing mine. Thanks for the information, that’s what I guessed might be the case.
There’s no point people saying he should have got a harsher sentence in that case, lobbying for harsher sentences for all similar offences is the way forward.

That should read I DON’T think the sentence is lenient.

Not surprised...very little mention of the victims, all about his drama.

Grandma70s

That should read I DON’T think the sentence is lenient.

You actually think a 6 months suspended sentence for being part of the reason children are photographed, and in this case videoed, being sexually abused is not lenient, but just and appropriate? These images so enjoyed by Huw Edwards and others like him are in existence for ever. Those children don't ever get to escape from the harm perpetuated on them by perverts, he gets 7 years on the sex offenders register. Total travesty of justice!

Rosie51

Grandma70s

That should read I DON’T think the sentence is lenient.

You actually think a 6 months suspended sentence for being part of the reason children are photographed, and in this case videoed, being sexually abused is not lenient, but just and appropriate? These images so enjoyed by Huw Edwards and others like him are in existence for ever. Those children don't ever get to escape from the harm perpetuated on them by perverts, he gets 7 years on the sex offenders register. Total travesty of justice!

Very, very well said Rosie51

What an almighty mess for his family. The shame.

8 out of 10 caught on possession of images like Edwards had don't serve custodial sentences.

MissAdventure

8 out of 10 caught on possession of images like Edwards had don't serve custodial sentences.

Which is an absolute disgrace in my humble

HousePlantQueen

I have very mixed thoughts on this. Like most of you, I am disgusted, angered at anyone viewing or distributing these dreadful images, and I am sick at the thought of what these children endured, and continue to endure. However, (and it is a big however), I see no advantage to imprisoning Edwards. His life professionally and privately is finished, he will be a very lonely old man, and presumably steps can and will be taken to prevent him viewing these dreadful images again.

I recognise that this may go against the instinct of us all, and I loathe him for what he has done, but I see no reason, other than (justified) public fury to imprison Edwards

Absolutely agree.

Mine too.
I wonder if other factors are considered, when sentencing, such as the age of the perpetrator, where they will live, and with whom, when they finish their sentence?

Reported above.

Huw Edwards is, I imagine, in possession of a considerable income, having been given the extra pay while on suspension. He will be able to access insurance, bank accounts, work (should anyone wish to employ him) and live his daily life as he wishes, although probably banned from public life.
The severity of the sentence underlies the severity of the crime, but the images he enjoyed will continue to be produced and other innocents trapped in these evil webs, because he got away with it. I wonder how long before he recovers from his mental issues?

Giving such lenient sentences is normalising the heinous act of looking at child pornography.

I agree.
I think any crime of that nature should carry an automatic time behind bars.

Sago

Giving such lenient sentences is normalising the heinous act of looking at child pornography.

Absolutely

I can't imagine what these children go through. I suffered and witnessed violence as a child and I know someone who was sexually abused. It destroys lives whilst the perpetrators go merrily on their way.

House plant Queen , well said.

westendgirl

House plant Queen , well said.

Likewise. Well said HPQ.

Is his behaviour acceptable? No.
Should he be punished. Yes
But in the current climate of emptying prisons of non-violent offenders, a non-custodial sentence is what I expected.

It seems to me that this sentence (and the information that this is about standard for this crime) carries no deterrent element in it. If the people accessing this stuff knew that they might get a prison sentence then this might put them off.

The fact that this is considered a lesser crime than actually producing this stuff ignores the fact that, whatever stage in the process the involvement happens, it still perpetuates the trade. It would not be produced if there were no market for it, and at the end of this chain are innocent children.

Mollygo

westendgirl

House plant Queen , well said.

Likewise. Well said HPQ.

Is his behaviour acceptable? No.
Should he be punished. Yes
But in the current climate of emptying prisons of non-violent offenders, a non-custodial sentence is what I expected.

But doesn't that in essence mean the only punishment he's received is to be on the sex offenders register for 7 years? No community service, no fine, just go on a list. A non-custodial sentence really isn't a punishment unless he intends to enjoy (and gets caught!) more of the same photos in the next two years.

The sexually abused children in the photos he so enjoyed live with their abuse and the knowledge those images will be viewed by hundreds, even thousands, of perverts for the rest of their lives.

I suspect that any perpetrators will find their lives a complete misery after sentencing too. In the days of social media it is incredibly difficult to keep any sentence a secret.

The non custodial sentence has no connection to the fact our prisons are over crowded. It’s the kind of sentence offenders like Edwards receive under current guidelines. In addition to the 6 months hmp suspended for two years, he is to attend a 40 day programme designed to prevent him re-offending. He is to sign the sex offender register.

I heard on radio 5 around mid day, that the Defence barrister said their psychiatrist assessed Edwards as low risk. I heard the probation officer assessed him as medium risk which to me seems a more accurate assessment. The Probation Officer will have specialised in this type of assessment. He advised Edwards be sentenced to a programme aimed at reducing the risk he poses and that he not be allowed access to the internet other than on machines that could be checked to ensure he isn’t accessing inappropriate material.

Edwards’ barrister claimed his client had ‘no memory of viewing any particular images’. He said Edwards did not get any gratification from viewing the images. He said Williams ‘sought out Edwards’ rather than the other way round. Mitigation ?!

I don’t see how a suspended sentence in the absence of attempts to monitor internet use can give any protection to children.

Sexual attraction to children is not something men easily control. It’s also frighteningly common in all societies. I believe we are in the early stages of understanding, accepting and attempting to prevent it

Grandma70s

That should read I DON’T think the sentence is lenient.

What??? I'm staggered by that. I totally agree with Rosie51 here. I believe that anyone convicted of offences relating to child abuse - yes, even 'just' looking at images like this - should face an automatic custodial sentence. The child victims of this abuse face a lifetime of repercussions.