tomav84 Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 2 hours ago, Davkaus said: I was just reading that the nonce who sent the pictures to Edwards got a 12 months suspended sentence. Absolutely **** disgusting. Edwards is much more high profile so he's likely to have people clamouring to lock him up and make an example, but it'd be absurd to lock him up for receiving unsolicited images while letting the scumbag who sent them walk free. read somewhere that first offence of images very, very rarely gets you a custodial sentence. think they work on the assumption that you're very seldom a repeat offender theres zero chance edwards is getting prison time for this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 9 minutes ago, tomav84 said: read somewhere that first offence of images very, very rarely gets you a custodial sentence. think they work on the assumption that you're very seldom a repeat offender theres zero chance edwards is getting prison time for this. I think that's particularly grim when it includes knowingly distributing them to others, that should be a very long custodial sentence even for a first time offence, imo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: I think that's particularly grim when it includes knowingly distributing them to others, that should be a very long custodial sentence even for a first time offence, imo yeah distributing is obviously more serious so it certainly seems a light sentence for the other guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 6 hours ago, Davkaus said: I believe the crime is them being in his possession even if they were unsolicited His hands were not clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 6 hours ago, LondonLax said: I haven’t followed too closely but I thought he wasn’t interested in the pictures and told the guy not to send them to him? Once again, he had the best lawyer. You honestly believe KC barrister is going to advise to plead guilty if he is genuinely innocent? Of course he isn't, he had too much to lose, most of all his self - respect. Also, he's seeming lack of contrition was like insult to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 7 hours ago, Davkaus said: I believe the crime is them being in his possession even if they were unsolicited Just dipping your toe in that murky water is inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 4 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: Just dipping your toe in that murky water is inexcusable. Ok, sure, I get this point of view, but this is just a weird sequence of posts. The initial point was that he didn't seek the images and they were sent to him and he said not to send them. You asked why he would plead guilty if that were true. I explained why he might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Just now, bickster said: That isn't a barristers job. A barrister argues the clients case in court, advice would be from a solicitor. No it isn't. When you get to crown Court, as I have done on many occasion, the Barrister is your voice. He will advise you on the best route to take. If there's a belief you could get off, then the Barrister will usually advise you to go to trial, if he doesn't think that, then he will tell you to plead guilty and then ask you want you want said in idmittigation. A solicitor isn't qualified to speak in Crown Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 10 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: Once again, he had the best lawyer. You honestly believe KC barrister is going to advise to plead guilty if he is genuinely innocent? Of course he isn't, he had too much to lose, most of all his self - respect. Also, he's seeming lack of contrition was like insult to injury. I didn’t claim he was innocent of possessing child pornography. My understanding is that he is guilty of possessing child pornography and has pleaded so in court. You suggested he was gratified by images of naked children. My understanding is he had not asked for the images and also asked not to be sent them again which might suggest he was not into child porn? We might find out more details as the case goes forward though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Ok, sure, I get this point of view, but this is just a weird sequence of posts. The initial point was that he didn't seek the images and they were sent to him and he said not to send them. You asked why he would plead guilty if that were true. I explained why he might. I said, with everything he had at stake, there's no way in this World he's going to plead guilty to such an offence. His Kings Council would have elected for trial if in anyway he thought he could clear his name. The this and the that doesn't mean squidlly, he pleaded guilty to a crime. That's It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Just now, sheepyvillian said: I said, with everything he had at stake, there's no way in this World he's going to plead guilty to such an offence. His Kings Council would have elected for trial if in anyway he thought he could clear his name. The this and the that doesn't mean squidlly, he pleaded guilty to a crime. That's It. That's a completely different conversation to the one we were having, but whatever you say chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, LondonLax said: I didn’t claim he was innocent of possessing child pornography. My understanding is that he is guilty of possessing child pornography and has pleaded so in court. You suggested he was gratified by images of naked children. My understanding is he had not asked for the images and also asked not to be sent them again which might suggest he was not into child porn? We might find out more details as the case goes forward though. All I know is if, God forbid, I found myself in that situation facing such a shameful crime, yet I'm innocent, then I'm pleading not guilty. Where's his explanation of extenuating circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, sheepyvillian said: All I know is if, God forbid, I found myself in that situation facing such a shameful crime, yet I'm innocent, then I'm pleading not guilty. Where's his explanation of extenuating circumstances? He’s guilty of possession though, they caught him red handed. He can’t really plead innocent. It doesn’t necessarily mean he wanted the images. He claims he didn’t ask for them and asked not to be sent any more. Presumably there will be records of that on his phone as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted August 2 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2 10 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Ok, sure, I get this point of view, but this is just a weird sequence of posts. The initial point was that he didn't seek the images and they were sent to him and he said not to send them. You asked why he would plead guilty if that were true. I explained why he might. Yep, this is how understand it. If somebody posted an image on here, and everybody on here looked at that page, then everyone has broken that law. If it went to court you'd have to plead guilty, because you'd broken the law by viewing the image. Pleading "not guilty" would be claiming you hadn't seen the image at all, which would obviously be a lie. It isn't like "did you steal something" when you can deny committing the crime. The law says if you even look at such an image on your phone you have committed the crime whether you intended to look at it or not. Unless I've got this all totally wrong think that the law really needs looking at, it just seems really open to abuse. Fortunately there is some kind of reasonable sense applied to this in terms of mitigating factors like deleting the image immediately etc. but I'm not sure that changes how you could plea in court on this particular charge. It could be that this is why Edwards has to plead guilty regardless. And no, I have no sympathy for him, he should have broken off contact with that scumbag immediately and reported him to the police. But he didn't did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: 1 minute ago, LondonLax said: He’s guilty of possession though, they caught him red handed. He can’t really plead innocent. It doesn’t necessarily mean he wanted the images. He claims he didn’t ask for them and asked not to be sent any more. Presumably there will be records of that on his phone as well. That's my point. He was guilty of something, namely "making indecent images of children." It doesn't get much murkier than that. That's what will be on his record, not any mention of reluctance. He knew what was at stake, now he has to face the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 6 minutes ago, LondonLax said: He’s guilty of possession though, they caught him red handed. He can’t really plead innocent. It doesn’t necessarily mean he wanted the images. He claims he didn’t ask for them and asked not to be sent any more. Presumably there will be records of that on his phone as well. I have zero sympathy for the man. Even more so after the arrogance he excuded on his walk to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 2 Moderator Share Posted August 2 26 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: No it isn't. When you get to crown Court, as I have done on many occasion, the Barrister is your voice. He will advise you on the best route to take. If there's a belief you could get off, then the Barrister will usually advise you to go to trial, if he doesn't think that, then he will tell you to plead guilty and then ask you want you want said in idmittigation. A solicitor isn't qualified to speak in Crown Court. Yes, hence why I hid my post after about a minute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 3 minutes ago, bickster said: Yes, hence why I hid my post after about a minute It's still a valid point. At the beginning of any criminal procedure, it's the solicitor who familarises himself with the case, so the Barrister would get the necessary information from the solicitor, it's just that the Barrister would then articulate that information himself to a crown court judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said: That's my point. He was guilty of something, namely "making indecent images of children." It doesn't get much murkier than that. That's what will be on his record, not any mention of reluctance. He knew what was at stake, now he has to face the consequences. The reason you're having so much back and forth on this is you're contradicting yourself 9 hours ago, LondonLax said: I haven’t followed too closely but I thought he wasn’t interested in the pictures and told the guy not to send them to him? 8 hours ago, sheepyvillian said: So why plead guilty. Also, why even be in a conversation about underage images. Let's be real, he pleaded guilty for a reason. You certainly gave the impression that you thought there was more to it than receiving the images, and that if he had just received the pictures unsolicited he wouldn't have plead guilty Now you're right he stayed in contact with a dodgy individual, and I agree he certainly shouldn't have if he was anything approaching a decent human being, but that bit isn't the crime, just receiving the images is, and that is probably why he plead guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Davkaus said: The reason you're having so much back and forth on this is you're contradicting yourself You certainly gave the impression that you thought there was more to it than receiving the images, and that if he had just received the pictures unsolicited he wouldn't have plead guilty Now you're right he stayed in contact with a dodgy individual, and I agree he certainly shouldn't have if he was anything approaching a decent human being, but that bit isn't the crime, just receiving the images is, and that is probably why he plead guilty. I haven't contradicted myself at all. I stated that he wouldn't have pleaded guilty if he was innocent. I gave no impression. He pleaded guilty to three counts of "Making indecent images of children". You were the one suggesting there was maybe some doubt to his guilt. From the start, I said, if he had been innocent of what he was accused of, his Barrister would have elected for trial. I don't know the why's and the rest, that's conjecture. What is fact, is that he had in his possession Indecent images of children, how long for is irrelevant, hence, the plea of guilty. Show me where I contradicted myself? Edited August 2 by sheepyvillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts