Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

No, I don't believe some people are able to be rehabilitated.

The best that can be done is to prevent them from ever having access to children, the Internet, and whatever other means they use.

That would mean strict conditions put on them, and for those to be adhered to. not only by the person, but the agencies involved in monitoring them.

My upstairs neighbour was left with a tag, which her family member removed, before they took off and went miles away to live.

It took about six months for her to get anyone to come and pick it up!!

MissAdventure

I think any offence against children should mean a mandatory prison sentence, because I'm mean spirited enough to think the perpetrator should know the fear of being despised, in a hostile environment, even if just for months.

Yes, yes and yes.
Not 'mean spirited' at all.
Those poor, poor children and the now adults that are 'survivors' of such horrific abuse, whatever message is sent to them if prison sentences are not given.
Note to self: why I am still commenting on this thread...

www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2019/04/27/inside-the-sex-offenders-only-jail-which-houses-rolf-harris-hmp-stafford/

MissAdventure

I think any offence against children should mean a mandatory prison sentence, because I'm mean spirited enough to think the perpetrator should know the fear of being despised, in a hostile environment, even if just for months.

👍👍👍

However, the problem with prison is that these criminals all get sent to the same prisons where they might feed on each others' perversions.
The aim at HMP Stafford is rehabilitation but can someone like that ever be rehabilitated?
It is not unknown for Parole Boards to be hoodwinked by clever and manipulative criminals.

[[https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2019/04/27/inside-the-sex-offenders-only-jail-which-houses-rolf-harris-hmp-stafford/

As for his mother, shame yes, but not as bad as for the mothers of those abused children.

Bea65

He’s a dirty old man who has shamed the ROYALS, the BBC and his FAMILY… AND what of the children he viewed - this is not justice am DISGUSTED 🤢

No the BBC are well known for covering up for paedos- look how they covered up for Jimmy Saville & others- that’s is why we won’t be buying anymore tv licenses

It must be absolutely terrible for the family.

Anniebach

And his mother

Yes Anniebach this sort of crime must be a terrible burden for a mother.

MissAdventure

I think any offence against children should mean a mandatory prison sentence, because I'm mean spirited enough to think the perpetrator should know the fear of being despised, in a hostile environment, even if just for months.

👍👍👍

I think any offence against children should mean a mandatory prison sentence, because I'm mean spirited enough to think the perpetrator should know the fear of being despised, in a hostile environment, even if just for months.

And his mother

HeavenLeigh

So Edwards bleating he has low self esteem my heart bleeds NOT! He like thousands of others will come up with any old bull. Does he seriously think we would fall for that old flannel. The only ones I feel for are the poor vunerable children that have had their lives ruined by these sickos. And have horrific memories which can’t be erased for the rest of their lives.

& his wife & kids!

eazybee

I knew a man in his thirties who was jailed for possessing indecent images of children. The repercussions following the sentence were immense; he lost his home, his job and his marriage; social services insisted his wife divorce him otherwise they would take their children into care. The punishment was just although his dysfunctional childhood and upbringing could have been taken into consideration. I hope Huw Edwards receives similar and the plea of mental health issues is not used as mitigation.

Good the bloke deserved all he got- you sound like a complete do- gooder 😩

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Mt61, I am not sure in what way I am talking rubbish?

Fraud is wrong, we know.
However, which is worse - fraudently obtaining money from loan companies because you are panicking as a result of your business failing due to the economic climate or knowingly being complicit in the sexual abuse and rape of small children?

The first, a man of previously impeccable character, received 3 years in prison.

The second, a man who hid his illegal sexual proclivities from the world and accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money gets a suspended sentence.

You can be sent to prison for failing to pay council tax,

Something wrong there.

eazybee

^I think his sentence is probably about right. I don’t believe in revenge punishments.^
Yes, I have grandchildren. I don’t think I would feel any different. The damage has been done and we will not undo it by a custodial sentence.
A custodial sentence may not undo the damage done, but it will prevent future abuse from those, who like Edwards, are scared of being caught but don't have access to millions to pay for 'his mental health issues' defence and thus avoid gaol.

You are talking rubbish

Wyllow3

M61, he's had his sentence, been discussed from the bottom of page 1.

Yes just seen that- those poor children!

M61, he's had his sentence, been discussed from the bottom of page 1.

He probably won’t even get 22 months, didn’t someone get that length of sentence for a FB post- think what he’s done is far, far worse. I hope he is sent to prison

They've split up.

Redhead56

A slap on the wrist and a telling off and his wife will be at his side.

I think that too

Read his opinion on the sentence?

Rosie51

GG13 you can't be jailed for failing to buy a TV licence, but you can be jailed for failing to pay the fine imposed when guilty of the offence.

Doodledog Huw Edwards' offences passed the threshold to serve a prison sentence, which means community service and/or a fine were not appropriate punishment. The magistrate chose to suspend the sentence, he didn't have to. He also declined to place an order whereby any devices Edwards used could be examined at any time to check he wasn't accessing similar material. The magistrate accepted the defence's assessment that Edwards was low risk for repeat offending, rather than the probation service's assessment he was medium risk.

Ah, right. I was under the impression that because the man who produced the images wasn't jailed then HE couldn't be either. If I've got that wrong, then he definitely should have been jailed - as I said, IMO he should have been anyway.

Whilst I take the point that comparisons are inevitable, and that they say something about what society values, I don't think that a comparison between riot and incitement to riot and child pornography is valid at a time of civil unrest - the context has to be taken into account.

Humility isn't his strongest suit.