Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

While I absolutely condemn and abhor what seems to be happening on social media which counts as “hate crime” , this inconsistency worries me.
Last month, a man was jailed for re-posting three offensive images about Muslims on Facebook, even though he deleted them shortly afterwards and apologised. Yet Huw Edwards, who pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children, has been given a suspended sentence. It’s hard not to conclude we have a two-tier criminal justice system in which Islamophobia is punished more severely than paedophilia.
Lee Dunn, 51, was jailed for eight weeks in August after pleading guilty to sending a grossly offensive message.
I also think that if I am ever stupid enough go finish up in court for anything I want his defence barrister.
According to a psychiatrist who interviewed Edwards following his arrest, he endured a “psychologically challenging” upbringing.
Edwards claimed that his father had behaved “monstrously” at home and that – combined with the “puritanical” but “hypocritical” culture of the South Wales community – had left him suffering from “low self-esteem”.
Edwards said his failure to get into Oxford University (Aw diddums) had left him feeling like something of an “outsider” at the BBC, despite the fact he rose to become the corporation’s best-paid journalist and the man trusted to announce the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II. “ He suggested it was this low self-esteem that had led him to take to social media and engage with people with whom he would otherwise not have had contact.” I am speechless.
To walk free with just, I believe, a bill for £3,000 in prosecution costs and to be put on the sex offenders’ register for seven years doesn’t add up to even a slap on the wrist.

Nannee49

Good, reasoned comments on Good Morning Britain this morning.

I watched that, I felt so sorry for the lady who was an abused child, she felt totally let down. Her campaign is under #notmyshame

I think we understand that the judges do have to work within the current sentencing guidelines, but that does not stop us from expressing an opinion that sentences are too lenient.

Good, reasoned comments on Good Morning Britain this morning.

Well said readheadand everyone else appalled by the leniency of the law in this and every case of some vile furtive watcher switching on their computer and settling back to get enjoyment and satisfaction ffs!!! from these abhorrent images.
And then, the insult of lumping these shitty less than human beings with everyone with poor mental health as a defence.
So much needs to change. It's no good parroting the judiciary are working within the parameters of sentencing guidelines, those parameters need widening drastically, no more messages sent out that it's somehow ok to let this vicious, heartbreaking "trade" continue.
Severe financial penalties might be a start in the absence of long incarceration, I'm sure all of you posters who despise Hugh Edwards & his twisted ilk have your own thoughts on some kind of justice for the children betrayed over and over and over again.

But he had "no memory" of viewing the images!!

Well if that doesn't take the piss then what the hell does!

Oh sorry I really really don't remember drooling over those Images of children.

Sentencing is guided by strict guidelines.
Any judgements that exceed guidelines may be challenged by the convicted.

Part of the 'establishment' - what would you expect? Oh chaps, he's been punished enough, dontchaknow? You know what they used to say about the judges....

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.

So the child abuse will go on with sentences handed out like that which make little of such abuse. No mental or physical illness is an excuse to actually seek out this disgusting behaviour. Looking at it is calculating and vile and the demand for it fuelling the abuse of young innocent children.

I agree welbeck. I’ve noticed the majority here refer to images of children being sexually abused.

we should not refer to child pornography, that is akin to the term child prostitution.
pornography is pictures or writing about adults engaging in sexual activity, or pretending to do so.
it is a type of work.
children do not choose this trade; these are images of criminal activity against children.

Good question Nanee49 .
I expect the issue of consent would have been a big issue, as it has been in other such cases.

I wonder what the sentence would be for the perpetrator if Huw Edwards had been anally raped, filmed and the subsequent images sold online?

Our society, like many others has only begun to have any idea about the significant numbers of men (and it usually is men) who find children, even babies and infants, sexually attractive.
In the past, excessing images / videos of children being sexually abused was quite difficult. Not any more - it’s at the fingertip on any iPhone.

Someone mentioned upthread that eventually, looking at images won’t be enough. Apologies for not quoting the post and thanks to you poster for raising this. You are absolutely correct. It’s like any other behaviour the individual finds interesting, satisfying, curiosity expands, it’s more rewarding, it escalates, it’s more rewarding then real live children are needed to meet the growing need

You can read the sentencing remarks if you go into “judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl” in the post below.

x.com/k_ingalasmith/status/1835676872094478477?s=61&t=qph6ruaz5B5GPjDn7jnZBw

Mollygo

I agree about the
Because there is not enough prison space, is no answer but it’s evidently a fact.
So what’s the option?
Starmer, IMO, despite his expertise, very sensibly left it in the hands of the court.
What could he have done?
Since the crime is one of abuse, he could have backed up his decision to keep people accused of violence or abuse in prison.

To add to the confusion, I thought Edwards was accused of making indecent images.
I then read
The offence of making indecent images of children relates to the images that were sent to Edwards. Prosecutors did not allege Edwards had literally made the images in question.
Why then was he not accused of receiving and viewing the images?
He would still be guilty, and the children would still have been abused to facilitate his viewing.

In law 'making obscene images' includes simply opening a file sent to you (with knowledge of what it may contain).
Alex Williams who supplied the images received a suspended 12 month sentence so there really was no suggestion that Huw Edward would go to prison.

He should have been jailed for 6 months.

^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.^

Granny70s What is a revenge punishment? I understood that a custodial sentence was a punishment whereby the offender would have the opportunity to be rehabilitated and receive any appropriate psychological treatment. Are you saying that custodial sentences are purely to exact revenge on the perpetrators? Do you feel the same way about murderers? Rapists? Afterall, a custodial sentence wouldn't bring the dead back would it? Should all offenders simply be on license for a given period in the hope that they wouldn't do it again? Where would you draw the line? Genuine question.

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.

The damage has been done and we will not undo it by a custodial sentence. but you can equally say that about any offence. Imprisoning the offender does not undo any crime does it?
I really find it amazing that if one of your children or grandchildren was filmed being penetrated by an adult pervert you'd think that someone who bought those images being given 7 years on the sex offenders list and a sex offender treatment course was a right and proper punishment. A suspended sentence is no sentence at all unless the offender intends to reoffend within the suspension period.

I dont think we treat the safeguarding of children in any way seriously. I think there is still an antiquated view about this type of internet crime. Sentences such of this are a betrayal of children. Oh and Hugh Edward's mental health is of so little interest to me I cant even articulate it.

The internet has a huge part to pay in this kinds of crimes.

It gives access to others of the same ilk, unfortunately.

It is not about revenge, but deterrence. Men like this are very hard to rehabilitate - their proclivities seem to be hard-wired and courses are unlikely to have any value. If they knew they would go to prison then, in spite of their natures being unchangeable, it might just put them off - and without the viewers the trade dies. But how to identify those doing this?

I often wonder what it would be like if we had lots of prison spaces?
Would things be different then?

Sadly I also think that men[in courts] maybe a whole lot more lenient on other men, than women might be.
Dont care if someone calls me sexist for that in any way.

Oreo

To me, it shows how little interest there is in stopping this vile abuse, otherwise there would be a stronger sentence.
When you can be jailed for pushing against a police officer or chucking eggs at one or saying something racially offensive online but get a short suspended sentence for viewing children being sexually abused amongst other things, then what other view of this is possible?

Totally agree Oreo