Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

I agree with u totally. He should be hung, drawn & quartered! Filty, vile creature. He is not a man.🤔

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?

Kate1949

He faced three charges of 'making indecent images of children'.

I know.
But the quote I put above says * The prosecutors did not allege that Edwards had made the images in question.
So why didn’t they if he did actually make them?

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.

He faced three charges of 'making indecent images of children'.

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.

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

Wonder if you'd feel the same if it was one of your children/grandchildren/nieces/nephews that had been filmed or photographed and the images sold to paedophiles to drool over?

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 ?

It was never about lack of prison spaces.

His punishment is in line with what others are now, and have been given.

BigBopper

Then we wonder why this country is full of paedophiles, rapists, murderers and sex traffickers.

We do not have a justice system fit for purpose. Shame on the government.

I agree.

Because there is not enough prison space, is no answer in my opinion.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

House plant Queen , well said.

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.

Sago

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

Absolutely

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

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

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?

Reported above.

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?

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.