| Huw Edwards 11:58 - Sep 16 with 20114 views | Zx1988 |
Reading the coverage of his sentencing, his legal team seem to be making very heavy weather of the fact that his character etc., should count in his favour.
Surely his apparent character and position should count against him, no? Being a trusted public figure such as he was, should he not be held to even higher standards than us mere mortals? |  |
| |  |
| The BBC just reported that.... on 14:22 - Sep 16 with 2640 views | itfcjoe |
| The BBC just reported that.... on 13:08 - Sep 16 by Bloots |
....he was asked if he wanted more of the underage kids and he said "go on" and called them "amazing".
No excuses at all.
He's a paedophile that has basically got away with it because he apologised and said that he had a mental disorder meaning that he couldn't remember receiving them.
A disgusting decision from the justice system. |
This is what Sky said about it:
He is due to be sentenced soon after admitting three charges of making indecent photographs after he was sent 41 illegal images by Alex Williams over WhatsApp.
The court heard much of the intermittent chat between the pair between early 2018 and the summer of 2022 "was sexual in nature".
Prosecutor Ian Hope said in a December 2020 conversation "Williams said that he had 'a file of vids and pics for you of someone special'."
"Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person, from two of which images the subject's age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16," he said.
Williams said he had "12 videos and 42 pics I've sent you a video of him before" and shortly after asked: "Want me to send you the full file?"
The court heard Edwards responded: "Yes xxx..." and Williams immediately sent around 30 attachments, about half of which were category C indecent images of children.
Mr Hope said Edwards did not respond after Williams sent him a sexual video of children aged around seven to nine and 11 to 13 in February 2021.
Then a week later, further attachments were sent, which included two category B videos and four category C still images comprising indecent images of children.
On 19 February 2021, Williams asked: "Is the stuff I'm sending too young for you?"
"The next response from Mr Edwards is dated February 22 2021 saying: 'don't send underage'," said the prosecutor.
"In a later exchange on August 11, 2021, Alex Williams says he has some 'naughty pics and vids unsure if you'd like'. Mr Edwards tells him to 'go on' and Alex Williams states 'yng (sic)'.
"Mr Edwards again tells him to 'go on' and Alex Williams sends a Category A moving image showing a male child aged around seven to nine...
"Mr Edwards inquires where the video is from and Alex Williams says an image sharing group on another social media platform which they have both also used, Telegram.
"Alex Williams says the subject is 'quite yng looking' to which Mr Edwards responds it 'can be deceptive' and asks if he has 'any more?'
"Alex Williams says he has but he is not sure if Mr Edwards would like them as they are illegal.
"Mr Edwards says: 'Ah ok don't' and the exchange immediately following concerns a series of images which Alex Williams describes as 'looks young don't he but he's deffo 19'." |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 14:28 - Sep 16 with 2596 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 14:09 - Sep 16 by DarkHorse |
It makes perfect sense. Gotta keep cells open for people posting nasty comments about immigrants on social media. |
You’re being quite disingenuous here. The people who are facing jail for posting ‘nasty things about immigrants’ weren’t just saying stuff you see in the Daily Mail. Instead they were encouraging violence, arson and other more extreme things. But you knew that but chose to ignore that. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:10 - Sep 16 with 2475 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 14:28 - Sep 16 by MattinLondon |
You’re being quite disingenuous here. The people who are facing jail for posting ‘nasty things about immigrants’ weren’t just saying stuff you see in the Daily Mail. Instead they were encouraging violence, arson and other more extreme things. But you knew that but chose to ignore that. |
Let’s be honest… Susan in Bramford posting ‘burn a hotel’ to her 150 friends is NOTHING compared to paying for photos of children being r*ped.
I’m genuinely sad about this story, those poor kids, the lives they’ll lead.
That judge should be sacked. HE destroyed any times he leaves his house.
Scum |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:10 - Sep 16 with 2498 views | Illinoisblue |
So he didn’t get prison time, either? Unreal. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:13 - Sep 16 with 2483 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Huw Edwards on 15:10 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
Let’s be honest… Susan in Bramford posting ‘burn a hotel’ to her 150 friends is NOTHING compared to paying for photos of children being r*ped.
I’m genuinely sad about this story, those poor kids, the lives they’ll lead.
That judge should be sacked. HE destroyed any times he leaves his house.
Scum |
How about we just don't conflate the 2 things which aren't in any way linked. A dirty nonce escaping bird doesn't in any way make c**** on social media posting dangerous and racist bile any way more palatable. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:15 - Sep 16 with 2470 views | itfcjoe |
| Huw Edwards on 15:10 - Sep 16 by Illinoisblue |
So he didn’t get prison time, either? Unreal. |
That's much crazier for me, but again I guess must sit within the sentencing guidelines | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:17 - Sep 16 with 2450 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 15:13 - Sep 16 by _clive_baker_ |
How about we just don't conflate the 2 things which aren't in any way linked. A dirty nonce escaping bird doesn't in any way make c**** on social media posting dangerous and racist bile any way more palatable. |
Couldn’t agree more. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:23 - Sep 16 with 2394 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 15:13 - Sep 16 by _clive_baker_ |
How about we just don't conflate the 2 things which aren't in any way linked. A dirty nonce escaping bird doesn't in any way make c**** on social media posting dangerous and racist bile any way more palatable. |
That’s very true.
That said it’s ultimately going to make people look at the two situations and question how one is worthy of prison, and the other isn’t.
I didn’t make the rules, the judges in this country did. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw Edwards on 15:30 - Sep 16 with 2385 views | Illinoisblue |
| Huw Edwards on 15:15 - Sep 16 by itfcjoe |
That's much crazier for me, but again I guess must sit within the sentencing guidelines |
They’re both guilty of horrendous things but the act of procuring the images and then selling them appears to be much more serious than the behavior of Edwards. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 16:42 - Sep 16 with 2270 views | NeedhamChris |
| Huw Edwards on 13:49 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
All linked somewhere along the line. The judges, the police, the bbc, the nonces… I didn’t believe that could be a thing, but there’s something seriously wrong somewhere. [Post edited 16 Sep 2024 21:05]
|
Whether you agree with the sentence or not (I agree it seems unduly lenient), there's nothing about it that suggests he's been treated in a more lenient way than anyone else would in a similar situation.
Any ire should be focussed at the sentencing guidelines here rather than one individual application of them. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 16:52 - Sep 16 with 2214 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 16:42 - Sep 16 by NeedhamChris |
Whether you agree with the sentence or not (I agree it seems unduly lenient), there's nothing about it that suggests he's been treated in a more lenient way than anyone else would in a similar situation.
Any ire should be focussed at the sentencing guidelines here rather than one individual application of them. |
absoutely.
not sure if the poster is interested in facts though, just libellous conspiracy theories! | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:01 - Sep 16 with 2175 views | Buhrer |
The court heard that a “restricted, puritanical but often hypocritical background of growing up in a particular cultural milieu of south Wales with a father who was highly regarded and lauded outside the family, but was perceived as behaving monstrously within the family, created both an enduring cognitive dissonance and low self-esteem”.
The court heard that this had been “compounded by a sense of being inferior by not getting into Oxford and going to Cardiff instead, and being therefore something of an outsider at the BBC”.
So he became a nonce.
6 f ucking months. Suspended? F uck this country. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:12 - Sep 16 with 2109 views | bluelagos |
| Huw Edwards on 17:01 - Sep 16 by Buhrer |
The court heard that a “restricted, puritanical but often hypocritical background of growing up in a particular cultural milieu of south Wales with a father who was highly regarded and lauded outside the family, but was perceived as behaving monstrously within the family, created both an enduring cognitive dissonance and low self-esteem”.
The court heard that this had been “compounded by a sense of being inferior by not getting into Oxford and going to Cardiff instead, and being therefore something of an outsider at the BBC”.
So he became a nonce.
6 f ucking months. Suspended? F uck this country. |
“compounded by a sense of being inferior by not getting into Oxford and going to Cardiff instead"
Kin hell. Would imagine 99% of the board never went to Oxford yet managed not to let the disappointment turn us into peados. Appreciate the defence will put their case but that is an incredibly desperate passage from the lawyer.
Agree with much of the sentiment of thread, incredible that a prison sentence hasn't been given whilst accepting it is the guidelines rather than the judge that are clearly in need of toughening up. A large part of prison sentences is deterrence for others and I fail to see how a suspended sentence is much of a deterrent tbh |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:14 - Sep 16 with 2103 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Huw Edwards on 17:01 - Sep 16 by Buhrer |
The court heard that a “restricted, puritanical but often hypocritical background of growing up in a particular cultural milieu of south Wales with a father who was highly regarded and lauded outside the family, but was perceived as behaving monstrously within the family, created both an enduring cognitive dissonance and low self-esteem”.
The court heard that this had been “compounded by a sense of being inferior by not getting into Oxford and going to Cardiff instead, and being therefore something of an outsider at the BBC”.
So he became a nonce.
6 f ucking months. Suspended? F uck this country. |
Not sure where to start with that, but 'particular cultural milieu of south Wales'? Genuine question, what's the significance of that? Is it known for breeding paedophiles? | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:17 - Sep 16 with 2098 views | blueasfook |
It's disgusting the nonce basically got away with it. A prison sentence is usually a given for having pornographic images of kids. I hope this joke of a sentence is appealed for being unduly lenient.
I take it he's got to go on the nonce's register at least? |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:19 - Sep 16 with 2079 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Huw Edwards on 17:17 - Sep 16 by blueasfook |
It's disgusting the nonce basically got away with it. A prison sentence is usually a given for having pornographic images of kids. I hope this joke of a sentence is appealed for being unduly lenient.
I take it he's got to go on the nonce's register at least? |
7 years. What does that actually mean in practice though, I don't really understand it. He has to sign something that says he can't work in a school or something? Can't imagine that'll have the blind bit of difference in his day to day life. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:25 - Sep 16 with 2031 views | leitrimblue |
| Huw Edwards on 15:10 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
Let’s be honest… Susan in Bramford posting ‘burn a hotel’ to her 150 friends is NOTHING compared to paying for photos of children being r*ped.
I’m genuinely sad about this story, those poor kids, the lives they’ll lead.
That judge should be sacked. HE destroyed any times he leaves his house.
Scum |
They should both be in prison. Its quite easy really |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:26 - Sep 16 with 2022 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 17:19 - Sep 16 by _clive_baker_ |
7 years. What does that actually mean in practice though, I don't really understand it. He has to sign something that says he can't work in a school or something? Can't imagine that'll have the blind bit of difference in his day to day life. |
Pretty much yeah. I think the cops can randomly turn up to check he's living where he say he's living. He won't even be banned from Internet access. I think he would only get those restrictions if he'd been given a sexual harm prevention order. Which it doesn't sound like he has. He's basically got away with a slap on the wrist. He should be settling in for his first night on the nonce wing tonight. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:29 - Sep 16 with 1990 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 15:23 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
That’s very true.
That said it’s ultimately going to make people look at the two situations and question how one is worthy of prison, and the other isn’t.
I didn’t make the rules, the judges in this country did. |
Not quite true that the judges makes the rules. Parliament promulgates laws which the judicial system has to interpret with regard to the existing legal framework (which includes the common law that has developed over the centuries.) In trial by jury the final decision will be down to members of the public, although the judge will have a responsibility for some guidance. Once judgement has been passed the sentence should follow set guidelines in England and Wales:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_Council
That's as straightforward as I can make it and I have probably mangled a fair bit of the reality out of it as I have done so. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:31 - Sep 16 with 1982 views | Illinoisblue |
| Huw Edwards on 17:17 - Sep 16 by blueasfook |
It's disgusting the nonce basically got away with it. A prison sentence is usually a given for having pornographic images of kids. I hope this joke of a sentence is appealed for being unduly lenient.
I take it he's got to go on the nonce's register at least? |
Legal analysis here. Worth a read.
| |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:31 - Sep 16 with 1973 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Huw Edwards on 17:17 - Sep 16 by blueasfook |
It's disgusting the nonce basically got away with it. A prison sentence is usually a given for having pornographic images of kids. I hope this joke of a sentence is appealed for being unduly lenient.
I take it he's got to go on the nonce's register at least? |
"Prison sentence is usually a given" - it isn't unfortunately. Seems to be someone almost every week in the EADT getting a suspended sentence for similar and worse. And that is just locally. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:43 - Sep 16 with 1894 views | Buhrer |
| Huw Edwards on 17:14 - Sep 16 by _clive_baker_ |
Not sure where to start with that, but 'particular cultural milieu of south Wales'? Genuine question, what's the significance of that? Is it known for breeding paedophiles? |
Their angle seems to be that he was confused during events, such was his deeplyrepressed homosexuality that when it finally roared dragon like from the closet he just went a bit far, honest mistake. He was beguiled, just so hot and horny during his sex chats with a 19 year that he just made an honest mistake asking for pictures of children and receiving the most extreme filth.
and due to this he somehow deserves a £200k payoff and no prison.
Apparently he's on suicide watch because he thinks killing himself will be best for his family. But not willing to serve a punishment fitting to the abuses of the true victims.
What a pathetic worm. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:49 - Sep 16 with 1867 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 17:31 - Sep 16 by tractorboy1978 |
"Prison sentence is usually a given" - it isn't unfortunately. Seems to be someone almost every week in the EADT getting a suspended sentence for similar and worse. And that is just locally. |
Really? Fair enough. But because of who he is and how well known he is, the impact of it will be huge I guess. He won't be able to go anywhere. He'll be recognised and people will shout stuff or worse. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 18:26 - Sep 16 with 1747 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 16:52 - Sep 16 by positivity |
absoutely.
not sure if the poster is interested in facts though, just libellous conspiracy theories! |
Literally said I didn’t believe it was a thing previously, so I’m hardly old Southampton Matt…. However there can be no other explanation as to why the law is so soft on nonces though in my opinion. Protecting their own?
Like who set those rules in the first place? Then after that, why wasn’t it questioned?
But you’re right, I’m the problem for posting something is fishy. [Post edited 16 Sep 2024 21:10]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
