Will Huw Edwards get a custodial sentence?

MissAdventure

8 out of 10 caught on possession of images like Edwards had don't serve custodial sentences.

Which is an absolute disgrace in my humble

8 out of 10 caught on possession of images like Edwards had don't serve custodial sentences.

What an almighty mess for his family. The shame.

Rosie51

Grandma70s

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

You actually think a 6 months suspended sentence for being part of the reason children are photographed, and in this case videoed, being sexually abused is not lenient, but just and appropriate? These images so enjoyed by Huw Edwards and others like him are in existence for ever. Those children don't ever get to escape from the harm perpetuated on them by perverts, he gets 7 years on the sex offenders register. Total travesty of justice!

Very, very well said Rosie51

Grandma70s

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

You actually think a 6 months suspended sentence for being part of the reason children are photographed, and in this case videoed, being sexually abused is not lenient, but just and appropriate? These images so enjoyed by Huw Edwards and others like him are in existence for ever. Those children don't ever get to escape from the harm perpetuated on them by perverts, he gets 7 years on the sex offenders register. Total travesty of justice!

Not surprised...very little mention of the victims, all about his drama.

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

Rosie51

Casdon

I’ll ask again, does anybody know if this is the same length of sentence that would be given to others who had committed the same offence? If it isn’t, that’s not right, but if it is then the anger should be directed at the justice system?

I refer you to my post just above yours which I assume you hadn't seen

Sorry Rosie51, I hadn’t because your post came on while I was typing mine. Thanks for the information, that’s what I guessed might be the case.
There’s no point people saying he should have got a harsher sentence in that case, lobbying for harsher sentences for all similar offences is the way forward.

The replies to most things are vicious lately.
Starmer is to blame for it all. (Apparently)

I’m astonished by the vicious nature of most of these replies. I think the sentence is lenient at all.

BEA shamed the royals. ? I think you,ve got that wrong. Te KING was friends with Savile and a peadophile bishop not to mention his great uncle who apparently “had a thing for boys” ask the kids who were in a NI care home .Then there’s Andrew ….12 Million to someone he didn’t,t recall meeting…..lol I wonder who bumped off Epstein …he certainly didn’t commit suicide.The royals have been up to their necks in vile behaviour .Thet need to be sacked

Freya5

I find this sentence absolutely disgusting. He should have been given a custodial sentence due to the severity of his crimes.
These children will be scarred for life.
Some hurty words and you're chucked into prison for three years
Harm children you get a pat on the back from our pathetic judiciary.

If you are hinting at the sentences handed down to rioters, they were not jailed for 'hurty words'. Nobody has been given a 'pat on the back'. I know you are angry, we are all angry at what Edwards did

Completely different circumstances imo - I cannot view calls to murder people in mosques or incite riots in our cities as "hurty words".

By all means comment on whether the sentencing on viewing child porn images is adequate or not, of course.

House Plant Queen Yes, I think the life long punishment Edwards will receive will in the end hurt more than a prison sentence - as a known public figure he will never be forgotten or able to have any anonymity from his crimes.

Casdon

I’ll ask again, does anybody know if this is the same length of sentence that would be given to others who had committed the same offence? If it isn’t, that’s not right, but if it is then the anger should be directed at the justice system?

I refer you to my post just above yours which I assume you hadn't seen

I’ll ask again, does anybody know if this is the same length of sentence that would be given to others who had committed the same offence? If it isn’t, that’s not right, but if it is then the anger should be directed at the justice system?

Wyllow3 Personally, I think he should have got a custodial sentence, but presumably the guidelines were what determined the result

I agree he should have been put in prison, but a former DPP has said this suspended sentence is what anyone else would get. To me that just demonstrates that the guidelines are wrong, this is an outrageously lenient sentence. You have to wonder at the criteria used to determine these guidelines, and the priorities of those who do the determining. Obviously children don't really count when it comes to the perversions of men.
As for being on the sex offenders register for 7 years, in my opinion that should be for life.

I find this sentence absolutely disgusting. He should have been given a custodial sentence due to the severity of his crimes.
These children will be scarred for life.
Some hurty words and you're chucked into prison for three years
Harm children you get a pat on the back from our pathetic judiciary.

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

I "bought" the solid and reliable image as in respected news anchor.

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 🤢

It's strange isn't it, how a "gut feeling" that you can't explain leads one to not like an individual despite never having met them. I have never liked him and I agree with an earlier post that he looked expressionless on TV.

As soon as I read of Williams' sentencing I realised that Edwards was unlikely to get more, since Williams actually accessed the images and sold them on.

Possession of images is deemed less culpable than distributing them

or, of course, worse of all, making them,

and there are levels of "indecency" in terms of content and therefore sentencing..

consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdf

Personally, I think he should have got a custodial sentence, but presumably the guidelines were what determined the result

Exactly Smileless those poor, poor children have no worth at all apparently

No he didn't PuddyCat, such is the value we place on our children .

He's always looked dead behind the eyes to me.