Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

Today 13:47 Dinahmo

You’re absolutely right particularly in your first two paragraphs.
He would need protection because he is so well known, not necessarily because he has been caught viewing pictures of children being abused.

His imprisonment is outside jail, and it’s for life, or at least as long as he or his name is recognisable and it’s for his wife too.

Where can he go without being recognised by anyone who has watched him on TV or knows him in real life? Unlike many of those jailed for any offence, he is already well known.

Imagine booking a seat on a plane, or a room at an hotel or a table in a restaurant and having people wonder if you are that Huw Edwards and then being reluctant to serve you or standing round passing comments about you for other clients to hear, because they think your actions are disgusting.

A suspended sentence does seem lenient, because child abuse is sickening and will impact the victims for the rest of their lives, but it was within the rules. So perhaps it’s the rules that need changing.

To add to RosiesMaw2 list above - what about the sentences handed down to the members of just Stop Oil recently.? The co-founder got 5 years and the others 4 years prison sentences. I call those sentences outrageous and appalling.

Considering the apparent age of some of those children shouldn't a lot more effort go into finding the original perpetrators who are often family members or others close to the families. They should definitely receive a prison sentence and possibly chemical castration. Rather extreme I realise.

If he was imprisoned there would be additional costs because of safe guarding him. Child molesters are invariably attacked by the other prisoners whilst in prison.

I also think that the shame he has brought upon his family and himself will be a strong burden to bear. He is known to the whole country and so will not be able to go anywhere without facing oral or physical abuse. He will not be welcome in any pub or restaurant or shop anywhere.

I am not a great believer in deterrence because I think that any perpetrator of violence, abuse, theft or even murder, does not expect to be caught. People should pay for the crimes that they have committed in some form, including prison, but it is not a deterrent.

He is a twisted person like others of the same ilk. The majority of us are not twisted and have absolutely no interest in seeing those images.

He may decide to move abroad, like Garry Glitter, but I'm sure that the authorities, if he does decide to live elsewhere would learn about him. He is never going to be completely safe.

Beckett

Casdon said "I doubt he will if the offence is only viewing images" only viewing images!!!! Because perverts like him provide a demand for such images children are abused - in my opinion he is as guilty as the abuser. Anyone see the photo of him smirking as he left court - I am a non-violent person but if I had been close to him I think I would have punched him in the face!!

I wasn’t implying that I didn’t think viewing images was serious Beckett. Only was used in the context of one offence compared with a number of offences, not to minimise the seriousness of him viewing images.

Police work on these images (how they detect, what is done)
in this April 2024 Home Office publication

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6644af2d993111924d9d3550/CAID_Brochure_May2024.pdf

When people say that things are not equivalent it doesn't mean that they are excusing either or any of the things being compared. It's just that they have nothing to do with one another.

It's like when people say that a 16 year old should be treated as an adult if they commit a crime because they are allowed to marry or join the army. Those things are not the same and were arrived at in different times and for different reasons. It doesn't mean that the age of criminality is right or wrong, or that the age of marriage/joining the forces should or shouldn't be adjusted - just that one doesn't justify or excuse the other.

To me, comparing incitement to riot and murder is dreadful and so is viewing child pornography. Those who justify them can say 'it's just using words', or 'it's just looking at pictures', but the law (IMO rightly in both cases) sees both things as far more serious than that. They are different crimes, with different consequences. And in times of civil unrest, just as in wartime, different rules apply. Jailing the inciters doesn't mean that HE should or shouldn't be jailed.

FWIW I think he should have been, but legally the situation is that he couldn't have been. Maybe we need to look at sentencing around pornography. But if we do, it shouldn't be based on sentences for rioters or inciters to riot, but considered in its own right.

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.

That's indeed how the news broke, easybee, I recall it clearly, its taken months of investigation to find more.

It occurs to me the police are probably most concerned in terms of resources to get the people making the images and spreading them, until an individual is flagged up for having them on a computer.

Casdon said "I doubt he will if the offence is only viewing images" only viewing images!!!! Because perverts like him provide a demand for such images children are abused - in my opinion he is as guilty as the abuser. Anyone see the photo of him smirking as he left court - I am a non-violent person but if I had been close to him I think I would have punched him in the face!!

He paid for them, didn't he?
I havent followed every detail, because it sickens me.

If Edward’s did not get any gratification from the images, and did not ask for them, wouldn’t he have reported the matter to the police?

I wouldn't want him living near any of my grandchildren...

Agree strongly.

It just shows how misled you can be by people's public persona. Originally I thought Huw Edwards had been set up by the mother of a boy featured in some photographs, then as more details emerged, possibly involved in some sort of gay liaison, and was truly repentant.
As I read the details this morning I realized what a cold, calculating man he is, pleading a challenging childhood, (blame your parents),low self-esteem (failure to get into Oxford) and doubts about his sexuality,(how lovely for his wife) as excuses then hanging on to the extra salary awarded while pleading a breakdown. He allowed other men to be suspected of his offences before he was arrested and named.
He should be in prison; it won't alter him but it would deter some of the men inhabiting this world.

I do hope the media will leave them alone.

Despicable man, should definitely have had a custodial sentence..
I do feel for his children because the ripples from this will definitely affect them..

Bazza as regards getting back the £200.000 I've googled around and it depends on the terms of his contract - the BBC is exploring legal means.
They are also now considering future contracts needless to say.

If you have experienced abuse in any form, you would not inflict it on others. There is no excuse. Edwards moans about low self esteem. Those children will have low self esteem all their lives.

I don’t think we can imagine the scale on which this offence is being committed and we just don’t have space to imprison all of the perpetrators. The internet has massively increased access to and the market for sexual content of all categories. Huw Edward’s crimes were discovered through an initial allegation that he had been buying images from a 17 y/o through a platform called Only Fans (which should be over 18s - he doesn’t seem to have been seeking content involving children.) I came across this chart yesterday - it shows the scale of Only Fans business in the UK. This is not a small number of heinous men - it is husbands, brothers, sons and friends accessing sexual content on a huge scale.

Kate1949

Excuses by Edwards. My childhood was horrendous. Not many can have lower self esteem than me. I didn't resort to horrible crimes. His self esteem can't have been that low if he appeared on TV in front of millions of people. He's a liar and a conman.

Absolutely, Kate1949. There are many people who, like yourself, have had horrendous childhoods and been the victims of all kinds of heinous crimes themselves, but they don't all go on to become abusers themselves. There's no excuse for child sexual abuse. None - full stop.

I just wonder what his four grown up children think of their father. I also wonder how Huw Edwards would have reacted if one of them had been abused at seven years old. A grim childhood is absolutely no defence. Can the BBC force him to pay back the £200;000? Apparently not. At least the knowledge that he has totally ruined what is left of his life is some retribution.

The riot crimes included suggesting a mosque be bombed with people in it, as well as incitement to violence and hatred against muslims on on a massive scale. I have no problems with the sentences handed out for that: no place for this inn our society.

Separate issue;
The charging and sentencing for online crimes of making and accessing abusive images of children clearly needs to be looked at.

I've tried to find the dates when legislation was last reviewed. It would appear that the major laws used was enacted in 1978 and 1988 the Protection of Children Acts with more recent reviews and details added as time passed

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

Its very complicated but I presume the criteria for custodial sentencing guidelines within current law could be changed fairly quickly as the law allows for sentences from community orders to 5 years imprisonment.

Excuses by Edwards. My childhood was horrendous. Not many can have lower self esteem than me. I didn't resort to horrible crimes. His self esteem can't have been that low if he appeared on TV in front of millions of people. He's a liar and a conman.

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

But is it the "kind of sentence", because of the over crowding, is my point.

Or is it because it is in the main, men convicting men?

Or is it because of an historic under recognition of all the harm it causes?

Is it because of corruption at the top of society in some way?

No reason why "current guidelines" cannot be changed. If there is enough will.