People who know more about this than me. I realise his punishment seems lenient, but is it any MORE lenient than your average Joe Bloggs would likely get?
Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children
- Thread starter Sparky Rhiwabon
- Start date
No. I watch a lot of 'stings' on Facebook, when online predators get confronted, and the amount of paedos who get suspended sentences would shock you. It's all too common. Some of the hunting teams have caught the same person 4 or 5 times.
Studies show that people with ADHD are more susceptible to taking hard drugs, alcohol abuse and getting mixed up in crime. This is all stuff that you learn from ADHD Ireland talks. The trick is finding stuff that keeps them enraged. ADHD is a real struggle, especially for kids with it.
Not saying that this should excuse any crime but it doesn’t surprise me that it’s being mentioned by the defence teams
Surely you don't want them angry? They've got enough to deal with as it is.
The guys who do that (pretend to be little girls/boys) must be seriously affecting their mental health - I just couldn’t.
From what I understand, a lot of the 'decoys' are women who were abused as children and they get some satisfaction from preventing others from going through what they experienced.
He used his own money to buy them. Taxpayers have no claim on his personal money.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that too.
I'm listening to O'Brien too. He mentioned that it's linked to the person who made the images, who also didn't go to prison(!!!). The issue is that if the creation didn't warrant imprisonment, then imprisonment for viewing would be challenged.
He also revealed that nearly 50% of those arrested for creating / obtaining pictures don't get imprisoned - that is just mind-blowing!
@Badunk I dropped my phone in shock and cried when he recounted the phrase the girl said.
Yeah, it was only a few words but they hit you right in the gut.
My theory is that a sentences harshness is linked to how likely a politician or judge is to be caught committing the offence
Listening to Martin now, and comparing that with what the paedo hunting teams say happens, doesn't quite tally. He paints a picture of the police being on top of offenders once caught, they can check phones, they can install software on devices that monitors what offenders look at online, offenders have to sign the sex offenders register, can have sexual harm prevention orders (known colloquially as a SHOPO), preventing them from living in certain areas or owning mobile phones, etc.
However, it all depends on manpower, which we know the police lack. This is why the hunting teams exist in the first place: the police don't have the resources to tackle this problem. Teams confront offenders, often when they have incited a child to meet them, so they can have them arrested (as they are in the commission of a crime). They do this, they claim, because when they hand their evidence in to the police, they sit on it and do nothing. In the meantime, these sickos can be meeting real children and abusing them.
However, it all depends on manpower, which we know the police lack. This is why the hunting teams exist in the first place: the police don't have the resources to tackle this problem. Teams confront offenders, often when they have incited a child to meet them, so they can have them arrested (as they are in the commission of a crime). They do this, they claim, because when they hand their evidence in to the police, they sit on it and do nothing. In the meantime, these sickos can be meeting real children and abusing them.
Absolutely! So-called 'class' has a huge part to play in this.
If you look historically, it's the Church, hospital (or asylums as they were at the time) management, head teachers, police chiefs, judges etc, all in the 'upper echelons' of society who would be in the same social circles with political leaders and those in charge of the CPS. 'Those' types don't get prison time, they often don't even get arrested.
Just on to the O'Brien show again, this woman on the phone now, explaining how the case of her husband took 2yrs to go to court because there were '80 similar cases and only one case-worker going through them all' - sweet Jesus!
All the wrong'uns should be chemically castrated. No excuses.
What benefit would that have in this case?
Well apart from the preventative deterrent, wouldn't it also make them not horny anymore? idk - how does it work with cats? Don't people neuter them to stop them getting sexually aroused?
Glad the ruling is in. Now we can all accept justice is served and move on
I've heard of offenders volunteering for actual castration and it didn't stop them from doing it again. It's in their minds.
This is why there's a tiny, tiny, tiny part of me that feels like they can't help it. We don't choose our sexuality and it's clear that a percentage of the population is attracted to children.
That's definitely not me condoning their actions. I think it's the worst crime imaginable.
I like women. But I don't like every woman. And I'm not a threat to those I am attracted to. And there are legal outlets for my urges if I choose to use them. But if it was illegal to chat to women online, or meet them with a view to having sex with them, or looking at images or videos involving them having sex or posing in a sexual way, could I decide to just switch my urges off? I think it would be impossible.
Which then leads to the kind of false dichotomy of acknowledging that they, to an extent, can't help how they feel; and that, if they can't help it, they will continue to want to view images or videos, or meet children and abuse them themselves. So which way do we go as a society? The path towards rehabilitation or towards even harsher punishments? If they are simply victims of urges that they didn't choose, we should be empathetic, right? But their urges will lead to the destruction of little children, so we should jail them for life or execute them, right?
That and some of them love the attention and thinking they're Judge Dredd. They do some good work, not denying that, but these tiktok/youtube paedohunters are a grubby form of vigilante justice, which is problematic.
The advent of AI generated images/videos makes the whole thing even more complicated. If a paedo makes a proactive choice to use AI generated content only to get their rocks off, are they doing everything possible to protect society from their own urges? Should that be a crime? What happens if they share this content with others, to try and spread the damage limitation?
I'm listening to O'Brien on catch up right now.
I'm actually fuming that 8 out of 10 convicted peodophiles walk.
My abuser never even got arrested as it was only my word and it happened 30 years ago. His father, who abused his younger three siblings also never got arrested either, even though the youngest sibling became a police officer working in child abuse.
Billy destroyed me, I'm 42 and in therapy doing EMDR to access those suppressed memories. I get emotionally deregulated and dissociated often. So much so that I'm not allowed to live with my wife and kids.
I reported to the police a couple of years ago. I had been on the phone with the Samaritans and mentioned that he lived near a primary school. The Samaritan, unusually, got really upset and told me that I had to report him. I phoned 111 and they told me I had to call 999.
I called them and they told me I had to go to a police station and report it in person. So I went to the police station and waited for half an hour until someone was able to speak to me. When they did, it was just like reporting any other crime, no help, just me recounting some of the most disgusting memories and them writing it down.
I don't remember leaving the police station and I don't remember going to my wife's house, and I don't remember trying to hang myself in the garden, luckily my wife cut me down. I got sectioned for 7 days after that, I only came out of my dissociated state 3 days in.
I have lots of suppressed memories and I don't know if he took pictures but its probably likely, seeing as when he was older he was into photography.
Child abuse victims are given a fecking life sentence, most of the abusers get off scott free. The CPS put Stop Oil protesters in jail, but let the abusers go right back into the community where they committed the crimes.
I am sick to my stomach right now listening to the callers, what is happening in the world is truly fecked up.
Is it like this because the abusers tend to be men with some kind of standing up in their community? Is that why their sentences are so lenient?
I'm actually fuming that 8 out of 10 convicted peodophiles walk.
My abuser never even got arrested as it was only my word and it happened 30 years ago. His father, who abused his younger three siblings also never got arrested either, even though the youngest sibling became a police officer working in child abuse.
Billy destroyed me, I'm 42 and in therapy doing EMDR to access those suppressed memories. I get emotionally deregulated and dissociated often. So much so that I'm not allowed to live with my wife and kids.
I reported to the police a couple of years ago. I had been on the phone with the Samaritans and mentioned that he lived near a primary school. The Samaritan, unusually, got really upset and told me that I had to report him. I phoned 111 and they told me I had to call 999.
I called them and they told me I had to go to a police station and report it in person. So I went to the police station and waited for half an hour until someone was able to speak to me. When they did, it was just like reporting any other crime, no help, just me recounting some of the most disgusting memories and them writing it down.
I don't remember leaving the police station and I don't remember going to my wife's house, and I don't remember trying to hang myself in the garden, luckily my wife cut me down. I got sectioned for 7 days after that, I only came out of my dissociated state 3 days in.
I have lots of suppressed memories and I don't know if he took pictures but its probably likely, seeing as when he was older he was into photography.
Child abuse victims are given a fecking life sentence, most of the abusers get off scott free. The CPS put Stop Oil protesters in jail, but let the abusers go right back into the community where they committed the crimes.
I am sick to my stomach right now listening to the callers, what is happening in the world is truly fecked up.
Is it like this because the abusers tend to be men with some kind of standing up in their community? Is that why their sentences are so lenient?
He’s paid by the taxpayer, license money goes towards their salaries. Plus he knew we was guilty and still claimed over £200k in salary while suspended.
Which the BBC have asked to be paid back
What does the source of his income have to do with anything? He bought illegal pics with it and has been punished by the courts.
The taxpayer doesn't get to monitor the spending of anyone employed by an organisation that is at least part funded by the taxpayer. Do you think we should be allowed to have a national vote on how much whisky or fatty foods Clive Myrie is buying?
I bet you're one of those people who yells 'I pay your wages' at the nurses if you're stuck in a long queue at a hospital.
Is that a serious question?All the dogs I have had have been neutered and all of them still fecked anything they could. Human legs, arms, vacuum cleaners, cuddly toys.... It's just the same as a human male, it stops the making of semen and the ability to ejaculate.
And even if it did stop erections, which it doesn't, arousal is more a physical and mental feeling, so the paedos would still have hands, fingers, tongues and the access to Love Honey or Anne Summers. The castration argument always baffles me because it won't effectively stop rapes. The only thing it could stop is unwanted pregnancies and the majority of STI's.
This doesn’t prove anything.
You don’t know anything about the people’s history who have been ‘locked up for tweets’.
Bottom line is that this is a fairly standard punishment for that offence as a first time offender, whether we agree that it should be or not.
I think people get blinded by the alleged offence and think people should be locked away with the key thrown away, which might be the best option. However, in the real world, it just doesn’t happen.
The original comment referenced chemical castration, which is different from physical removal of the reproductive organs/gonads.
All the dogs I have had have been neutered and all of them still fecked anything they could. Human legs, arms, vacuum cleaners, cuddly toys.... It's just the same as a human male, it stops the making of semen and the ability to ejaculate.
And even if it did stop erections, which it doesn't, arousal is more a physical and mental feeling, so the paedos would still have hands, fingers, tongues and the access to Love Honey or Anne Summers. The castration argument always baffles me because it won't effectively stop rapes. The only thing it could stop is unwanted pregnancies and the majority of STI's.
Yeah, it was the cat reference though I was more responding to. And yeah, I get it's different, but it still doesn't work a lot of the time. It's meant to reduce hormones and testosterone but there's a long list of reoffemders who have been chemically castrated. Although when they dreoffend it's usually with severe sexual violence.
I've a friend who is a psychologist at a men's prison and we have had many a late night chat in the pub about this. I personally feel that although chemical castration may help, it's not getting to the root cause of the problem. It's the same as the ridiculous notion of preying the gay away. Some people find kids attractive the same as others find women or men or both attractive. The difference is those who find kids attractive should have the restraint to know it's not right and if they haven't got the self control stopping them from acting on their urges, then they need to get help with it, but in my opinion it's never going to go away for them, they have to learn how to control it. Ultimately though as much as I am against the death penalty, paedophiles and serial killers are the two times I struggle to argue against it.
All the dogs I have had have been neutered and all of them still fecked anything they could. Human legs, arms, vacuum cleaners, cuddly toys.... It's just the same as a human male, it stops the making of semen and the ability to ejaculate.
And even if it did stop erections, which it doesn't, arousal is more a physical and mental feeling, so the paedos would still have hands, fingers, tongues and the access to Love Honey or Anne Summers. The castration argument always baffles me because it won't effectively stop rapes. The only thing it could stop is unwanted pregnancies and the majority of STI's.
Hmm, guess it's not that great an idea then.
The cafe wouldn't be fond of my other suggestion, it's very final.
As I said, it's something I've spoken with my friend about a few times. Mainly because she likes a drink and when people find out what she does it inevitably leads to a conversation about it. Sometimes rather heated. She's worked in various prisons for about 20 years now and also spent time as a youth abuse counsellor. I think she said it's over half of paedophiles and sex offenders that reoffend within 3 years. And that's just the ones who are caught. The government statistics put it between 12 and 15% but many move areas and change their names or disappear and avoid the regular checks they are supposed to have. Others just don't care or can't help themselves and carry on until caught again.
It would take pages to write out some of the stories she has told me, but breaking it down in basic layman's terms, the root cause of some is because they were abused as a child so they either think it's normal or they take their issues out on others and often have severe mental health issues from the trauma they went through in their childhood, the majority never reported it either.
Some are led into it by partners and would never have thought of it before. For others it's a compulsion, similar to OCD or ADHD and those are the hardest to deal with as they are often quite intelligent and well mannered, charming even and often in a well paid job, married and with kids of their own. Others are similar but purposely pick a career to be near kids such as teachers or youth workers or others like Police Officers and Doctors that use their positions to have power over the kids and also scare them in to never coming forward or reporting the abuse.
Then you have priests who use God as their excuse for justification and also their weapon of fear to prevent the kids saying anything. Some genuinely do want to get help, but many don't and the sad truth is they just find kids attractive.
I can't remember the classes of paedophiles she said they have, but it's similar to serial killers, visionary, power/control oriented, mission oriented and hedonistic. Feck knows how I always remember that, but I can't for the life of me remember the categories of paedos. Whatever, basically they rape and abuse kids and are the lowest of the fecking low.
Huw Edwards may have only had images on his PC but even so, that's someone's son or daughter and those children were at the very least taken advantage of by having their pictures taken, and at the very worst, abused, raped, owned by traffickers or due to be sent to them, or even soon to be murdered. Having these images, sharing them or actively seeking people out and then buying them is contributing to young children suffering in unimaginable ways and a suspended sentence is fecking absolute bullshit. I also think it's ultimately counterproductive as it does nothing to deter others from doing the same, or worse.
Stories like this just piss me off as the longer I think about it the more upsetting it is. As a father of a young daughter and two adults sons it fecking enrages me and sickens me to the pit of my stomach. It also saddens me greatly too because childhood is meant to be fun and a time of innocence. Kids are meant to be happy and full of wonder and wanting to learn, often only ever seeing the beauty in life and these cnuts are taking advantage of them and destroying that innocence and wonder. The dirty paedo cnuts.
#Rant over.
Yeah it's not going to be a cure all on its own. Drug therapy has to be deployed in conjunction with psychotherapy to be truly effective.
Obviously there will be criticisms and anecdotal examples that support the criticism but I think it's better than just locking these people up for short term sentences and expecting that to keep them from reoffending when they get out.
I heard something about how the punishment diminishes the further you are from the source.
The maximum sentence for indecent images of children is something like 10 years. Thats if you’re the one making the actual images.
The guy that Huw was receiving the images from was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison I think? Therefore his sentence couldn’t have been more than a year because of that.
I’m not sure how true that is. All I know is that he’s a total scumbag and I wish nothing but the worst for him. I feel like very little has been said to acknowledge the children involved in this and his status has taken away any legitimate justice that they deserve.
I hope they are well supported.
i remember reading an interview with a guy who was a self-admitted paedo, but he'd never acted upon it, hadn't committed any crimes, he just knew he was attracted to children, he just couldn't help it. my main takeaway from that interview (assuming he was telling the truth in that he hadn't acted upon it) was that he was a damn hero for resisting those urges and battling through them, through therapy, self control, etc.
ultimately as a society we have to protect the vulnerable, so people found to be hurting others should be removed from society. much like most people who are in jail tend to have had a fecked up upbringing, bad parenting, impoverishment, coupled with shitty genes/brains. in a lot of cases you can understand how someone commits criminal behaviour when you read up about their lives - which deserves empathy, but nonetheless still need to be removed from society. some people are just unlucky with their upbringing and genes.
Thanks for jumping to conclusions and no I’m not one of those people. I’m the type of person that hates pedophiles and sex offenders as they are the scourge of society and enough isn’t done to prevent it happened. Sentencing is too lenient in the majority of cases. I avoid hospitals as much as possible, hate the places, haven’t seen a GP in years so don’t shout at them either.
So you think it’s ok for him to still claim his salary while knowingly being guilty? If anyone is convicted of fraud/theft then they have to repay the money, if possible.
Is that not fraud, him claiming money on suspension whilst knowing he’s guilty of a crime? And yes the BBC is principally funded by the license fee and there should be scrutiny over how it is spent, same as politicians, who are also scrutinised over what they spend money on.
I’m pleased they have asked for it to be paid back, as of yet nothing has been returned. Not sure if they can bring a case against him to return the money or have a court mandate the return of the money. Unfortunately I don’t think it can be brought to court and doubt there will be any obligation to return the money, only public pressure to return it.
Maybe it should be
No, of course not.
Why would think it shouldn’t be considered as fraud? He was offered the chance to resign his position and refused and accepted a salary until admitting guilt. He lied to the panel internally investigating the allegations against him. They should in future, insert a clause into contracts stating that any money taken on suspension should be returned if found guilty of specific crimes.