| Huw Edwards 11:58 - Sep 16 with 20593 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? |  |
| |  |
| Huw Edwards on 18:35 - Sep 16 with 2436 views | redrickstuhaart |
| 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. |
No they didnt. Sentencing guidelines do not come from judges. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 18:47 - Sep 16 with 2387 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 18:26 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
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]
|
if you want to know who sets the rules, read wwz's post, if you want to know about sentencing guidelines, look at illy's/chrisneedham's.
if you're too lazy to educate yourself, then the long and short of it is that it's not the bbc, the police or the judges!
if you want to go down the tinfoil conspiracy theory route that's your prerogative, but don't post it on here and bring down twtd's good name.
that way leads to madness, mob rule and innocent people getting libelled or worse; look at the cases of leon brittan and the paediatrician whose house was attacked | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 18:59 - Sep 16 with 2337 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Huw Edwards on 18:47 - Sep 16 by positivity |
if you want to know who sets the rules, read wwz's post, if you want to know about sentencing guidelines, look at illy's/chrisneedham's.
if you're too lazy to educate yourself, then the long and short of it is that it's not the bbc, the police or the judges!
if you want to go down the tinfoil conspiracy theory route that's your prerogative, but don't post it on here and bring down twtd's good name.
that way leads to madness, mob rule and innocent people getting libelled or worse; look at the cases of leon brittan and the paediatrician whose house was attacked |
The poster is angry at the sentence and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the sentencing guidelines and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the discrepancy of sentencing between facebook posts and engaging in viewing child pornography which leads to insufferable and ever lasting turmoil to the abused - and I don't blame him. nb - I will add sitting in the middle of a motorway to that.
All you have done is belittle the poster and insinuated he is thick, you then go on about how he is besmirching the good name of TWTD
Everyone I talk to is angry about it. The fact that you aren't annoyed by this sentencing of a public figure getting off with child pornography offences probably says more about you. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 19:04 - Sep 16 with 2313 views | NeedhamChris |
| Huw Edwards on 18:59 - Sep 16 by Lord_Lucan |
The poster is angry at the sentence and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the sentencing guidelines and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the discrepancy of sentencing between facebook posts and engaging in viewing child pornography which leads to insufferable and ever lasting turmoil to the abused - and I don't blame him. nb - I will add sitting in the middle of a motorway to that.
All you have done is belittle the poster and insinuated he is thick, you then go on about how he is besmirching the good name of TWTD
Everyone I talk to is angry about it. The fact that you aren't annoyed by this sentencing of a public figure getting off with child pornography offences probably says more about you. |
When does positivity say he's not annoyed by the sentencing?
Just because he's actually researched what it is that you should be annoyed at, doesn't make him any more tolerant of child pornography offences than those who prefer to just spew in all directions and it's pretty disgusting of you to suggest otherwise. Shame. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 19:06 - Sep 16 with 2306 views | NeedhamChris |
| 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. |
Well said. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 19:06 - Sep 16 with 2319 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 18:59 - Sep 16 by Lord_Lucan |
The poster is angry at the sentence and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the sentencing guidelines and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the discrepancy of sentencing between facebook posts and engaging in viewing child pornography which leads to insufferable and ever lasting turmoil to the abused - and I don't blame him. nb - I will add sitting in the middle of a motorway to that.
All you have done is belittle the poster and insinuated he is thick, you then go on about how he is besmirching the good name of TWTD
Everyone I talk to is angry about it. The fact that you aren't annoyed by this sentencing of a public figure getting off with child pornography offences probably says more about you. |
i'm annoyed by the sentence, so are many on here.
however, only one poster (that i've seen) is suggesting the judge should be hounded for doing his job, only one is suggesting a deep state conspiracy involving the bbc and the police.
when he has a history of defending the rioters and belittling the severity of the crimes, then i think it's fair to call it out. twtd may well be called to account for any libel, so i think it's good for us all if we point it out. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 19:10 - Sep 16 with 2299 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 19:04 - Sep 16 by NeedhamChris |
When does positivity say he's not annoyed by the sentencing?
Just because he's actually researched what it is that you should be annoyed at, doesn't make him any more tolerant of child pornography offences than those who prefer to just spew in all directions and it's pretty disgusting of you to suggest otherwise. Shame. |
quite, it's possible to be annoyed and angry about sentencing whilst also understanding the context arund it and that it's not all the bbc/the judiciary's fault.
tbf, lucan has apologised when he's made knee-jerk accusations like this in the past, so i'm hoping he'll do the same here [Post edited 16 Sep 2024 19:10]
| |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 19:42 - Sep 16 with 2236 views | Buhrer |
| 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. |
Not in any way linked.
"The court heard from a forensic psychosexual therapist that social media had allowed Edwards, who had “managed” his sexual attraction to men since 1994, to “re-engage” with those desires and “boost his fragile self-esteem” but that his mental health issues led to a failure of judgment.
The court heard from a consultant psychiatrist who said Edwards was a “complex” individual.
As he handed down the sentence, the chief magistrate said he accepted evidence that Edwards had no recollection of viewing the indecent images owing to his mental health issues at the time of the offences"
How about what? Huw for castration. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw Edwards on 19:57 - Sep 16 with 2200 views | Mullet |
| Huw Edwards on 19:42 - Sep 16 by Buhrer |
Not in any way linked.
"The court heard from a forensic psychosexual therapist that social media had allowed Edwards, who had “managed” his sexual attraction to men since 1994, to “re-engage” with those desires and “boost his fragile self-esteem” but that his mental health issues led to a failure of judgment.
The court heard from a consultant psychiatrist who said Edwards was a “complex” individual.
As he handed down the sentence, the chief magistrate said he accepted evidence that Edwards had no recollection of viewing the indecent images owing to his mental health issues at the time of the offences"
How about what? Huw for castration. |
I don't think corporal or capital punishment are viable in a modern society, nor do I understand how the facts of the case we have, show why a custodial sentence is not necessary.
The state and crisis in our prison service is deep-rooted and something the government have slept on for years. There's an argument that had we invested when necessary there'd be capacity to hold people like this.
There's also an argument that if people like HE are capable of reform and not needing prison, then some sort of therapeutic custody to treat them would be a good use of funds. The distraction of this thread excusing racists and violence is unfortunate, but we are at a point in this country where we need to decide what we use prisons for.
If HE is safe to be in the community, it seems unreasonable that he doesn't need ongoing monitoring and medical intervention. I appreciate that castration sort of makes sense, but it was how people like Turing were treated and the overlap between homosexuality and paedophilia from decades past is an uncomfortable parallel there.
I think "a complex individual" requires a complex approach, but the justice system has inbuilt bias towards those who commit crime through poverty and social isolation which doesn't apply to men like him. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 20:10 - Sep 16 with 2133 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Huw Edwards on 19:04 - Sep 16 by NeedhamChris |
When does positivity say he's not annoyed by the sentencing?
Just because he's actually researched what it is that you should be annoyed at, doesn't make him any more tolerant of child pornography offences than those who prefer to just spew in all directions and it's pretty disgusting of you to suggest otherwise. Shame. |
Whatever.
The bloke is attacking someone for a gut reaction to the situation.
Bunch of arse. [Post edited 16 Sep 2024 20:59]
| |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 20:11 - Sep 16 with 2133 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 19:06 - Sep 16 by positivity |
i'm annoyed by the sentence, so are many on here.
however, only one poster (that i've seen) is suggesting the judge should be hounded for doing his job, only one is suggesting a deep state conspiracy involving the bbc and the police.
when he has a history of defending the rioters and belittling the severity of the crimes, then i think it's fair to call it out. twtd may well be called to account for any libel, so i think it's good for us all if we point it out. |
Woahhhhh who defended the rioters?
Do I think ‘some’ of them should be in prison for seemingly very small crimes compared to requesting child r*pe photos, no I don’t.
Am I bemused that someone somewhere has sat down and written ‘if you request child r*pe photos you will receive 6 months suspended sentence’
They’ve then passed that idea along to the next person who has gone ‘yep let’s not question that’
And it’s then become the law.
If you were part of that process I bet 50p you’d pull it to pieces and and demand the law was tougher.
I simply don’t understand how such a weak punishment has been approved, by incredibly powerful people. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 20:51 - Sep 16 with 2037 views | bluebudgie |
| Huw Edwards on 20:11 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
Woahhhhh who defended the rioters?
Do I think ‘some’ of them should be in prison for seemingly very small crimes compared to requesting child r*pe photos, no I don’t.
Am I bemused that someone somewhere has sat down and written ‘if you request child r*pe photos you will receive 6 months suspended sentence’
They’ve then passed that idea along to the next person who has gone ‘yep let’s not question that’
And it’s then become the law.
If you were part of that process I bet 50p you’d pull it to pieces and and demand the law was tougher.
I simply don’t understand how such a weak punishment has been approved, by incredibly powerful people. |
Bet the Judge was a Mason |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 21:44 - Sep 16 with 1915 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Huw Edwards on 18:59 - Sep 16 by Lord_Lucan |
The poster is angry at the sentence and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the sentencing guidelines and I don't blame him.
The poster is angry at the discrepancy of sentencing between facebook posts and engaging in viewing child pornography which leads to insufferable and ever lasting turmoil to the abused - and I don't blame him. nb - I will add sitting in the middle of a motorway to that.
All you have done is belittle the poster and insinuated he is thick, you then go on about how he is besmirching the good name of TWTD
Everyone I talk to is angry about it. The fact that you aren't annoyed by this sentencing of a public figure getting off with child pornography offences probably says more about you. |
The first 4 words were enough. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 22:05 - Sep 16 with 1823 views | Mullet |
I don't see how that's not jail time due to the negligence alone.
Incredibly depressing and not something to make light of, when you think about what their lives must have been like and how she clearly couldn't cope. Unless her condition is so severe she requires psychiatric treatment, she clearly cannot be left to live in the community. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 22:43 - Sep 16 with 1728 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 20:11 - Sep 16 by textbackup |
Woahhhhh who defended the rioters?
Do I think ‘some’ of them should be in prison for seemingly very small crimes compared to requesting child r*pe photos, no I don’t.
Am I bemused that someone somewhere has sat down and written ‘if you request child r*pe photos you will receive 6 months suspended sentence’
They’ve then passed that idea along to the next person who has gone ‘yep let’s not question that’
And it’s then become the law.
If you were part of that process I bet 50p you’d pull it to pieces and and demand the law was tougher.
I simply don’t understand how such a weak punishment has been approved, by incredibly powerful people. |
your posts about the rioys are a matter of public record.
it's possible to think edwards should have had a bigger sentence without calling for the judge to be hounded and seeing a deep state conspiracy involving the bbc and the police.
it's also possible to think edwards should have had a bigger sentence without belittling the crimes of people calling for murder of refugees and asylum seekers by indiscriinately settng fire to hotels (and mosques). what they did was heinous and it was only some fortune and brave policing that prevented mass murder.
basically let's all think before we post and don't go making accusation against the most convenient bogeyman. that's what caused the riots inthe first place, as well as the hounding of judges, paediatricians etc etc | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 22:51 - Sep 16 with 1697 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Huw Edwards on 22:05 - Sep 16 by Mullet |
I don't see how that's not jail time due to the negligence alone.
Incredibly depressing and not something to make light of, when you think about what their lives must have been like and how she clearly couldn't cope. Unless her condition is so severe she requires psychiatric treatment, she clearly cannot be left to live in the community. |
How will time inside help her or the remainder of society? | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 23:09 - Sep 16 with 1660 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 22:51 - Sep 16 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How will time inside help her or the remainder of society? |
It won’t at all.
In this country, prison isn’t an out trying to rehabilitate the offender but more about punishment. But if you argue against imprisonment then it’s electoral suicide for whatever party is in power. The public loves to punish. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 06:22 - Sep 17 with 1511 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 17:26 - Sep 16 by blueasfook |
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. |
Given the nature of his crimes, there can’t be any justification for allowing him to remain out of prison if he’s still allowed unrestricted internet access. Or could/would his access be restricted and remotely monitored? |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 07:37 - Sep 17 with 1444 views | textbackup |
Already mentioned I’m upset about the sentence given, without a smart arse reply.
Unfortunately I’ve seen first hand how how something like this, albeit on a lesser scale, can affect people in their adult lives.
I find it disgusting that someone somewhere has written such weak sentences. No consideration given to just how messed up those kids will end up.
If that’s me wrong, I don’t care | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 07:57 - Sep 17 with 1409 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 22:43 - Sep 16 by positivity |
your posts about the rioys are a matter of public record.
it's possible to think edwards should have had a bigger sentence without calling for the judge to be hounded and seeing a deep state conspiracy involving the bbc and the police.
it's also possible to think edwards should have had a bigger sentence without belittling the crimes of people calling for murder of refugees and asylum seekers by indiscriinately settng fire to hotels (and mosques). what they did was heinous and it was only some fortune and brave policing that prevented mass murder.
basically let's all think before we post and don't go making accusation against the most convenient bogeyman. that's what caused the riots inthe first place, as well as the hounding of judges, paediatricians etc etc |
What on earth are you going on about, a matter of public record?!
I completely condemned the thuggish behaviour, I guess your issue is that I didn’t just condemn the British thugs, and made mention of the scum on both sides.
FWIW I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, find them odd, and often heartless. But this particular time I start to wonder why such weak sentences have been agreed by a number of people. You’ve yet to answer that without a ramble [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 8:11]
| |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 08:22 - Sep 17 with 1346 views | Leaky |
| Huw Edwards on 13:28 - Sep 16 by Illinoisblue |
I can’t find anywhere in the BBC report anything about the provider of the images who was paid by Edwards. Assume and hope that piece of s5it is at least locked up. [Post edited 16 Sep 2024 13:29]
|
Its the internet, more than likely the person who supplied these images probably lives abroad. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 08:40 - Sep 17 with 1304 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 07:57 - Sep 17 by textbackup |
What on earth are you going on about, a matter of public record?!
I completely condemned the thuggish behaviour, I guess your issue is that I didn’t just condemn the British thugs, and made mention of the scum on both sides.
FWIW I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, find them odd, and often heartless. But this particular time I start to wonder why such weak sentences have been agreed by a number of people. You’ve yet to answer that without a ramble [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 8:11]
|
your posts are viewable publically, they are a public record, we've seen your "yes, but" whataboutery on the riots from the very start.
"both sides" didn't try and burn down hotels or call for the bombing of mosques, to draw parellels is typical dog whistle stuff.
lots of posters have explained how sentencing works, why it's not a conspiracy theory. yet you keep doubling down, take the time to read them.
i can only assume you're trolling at this point | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 08:59 - Sep 17 with 1267 views | textbackup |
| Huw Edwards on 08:40 - Sep 17 by positivity |
your posts are viewable publically, they are a public record, we've seen your "yes, but" whataboutery on the riots from the very start.
"both sides" didn't try and burn down hotels or call for the bombing of mosques, to draw parellels is typical dog whistle stuff.
lots of posters have explained how sentencing works, why it's not a conspiracy theory. yet you keep doubling down, take the time to read them.
i can only assume you're trolling at this point |
Should have just dropped me a DM to invited me for a beer pre match to discuss this really. But then, I guess that would take actual guts as opposed to tapping a keyboard.
You’ve clearly been holding this in for a long time. I hope you are ok mr positive | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
