Chindie Posted Monday at 15:07 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 15:07 3 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: I guess 41 images isn't that many... When you consider it's fairly common for people on similar charges to have thousands, and vast amounts of that being the worst categories, Edwards being sent 41 and having specifically said 'nothing illegal' it puts a different slant on it. He's still guilty. But he was never getting a severe punishment. Arguably the social fallout is a heavier punishment than anything the court was going to offer. I suspect you'd get short odds on him topping himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted Monday at 15:10 Share Posted Monday at 15:10 5 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: I guess 41 images isn't that many... I work in IT and someone I went to Uni with ended up working for the police computer forensics department and when I last spoke to her she'd left because she literally couldn't handle the volume and nature of the shit that goes through there. It's literally a conveyor belt of phones and PC's full of this filth. 40-odd images might sound a lot (and tbf 1 is too many!) but the nature of where we are as a society and the prison system being what it is I'm afraid I can understand why they have to look at it and consider it "lower level" noncery. He's not Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted Monday at 16:30 Share Posted Monday at 16:30 If only Huw had said some nasty things on Facebook, he may have got a custodial sentence. AMIRITE? Seriously though, what an absolute word removed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted Monday at 16:37 Share Posted Monday at 16:37 1 hour ago, TreeVillan said: I guess 41 images isn't that many... He doesn't deserve a iota of sympathy. "Class A" images, that speaks for itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted Monday at 16:46 Share Posted Monday at 16:46 A guy on the news just hit the nail on the head. "Let's put the children first and the offender second". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted Monday at 17:10 Share Posted Monday at 17:10 Has he even paid the bbc the money back? If he felt guilt for what he's done he would willingly pay tax payers money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted Monday at 17:11 Share Posted Monday at 17:11 (edited) 25 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: A guy on the news just hit the nail on the head. "Let's put the children first and the offender second". Who's doing the opposite? Edited Monday at 17:11 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted Monday at 17:18 Share Posted Monday at 17:18 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Who's doing the opposite? Whoever he's referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted Monday at 18:04 Share Posted Monday at 18:04 What is the exchange rate of disgraced BBC presenters pay to NHS nurses these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted Monday at 18:18 Share Posted Monday at 18:18 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: Who's doing the opposite? The magistrate. From what I heard normally these cases go to crown court and the consideration of his mental.health and because of that having no memory of looking at these gross images plus considering his vulnerability in prison. This sends a clear message to all pedophiles that they get away with what they like as nothing will happen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted Monday at 18:21 Share Posted Monday at 18:21 (edited) 3 minutes ago, PaulC said: The magistrate. From what I heard normally these cases go to crown court and the consideration of his mental.health and because of that having no memory of looking at these gross images plus considering his vulnerability in prison. This sends a clear message to all pedophiles that they get away with what they like as nothing will happen to them. Whichever court he's in, the judge was going to consider those mitigating factors and weigh them up against any aggravating factors. That's the magistrate doing their job. I do agree that the sentence is light, and the sentencing guidelines for these offences don't match what the public expect though, just don't think this judge has given a sentence that's in any way unusual, from what I've read. Edited Monday at 18:22 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted Monday at 18:27 Share Posted Monday at 18:27 I think what I was most surprised about was that he's only on the sex offenders register for 7 years, I'd always just assumed that was for life 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted Monday at 18:30 Share Posted Monday at 18:30 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Whichever court he's in, the judge was going to consider those mitigating factors and weigh them up against any aggravating factors. That's the magistrate doing their job. I do agree that the sentence is light, and the sentencing guidelines for these offences don't match what the public expect though, just don't think this judge has given a sentence that's in any way unusual, from what I've read. Edited Monday at 18:31 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted Monday at 18:39 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 18:39 It's not a dodgy sentence insofar as following the law. The judge has given his justification and it's in line with the law. Whether you agree with the law is open for debate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted Monday at 18:56 Share Posted Monday at 18:56 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Chindie said: It's not a dodgy sentence insofar as following the law. The judge has given his justification and it's in line with the law. Whether you agree with the law is open for debate. Yeah I think this is the crux of it. Did the judge give a lenient sentence? Not really, it seems pretty standard. But it's pretty clear that the sentencing here is simply outrageous to the general public, and this being such a high profile case, I can only hope it applies enough political pressure to revise the sentencing guidelines. You can't go all in on bowing to the public on sentencing, or we'd be hanging people for loitering, but justice needs to be seen to be being done. Edited Monday at 18:57 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted Monday at 19:43 Share Posted Monday at 19:43 Hands up everyone that wants much longer custodial sentences for all these people that use or encourage this sort of stuff? Hands up everyone willing to pay the additional tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted Monday at 19:48 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 19:48 I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage at the sentence the guy who sent him the images got - his crime is much, much worse and he got a barely heavier punishment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin79 Posted Monday at 20:30 Share Posted Monday at 20:30 (edited) Saw a a few bits about him saying that he didn’t want anything illegal, but that exchange apparently occurred after knowingly, and willingly receiving them. BBC Quote The court heard that in another exchange with Williams, Edwards replied "yes" followed by three 'X's when asked whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16". He responded to Williams with: "Amazing". The court heard he was also sent a link with more images, then discussed buying Williams a Christmas present. Edited Monday at 20:31 by Colin79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted Monday at 21:37 Share Posted Monday at 21:37 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Hands up everyone that wants much longer custodial sentences for all these people that use or encourage this sort of stuff? Hands up everyone willing to pay the additional tax? Not really but I wouldn't send anybody to prison for non violent crimes myself. There's other way of dealing with them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted Monday at 21:41 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 21:41 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Hands up everyone that wants much longer custodial sentences for all these people that use or encourage this sort of stuff? Hands up everyone willing to pay the additional tax? i suspect the re offending for this sort of thing is fairly low hence why prison sentances are often suspended. then you have the whole added logistics of having them segregated whilst inside for their own safety. i guess the fear is that if they're looking at this stuff, is there a chance of them acting on it and going that step further? presumably if they're scrutinising their laptops etc and found evidence of accessing internet chat rooms, or messaging kids on social media then that's a different story. but for most, it's probably limited to 'just' images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts