| Huw Edwards 11:58 - Sep 16 with 20120 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 18:15 - Sep 17 with 1676 views | J2BLUE |
| Huw Edwards on 18:13 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
I find your disposition towards violent vigilantism quite disturbing.
You want to abandon our laws - where do you think that puts you? |
Surely he's trolling? Making a canoe...seems to be trying too hard to be edgy. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 18:27 - Sep 17 with 1613 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 18:15 - Sep 17 by J2BLUE |
Surely he's trolling? Making a canoe...seems to be trying too hard to be edgy. |
He's gone, thankfully. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 18:31 - Sep 17 with 1600 views | Blueschev |
| Huw Edwards on 18:27 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
He's gone, thankfully. |
Agreed, though I may have to steal wet wipe as a derogatory term. |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 19:33 - Sep 17 with 1486 views | MattinLondon |
| Huw Edwards on 18:31 - Sep 17 by Blueschev |
Agreed, though I may have to steal wet wipe as a derogatory term. |
When you’re wet wiping someone will you run the risk of becoming the wet wipe or is wet wiping so one sided, the person being wet wiped stays the wet wipe? |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 21:24 - Sep 17 with 1367 views | Buhrer |
| 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. |
What a lot of assumptive crap. There was no punitive element to the 'punishment', and he will be cossetted in that life away from the public, protected by money, just as he has been. I've worked with enough that didn't have his money.
A worse punishment than prison? Ooooh if only, maybe one day. But failing that some prison would have been okay. Soon a private discharge and tucked away living on his PIE taxpayers pension.
No punishment for child porn. WTAF is going on here? [Post edited 17 Sep 2024 21:25]
|  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 21:38 - Sep 17 with 1351 views | Swansea_Blue |
Well worth a read for anyone who doesn’t understand the sentence (which included me). It doesn’t change my thoughts that he’s been lucky to escape jail, but at least I now understand why. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 23:57 - Sep 17 with 1239 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 21:38 - Sep 17 by Swansea_Blue |
Well worth a read for anyone who doesn’t understand the sentence (which included me). It doesn’t change my thoughts that he’s been lucky to escape jail, but at least I now understand why. |
Quite. I still feel that some form of custodial sentence would be appropriate (and may still occur given the conditions imposed on the suspension) but I can see how the judge has arrived at the opinion that it would serve no additional reforming purpose or deterrence if Edwards is genuinely contrite and taking steps to put himself right.
That leaves retribution as the only general justifying aim for imprisonment and I can see how that would satisfy some observers of the case. It wouldn't put things right for the children who have suffered in all of this and I hope that the focus of further investigation and correction is now on the perpetrators who created the images. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Huw Edwards on 00:06 - Sep 18 with 1221 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 23:57 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
Quite. I still feel that some form of custodial sentence would be appropriate (and may still occur given the conditions imposed on the suspension) but I can see how the judge has arrived at the opinion that it would serve no additional reforming purpose or deterrence if Edwards is genuinely contrite and taking steps to put himself right.
That leaves retribution as the only general justifying aim for imprisonment and I can see how that would satisfy some observers of the case. It wouldn't put things right for the children who have suffered in all of this and I hope that the focus of further investigation and correction is now on the perpetrators who created the images. |
But there’s usually also consideration given, when sentencing, to keeping the general public safe - which is why, as I said earlier, I don’t understand his sentence being suspended if he’s allowed unrestricted, uncontrolled access to the internet for the duration of the suspension. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 00:16 - Sep 18 with 1204 views | J2BLUE |
| Huw Edwards on 23:57 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
Quite. I still feel that some form of custodial sentence would be appropriate (and may still occur given the conditions imposed on the suspension) but I can see how the judge has arrived at the opinion that it would serve no additional reforming purpose or deterrence if Edwards is genuinely contrite and taking steps to put himself right.
That leaves retribution as the only general justifying aim for imprisonment and I can see how that would satisfy some observers of the case. It wouldn't put things right for the children who have suffered in all of this and I hope that the focus of further investigation and correction is now on the perpetrators who created the images. |
Nothing is going to put things right for them so not sure that's a very good argument.
Some crimes deserve punishment even if there is no rehabilitation element. I'm sure it would have been far better for all victims of child abuse if they see some justice rather just walking away. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 00:35 - Sep 18 with 1173 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 00:06 - Sep 18 by Ryorry |
But there’s usually also consideration given, when sentencing, to keeping the general public safe - which is why, as I said earlier, I don’t understand his sentence being suspended if he’s allowed unrestricted, uncontrolled access to the internet for the duration of the suspension. |
That would be the incapacitation aim of punishment (which is a new one to me, although it was more than a decade ago that I formally studied this area so I guess I am finding out that the law develops apace) but we do not know what conditions he is under whilst he remains in hospital. If I follow the summing up correctly it sounds as if trust has been given for Edwards to continue on a course of treatment that reforms his behaviour to avoid a recurrence of the madness of two or three months which are almost four years in the past now. As we have seen from the sad aftermath of the Jamie Bulger case it is difficult to prevent a determined criminal from breaching parole and release conditions, I guess trust is all that can be relied upon even if restrictions on access to smartphones and laptops are put in place. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 00:49 - Sep 18 with 1161 views | WeWereZombies |
| Huw Edwards on 00:16 - Sep 18 by J2BLUE |
Nothing is going to put things right for them so not sure that's a very good argument.
Some crimes deserve punishment even if there is no rehabilitation element. I'm sure it would have been far better for all victims of child abuse if they see some justice rather just walking away. |
I don't think the justice system is 'just walking away' from Edwards, hopefully he will be monitored for some years to come now. But that will take resources, which are often in limited supply, especially in the area of mental health professionals. There are arguments for harder treatment when reforming and rehabilitating measures take resources away from the general public and give them to criminals but we have to ask ourselves what results we want to see.
So I take your point that there will always be deep unease in the minds of the children abused but that doesn't mean that every effort should be made to help them recover as best they can. And that a network of investigators be given the best resources available to limit new cases of child abuse.
There is still a case for correction of offenders to prevent them returned to society whilst still a threat to the young though, and for examination of their circumstances to provide an understanding of why they transgressed. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 16:16 - Sep 18 with 983 views | DJR |
Tom Tugendhat is an idiot: Part 57.
From the Guardian.
Tom Tugendhat's call for review of Huw Edwards' sentence backfires after experts tell him law doesn't allow it
This morning he posted online a copy of a letter he is sending to to the attorney general urging him to review the decision not to jail Huw Edwards for viewing child abuse images. Tugendhat said the attorney, Richard Hermer, should use the unduly lenient sentences scheme to do this.
But there’s a problem. The unduly lenient sentencing scheme cannot be used to challenge magistrates court sentences, as Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London, pointed out.
Tugendhat used to be a minister in the Home Office, and he is now shadow security minister. He is not a lawyer, but penal policy is relevant to his portfolio. He could be expected to know how the scheme operates.
In a post on social media, the barrister Matthew Scott has a withering assessment of Tugendhat’s letter.
|  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:17 - Sep 18 with 927 views | _clive_baker_ |
Thanks for sharing, that's quite interesting. Not so much from the case in question but just more generally I've never actually read anything like that.
Re. this case, in a nutshell Edwards received a number of inappropriate images, at any point he could've and should've blocked the sender and reported it to police. I think that's what most people would do, not ask for more and pay him some money. However you cut it that's messed up and plain wrong. I don't think anyone disputes that.
He's not gone to prison based largely on his previous good character, upbringing, the fact he didn't circulate the images upon receipt, the fact he's deemed a low risk to the public and that his mental health was impacting his decision making. All that is a little less tangible and that's what makes it difficult, but personally I find it really hard to have any sympathy for people who commit such crimes and would really struggle to justify not issuing a prison sentence personally. I also find the angle about not asking for the images or paying for them a bit flimsy, what he did do doesn't seem too different to me in not asking him to stop, saying 'yes please' and sending money afterwards. Potato potato.
"The Prosecution accept that you were not directly asking for and
then paying directly for images, but rather that there is a clear
inference from the nature of the relationship coupled with reading
the direct messaging that exists that demonstrates Alex Williams
to be requesting gifts and presents after he has sent images, and
you then responds by sending him money, I agree with the
prosecution analysis, this appears to be by way of an apparent
‘thank you”, but not “purchasing“ images in a way more often seen
in such cases". |  | | |
| Huw Edwards on 17:21 - Sep 18 with 917 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 00:16 - Sep 18 by J2BLUE |
Nothing is going to put things right for them so not sure that's a very good argument.
Some crimes deserve punishment even if there is no rehabilitation element. I'm sure it would have been far better for all victims of child abuse if they see some justice rather just walking away. |
"I'm sure it would have been far better for all victims of child abuse if they see some justice rather just walking away."
V. good point. I wonder if they/their families were given the opportuniuty to present a victim impact statement in this case. | |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 17:57 - Sep 18 with 885 views | bluelagos |
| Huw Edwards on 17:21 - Sep 18 by Ryorry |
"I'm sure it would have been far better for all victims of child abuse if they see some justice rather just walking away."
V. good point. I wonder if they/their families were given the opportuniuty to present a victim impact statement in this case. |
Given there were 100s of pics - then there were 100s of victims - so evidently not.
I think failing to jail Edwards (and all others who view kiddie porn) is bewildering tbh. Not just for the victims but also as a strong deterrence for others.
Even the bloke who sent the porn to HE only got a suspended sentence - and presumably he was sending them to others and he clearly knew he had underage porn given he asked HE if he wanted underage pics. |  |
| |
| Huw Edwards on 20:42 - Sep 18 with 801 views | Ryorry |
| Huw Edwards on 17:57 - Sep 18 by bluelagos |
Given there were 100s of pics - then there were 100s of victims - so evidently not.
I think failing to jail Edwards (and all others who view kiddie porn) is bewildering tbh. Not just for the victims but also as a strong deterrence for others.
Even the bloke who sent the porn to HE only got a suspended sentence - and presumably he was sending them to others and he clearly knew he had underage porn given he asked HE if he wanted underage pics. |
Didn't know there were hundreds. Bloody hell.
Edit: And time for a review of those "sentencing guidelines" imo, including consideration of this -
https://howardleague.org/blog/our-one-size-fits-all-approach/ [Post edited 18 Sep 2024 20:51]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
