| Huw Edwards 11:58 - Sep 16 with 20086 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 15:07 - Sep 17 with 1899 views | Buhrer |
| Huw Edwards on 14:47 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
But from the judge's summing up it appears that Edwards did not purchase the images, or download them. They were in WhatsApp messages he received and he made a discretionary payment after the event (which was stupid of him but was not a case of purchasing and then receiving.) I'm a bit wary of setting a precedent of, say, lethal injection, for someone who opens WhatsApp without knowing what is waiting for them... |
Ugh. Your reading of it is sickening.
Luckily Hu suffered a complete blackout due to "mental health" and can't remember anything he saw when being possessed by the ghost of his dead dad and repeatedly paying someone sending him the grossest filth.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 15:12]
|  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:16 - Sep 17 with 1860 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 15:07 - Sep 17 by Buhrer |
Ugh. Your reading of it is sickening.
Luckily Hu suffered a complete blackout due to "mental health" and can't remember anything he saw when being possessed by the ghost of his dead dad and repeatedly paying someone sending him the grossest filth.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2024 15:12]
|
It's funny how his mental health crisis only started when he got kicked out the Beeb and the police were on to his noncing. There is absolute no excuse for this disgusting nonce. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:18 - Sep 17 with 1846 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 06:22 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
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? |
Not sure. I think those kind of measures are only taken if he's subject to a SHPO. Which he wasn't so yeah basically he's free to keep looking at kiddie porn. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:28 - Sep 17 with 1791 views | Mookamoo |
| Huw Edwards on 14:47 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
But from the judge's summing up it appears that Edwards did not purchase the images, or download them. They were in WhatsApp messages he received and he made a discretionary payment after the event (which was stupid of him but was not a case of purchasing and then receiving.) I'm a bit wary of setting a precedent of, say, lethal injection, for someone who opens WhatsApp without knowing what is waiting for them... |
But he solicited the WhatsApp messages by maintaining the relationship with the sender. And then, rather than report what was in the message, he made a payment.
Yes, you can't be held responsible for a message you're sent, but the response to it is entirely in your control. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:33 - Sep 17 with 1775 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 15:28 - Sep 17 by Mookamoo |
But he solicited the WhatsApp messages by maintaining the relationship with the sender. And then, rather than report what was in the message, he made a payment.
Yes, you can't be held responsible for a message you're sent, but the response to it is entirely in your control. |
Glad someone is paying attention.
And I guess my opinion that he was stupid is, on reflection, wrong. Only stupid if you consider he should have got away with it (which I don't) and I should have made clear that he should have blocked the sender straight away. But this might corroborate the judge's opinion that a seemingly intelligent man was not at all in his right mind. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:34 - Sep 17 with 1764 views | positivity |
| Huw Edwards on 15:18 - Sep 17 by blueasfook |
Not sure. I think those kind of measures are only taken if he's subject to a SHPO. Which he wasn't so yeah basically he's free to keep looking at kiddie porn. |
if he did, would that not mean straight to jail under the terms of the suspended sentence? | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:36 - Sep 17 with 1749 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 15:33 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
Glad someone is paying attention.
And I guess my opinion that he was stupid is, on reflection, wrong. Only stupid if you consider he should have got away with it (which I don't) and I should have made clear that he should have blocked the sender straight away. But this might corroborate the judge's opinion that a seemingly intelligent man was not at all in his right mind. |
“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person.”
That person was aged between 14 and 16 and the images were “Category C” in the table of severity of abuse, the lowest of the three tiers.
Williams then asked Edwards whether he wanted the “full file”.
Edwards responded: “Yes xxx...”
You're fooking sick. Where do you even begin to make excuses for that? | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:38 - Sep 17 with 1722 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 15:34 - Sep 17 by positivity |
if he did, would that not mean straight to jail under the terms of the suspended sentence? |
Only if it is detected. But it sounds like he is going to be under close supervision for some time, and I guess the suppliers of the filth are going to give him a wide berth to avoid their own detection too. If he is confined to the Nightingale Hospital for the duration will it not be so different to being imprisoned ? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw Edwards on 15:41 - Sep 17 with 1691 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Huw Edwards on 15:36 - Sep 17 by blueasfook |
“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person.”
That person was aged between 14 and 16 and the images were “Category C” in the table of severity of abuse, the lowest of the three tiers.
Williams then asked Edwards whether he wanted the “full file”.
Edwards responded: “Yes xxx...”
You're fooking sick. Where do you even begin to make excuses for that? |
No one has made excuses. Stop virtue signalling. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:47 - Sep 17 with 1651 views | blueasfook |
| Huw Edwards on 15:41 - Sep 17 by redrickstuhaart |
No one has made excuses. Stop virtue signalling. |
I bet you wouldn't book him to babysit your kids. Or maybe you would considering you think he's done nothing wrong and just wasn't "thinking straight". | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 15:48 - Sep 17 with 1630 views | Dave_Buh |
I have obviously ruffled a few feathers with my views so I will refrain from commenting and stick to football. Some wet wipe has even reported me for abuse 😂 | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 15:49 - Sep 17 with 1623 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 15:36 - Sep 17 by blueasfook |
“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person.”
That person was aged between 14 and 16 and the images were “Category C” in the table of severity of abuse, the lowest of the three tiers.
Williams then asked Edwards whether he wanted the “full file”.
Edwards responded: “Yes xxx...”
You're fooking sick. Where do you even begin to make excuses for that? |
I'm not making excuses, just trying to understand why the judge passed the sentence he did. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 16:03 - Sep 17 with 1530 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 15:47 - Sep 17 by blueasfook |
I bet you wouldn't book him to babysit your kids. Or maybe you would considering you think he's done nothing wrong and just wasn't "thinking straight". |
A childish and pathetic comment. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 16:03 - Sep 17 with 1529 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 15:48 - Sep 17 by Dave_Buh |
I have obviously ruffled a few feathers with my views so I will refrain from commenting and stick to football. Some wet wipe has even reported me for abuse 😂 |
It wasn't me, but calling people on here "paedo sympathisers", & then "wet wipe" for reporting that as abuse (as frequently requested by board Admins because they can't read every post) is pretty disgusting. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 16:06 - Sep 17 with 1497 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 15:48 - Sep 17 by Dave_Buh |
I have obviously ruffled a few feathers with my views so I will refrain from commenting and stick to football. Some wet wipe has even reported me for abuse 😂 |
I don’t think anyone’s feathers have been ruffled - maybe that fence you’re standing behind is stoping you from seeing properly. [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 16:11]
| | | |
| Huw Edwards on 16:07 - Sep 17 with 1484 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
Edit - poster's comment was deleted [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 16:10]
|  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 16:14 - Sep 17 with 1444 views | Dave_Buh |
| Huw Edwards on 16:03 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
It wasn't me, but calling people on here "paedo sympathisers", & then "wet wipe" for reporting that as abuse (as frequently requested by board Admins because they can't read every post) is pretty disgusting. |
I like to call a spade a spade, that’s just me. I guess the disgusting comment is aimed at the former rather than the latter because surely no one is offended by the phrase wet wipe when it isn’t aimed at them. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 16:20 - Sep 17 with 1412 views | Dave_Buh |
| Huw Edwards on 16:06 - Sep 17 by MattinLondon |
I don’t think anyone’s feathers have been ruffled - maybe that fence you’re standing behind is stoping you from seeing properly. [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 16:11]
|
In what I can only describe as an epiphany I have seen the light. The fence has come down and I can now see properly (in line with your way of thinking, the right way). Peadophiles should be treated with compassion. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:08 - Sep 17 with 1294 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 16:20 - Sep 17 by Dave_Buh |
In what I can only describe as an epiphany I have seen the light. The fence has come down and I can now see properly (in line with your way of thinking, the right way). Peadophiles should be treated with compassion. |
Fwiw, I suspect that for this particular criminal, whose face is known to pretty much the entire UK population, having to now live his life in public (if he dares to venture out anywhere) will be far harder for him than being secluded behind prison walls & invisible to all except staff, other prisoners & visitors. Other paedos are able to remain fairly anonymous once their trial is over.
Losing your good name & reputation in such a meteoric crash must be devastating - to me, that would actually be a worse punishment than prison. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:23 - Sep 17 with 1244 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Huw Edwards on 15:18 - Sep 17 by blueasfook |
Not sure. I think those kind of measures are only taken if he's subject to a SHPO. Which he wasn't so yeah basically he's free to keep looking at kiddie porn. |
Does anyone know if “Huw” has a pager in his pocket? |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:23 - Sep 17 with 1249 views | Dave_Buh |
| Huw Edwards on 17:08 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
Fwiw, I suspect that for this particular criminal, whose face is known to pretty much the entire UK population, having to now live his life in public (if he dares to venture out anywhere) will be far harder for him than being secluded behind prison walls & invisible to all except staff, other prisoners & visitors. Other paedos are able to remain fairly anonymous once their trial is over.
Losing your good name & reputation in such a meteoric crash must be devastating - to me, that would actually be a worse punishment than prison. |
Completely disagree. Putting him on a standard wing and letting the prisoners take turns making a canoe out of him would be a more suitable punishment. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:27 - Sep 17 with 1245 views | Trequartista |
Genetically paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:30 - Sep 17 with 1225 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 17:23 - Sep 17 by Dave_Buh |
Completely disagree. Putting him on a standard wing and letting the prisoners take turns making a canoe out of him would be a more suitable punishment. |
Prisoners should be safe in prison no matter what crime they have committed. | | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:59 - Sep 17 with 1158 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 17:30 - Sep 17 by MattinLondon |
Prisoners should be safe in prison no matter what crime they have committed. |
Furthermore the enabling and glorification of rape is not a good look at all. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 18:13 - Sep 17 with 1108 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 17:23 - Sep 17 by Dave_Buh |
Completely disagree. Putting him on a standard wing and letting the prisoners take turns making a canoe out of him would be a more suitable punishment. |
I find your disposition towards violent vigilantism quite disturbing.
You want to abandon our laws - where do you think that puts you? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
