Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am sure Edwards will have a bolthole all ready, possibly abroad; his face is well-known here but not particularly distinctive and he will soon be able to change his appearance and pass un-noticed. I doubt if colleagues, friends or family will maintain contact, but even if he leads a lonely life as a pariah it will be far more comfortable than the hard time he would have received in prison. Shame.

Dinahmo

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.

Can I just ask what the sentences for JSO protesters have to do with HE's sentence? Also, how would it make HE's sentence any more acceptable if they had got a fine instead of a custodial sentence?

What would you feel if you were driving a loved one to hospital and they died as a result of a road closure? Can it be fair to differentiate between acts that cause death like that, and the same acts that just turn out differently by luck?

Grandma70s

BlueBelle

What do you think his sentence should be Grandma70 s ?
Do you have grandchildren how would you feel if it was your grandchild being abused to titillate some dirty old man ?

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.

Yes, I have grandchildren.
Would you feel the same if this was your very young grandchild,

I don’t think I would feel any different. The damage has been done and we will not undo it by a custodial sentence.

Seeing justice done is not revenge. The sentences for these kinds of crime need to be revisited; they are obviously not a deterrent and this vile trade in child sexual abuse continues.

Yes, I have grandchildren.
Would you feel the same if this was your very young grandchild in the photographs?

I know “comparisons are odious” but they send a message to the general population don’t they?
This or that is serious and deserves a custodial sentence, something else is illegal but society does not need to be (physically) protected from this person.
When I studied Crime and Punishment nearly 60 years ago we learned about the rationale behind custodial sentencing , including
A deterrent to others
A way of protecting society
Deprivation of liberty of the individual (the punishment element)
A period in which the offender might learn to tun their life around , or restitution.
No doubt there was more!
But I have noticed in Magistrates’ courts how crimes against institutions or involving property or money seem to warrant harsher sentencing than crimes against people ( in the physical sense).
Does this reflect the values of our modern society?

Today 13:47 Dinahmo

The fact that his life is ruined is incidental and of no concern to the court; the children being abused in those moving images have had their lives ruined by these despicable men and others like them.

The fact is that the sentences for these types of crime seem to be far too lenient. Whether or not the criminal's life is ruined matters not, it is irrelevant and not part of the Criminal Justice System.
It is whether the justice fits these crimes which is the debatable point.

Am I correct in that if you do not pay your TV License you can be jailed?

Those who view and pay for paedophilic pictures and/or videos are given what basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.

It doesn’t sit right with me.

I am afraid that comparisons will be made, and actually I think a discussion about how we as a society view crimes and the level of seriousness of particular crimes is valid.
If I had to choose between some feckless woman falling over whilst trying and failing to aim a wheelie bin at the police, and Huw Edwards as to level of risk and likelyhood of re offending I choose feckless woman every time.
It's also without doubt about class, and resources available to a particular class.

Now is the time.
Starmer was a barrister, lawyer, chief prosecutor - he could sort out the Criminal Justice System and make the sentences fit the crime.
Sadly I don’t think everyone would be satisfied whatever decisions were made, but at least he could use his experience to try.

I hope that the Huw Edwards case will make them look again at sentencing in this area as it doesn't mean new law.

But is it only the wealthy that have access to these images? I doubt that. Huw Edwards may have bought his, but the skills to hack into the darker reaches of the web can be passed around in any group.

Starmer announced soon after the election that the extent of violence against women and girls was a national emergency and would be treated as such. I thought at the time, let’s call it women and children. Boys are also subjected to horrific abuse. It’s not clear whether we know less because historically, boys were less likely to make allegations
Nicky Campbell has done good work on his radio 5 phone in in high lighting the abuse he and other boys suffered at school. Charles Spencer has written about sexual abuse at his boarding school. So hopefully things are changing

People who haven’t had work or direct experience of sexual abuse/exploitation still find it hard to accept the extent of it. To find it hard to believe respectable, well liked professionals like Huw Edwards and our primary school head teacher can be sex offenders. Sadly, they walk amongst us, often charming, likable, fun yet hiding their dark side

We do need to review sentencing. So far as I’m aware, the offender management programmes , no matter how hard those delivering the training work - aren’t effective. More research needed.
EDWARDS accessed the dark web. He insisted to his barrister that he’d no memory of viewing certain images. Their expert said low risk. The probation officer said medium, which sounds more accurate - anyone saying they can’t remember !

Could being abused in school caused Charles Spencer to become a bully

To wheel out one of those thoughts - hurt people hurt people.

MissAdventure, yes. My thought is often - damaged people damage people

It’s so important to stress, some people who experience trauma survive. I’m in touch with some adults I met as abused children. Against the odds and despite some ups and downs, they’ve done good in many areas of life
I confess to having been less than impressed by Edwards’ complaints about his father and how Cardiff not Oxford left him feeling less than colleagues. Why not be honest with his therapist about fantasising about accessing images of child abuser and going on to do this. Agencies are familiar with this scenario and could have helped him

Because if he was honest, then he would have to own his abhorrent behaviour, I suppose, and he didnt want to.

It's a choice.

Thats what is pernicious - he was seeking help and treatment, but didnt try and deal with his fantasies.