Yeah you have to give them that.
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
Yeah you have to give them that.
Why should he be made an example of?
Because he's high profile?
I assune so but that's why I'm asking just in case it's not what I'm assuming
"I can't control my impulses to beat off to child porn because I have ADHD" should not be a mitigating excuse for a 63 year old man in court. He fecking well knows it's wrong.
What a time to be alive.
What a time to be alive.
What is the exact argument as to why adhd is a mitigating circumstance? I’m struggling quite a bit with that.
He can't remember he's a dirty paedo. Classic ADHD.
I was just in a noncing mood, your honour.
Death penalty would free up a bit of room.
They didn't think people would be walking free when they sacked all the hangmen. They laid all those poor people of without fully considering the consequences it would have for society down the line.
Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding and being too ready to jump in!
I don’t want to use the words “to be fair”. But generally first time indecent images offenders don’t get prison sentences. They usually get a suspended sentence and probation.
What @Raven said. He’s high profile and this story is well reported. It should be used to send a message that you will not get away with these types of crimes, and frankly his sentence (and that of his ‘associate’) show exactly the opposite. You can kiddy fiddle and get away with a tap on the wrist. It’s not right.
ADHD was not a mitigating circumstance in this case as far as I know.
In general it could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for some crimes as it increases the likelihood of poor and impulsive decision making, it's certainly not an excuse on it's own but it maybe worth the judge considering when it comes to sentencing. But for this specific case or cases like it when it comes to child pornography I can't see it making any difference.
Does he get to go back to BBC? Or is he GB News bound?
Shocking sentence. His reputation being in tatters means nothing as that was the case already, but avoiding prison for something anybody else would rightly be in prison for us pathetic
Basically you are advocating a 2 tier justice system which IMO is completely wrong, he should get what a non-well known person would get, you can still use the point that you will not get away with these crimes because of the additional publicity it gets
I think it's also the case that Judges receive strict formal guidance to take into account items from a "shopping list" of things to consider when sentencing, ranging from "early guilty plea" through to factors like emotional distress, mental health conditions, reputational / financial loss already suffered etc.
Judges HAVE to follow these guidelines and apply a reduction in sentence appropriate to the circumstances so any Defence lawyer is going to try and hit as many of these "bonus points" as they can. It's a sad thing that we are moving towards an American model where "plea bargaining" on lesser charges is happening to secure a lesser conviction, rather than prosecuting people in a more direct manner that reflects the scale of their offence.
I don't feel that we should "make an example" of high profile people but I do feel that such a small sentence clearly will not discourage other nonces from changing their behaviour or seeking treatment. It's probably a vain hope that they would change, but high profile cases like Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville and now Huw Edwards do act as some sort of barometer for how the law deals with these cases. Other victims and perpetrators will see this sentence and feel it's "not a big deal" as far as the law is concerned and that's a regressive step as far as I'm concerned
It's a weird one because the reputational damage for famous people is much worse. So the act of being arrested/charged is much more damaging for them than people without that high profile. So you could argue that harsher consequences are baked in. And yeah, I don't think you can have two tier charges, with your level of fame dictating how severely you're punished. As though the same crime by a less well known person is less serious.
Either way, the punishment here doesn't seem to fit the crime. No matter how famous he is or isn't.
Exactly, the sentencing for this is all wrong.
Famous = your free to go
Anybody else = imprisoned.
Anybody else = imprisoned.
This is categorically not true though!!
No, absolutely not. He absolutely should be treated the same as any other common or garden variety nonce, but the sentences should be far more punitive.
Being made an example of was literally only because this is such a high profile case. This sentence sends entirely the wrong message.
How is being treated the same as any other common or garden variety nonce but with a more punitive sentence being treated the same?
I have no idea whether the sentence he has received is similar to what is normally given for these offences, but to suggest he should be given a punitive sentence because he's 'famous' is just plain wrong
As in the sentence should be more punitive for noncing full stop. A suspended sentence is hardly deterrent, and does nothing to protect the kids.
Stop trying to read between the lines and trying to put words in my mouth. I was very clear, the sentence should be the same regardless of who commited the crime. The punishment needs to be far tougher.
On that I definitely agree, but that wasn't what you originally said
Yes it was. Or at least it’s what I meant. I blame you for not understanding that!
It is at the moment people have been getting locked up recently for tweets.
This guy is a proven nonce, paying thousands for indecent images of children and gets off without any prison time.
So did the guy he was paying for them
Sorry, mind reading wasn't on my school curriculum, or at least I don't think it was, my skool days were a long time ago and TBF I didn't always pay much attentionYes it was. Or at least it’s what I meant. I blame you for not understanding that!
They jailed an old woman for making online posts inciting hatred, whilst I don’t condone the messages the crimes committed by Huw Edward’s are much worse and deserved a fitting punishment. The legal system in this country is a joke when it comes to sex offenders and they regularly get off lightly during sentencing.
A suspended sentence is a joke, what about the payments he received from the BBC during the period he was under suspicion for the crime? No court order stating he should repay tax payers money? You commit fraud and then will issue an order of confiscation of property to recoup the sums lost, same should apply here. He fraudulently claimed income whilst being guilty of an offence.
I was once stuck in a 3 hour traffic jam due to those guys so I agree wholeheartedly
Whether the sentences are or were appropriate is not what the exchange was about, as it happens I agree that the sentence was essentially a let-off, but the exchange was about whether a sentence should be more punitive because the defendant is famous, if your fame affects what sentence you might get, irrespective of the crime, then there's something wrong with the system
Totaly different crimes and totally different circumstances and factors.
Four people in total were convicted for Tweets. Three received custodial sentences and one a suspended sentence. Three of the four had previous convictions and two of the four had multiple previous convictions. And one of them was charged with multiple offences including causing racially aggrivates harm or distress for dragging four Romanians out of their car and threatening them, and other public order offences for his part in the riots.
They were convicted of inciting violence, spreading misinformation that posed a danger or threat to life, stirring up racial hatred and various other offences. They were undoubtedly made examples of and it was clearly done to put a halt to the riots, violence and everything else that was going on at the time. However, they did break the law.
Edwards has no previous convictions so this being his first offence and his crimes being on the lowest end of the scale obviously have lesser punishments for them in comparison to the more serious crimes and severe punishments including custodial sentences.
I'm not saying it's right he didn't go to prison but the examples you used can't be compared. Especially as lots of other factors come in to play such as mitigating circumstances like not having any previous convictions.
Personally I think the UK is far too lenient for many things, especially paedophillia, sex crimes such as rape and sexual assault or stalking, violent cimes such as ABH and GBH etc, also shoplifting and burglary seem to be hardly ever prosecuuted anymore. Whilst at the same time the justice system is often way too severe on others for say growing weed or minor drug offences. So personally I think it's time for a complete overhaul of the system and clear guidelines with minimum and maximum sentences all being relooked at across the board.
However, that's a completely different topic for another thread. The point I had and made, was that I know it' seems unfair or hard to accept but you simply cannot compare those locked up for Tweets and the Noncey News reader as it's just not a fair or honest comparison to make.
Last edited:
Or when reading my original comment! Ooooohhh gotcha!Sorry, mind reading wasn't on my school curriculum, or at least I don't think it was, my skool days were a long time ago and TBF I didn't always pay much attention
Last edited:
Apologies, to a certain degree being famous should affect sentencing if it results in abuse of trust in their position. With the Huw Edward’s case, I do think he abused his position in receiving money whilst knowingly being guilty of the crime. From reading some of the court excerpts it doesn’t seem like he used his fame to further his crime, although again he used tax payers money to buy the images.
I would like to believe that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law but famous people do get treated differently. Either down to the representation they can afford or how big a profile they are. We’ve seen over the years the amount of famous people that have been allowed to commit crimes and not be held to account. Referring mainly to the multiple American men who abused children over the years and got away with it, even when outed.
I do however like how Enzo Fernandez and Rashford have been banned from driving, as it does give hope that they do face the same punishments for crimes as everyone else.
James O'Brien talking about this on LBC right now. Difficult to listen to.
You’ve never listened to James O’Brien before?