Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children

[NotThatSoph]

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.

It should not be considered fraud because receiving money you're contractually obligated to is not fraud. That would be insane. He was suspended with pay, so he received the money he was owed.

If you think he's getting off lightly, then you should probably argue for harsher sentences for the crimes he actually did commit, rather than inventing other ones out of thin air.

 

[AbusementPark]

It should not be considered fraud because receiving money you're contractually obligated to is not fraud. That would be insane. He was suspended with pay, so he received the money he was owed.

If you think he's getting off lightly, then you should probably argue for harsher sentences for the crimes he actually did commit, rather than inventing other ones out of thin air.

Yeah fair enough, I just don’t think enough is done to protect children against predators, BBC have fallen foul of this multiple times and don’t seem to have changed anything to deter it from happening within their ranks.

 

[Red in STL]

Yeah fair enough, I just don’t think enough is done to protect children against predators, BBC have fallen foul of this multiple times and don’t seem to have changed anything to deter it from happening within their ranks.

If he was using his own phone and computer and not at work I'm not sure what the BB C, or any other employer for that matter, could do, using theor equipmnt/network would be a different kettle of fish but as far as I'm aware this isn't the case here - the real problem is the sentencing guidelines for these offences, that's the Governemnt's resposibility to chnage where needed

 

[AbusementPark]

If he was using his own phone and computer and not at work I'm not sure what the BB C, or any other employer for that matter, could do, using theor equipmnt/network would be a different kettle of fish but as far as I'm aware this isn't the case here - the real problem is the sentencing guidelines for these offences, that's the Governemnt's resposibility to chnage where needed

You make good points, ive allowed anger and disgust at the sentencing to cloud my thinking.
The government need to update the sentencing guidelines around sexual offences and sentencing, too many slip through the net and aren’t punished or monitored closely enough when released.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Maybe it should be

Stunningly unfortunate username for this thread.

 

[Red in STL]

You make good points, ive allowed anger and disgust at the sentencing to cloud my thinking.
The government need to update the sentencing guidelines around sexual offences and sentencing, too many slip through the net and aren’t punished or monitored closely enough when released.

Fair enough

Unfortunately in my extended family we had a kiddy fiddler, my cousins second husband abused his step-daughter and his own daughter for a decade +, this is someone I knew and none of us had any inkling of what he was doing, eventually the girls told their mother years later and he was arrested, charged and found guilty, both girls gave evidence, he denied it - he got 26 years, he'll last 5 mins if he's lucky on the streets because there's a whole bunch of us very angry fellas going to be waiting for him, both girls are unfortunately baskek cases now, severe mental issues and unable to hold proper relationships with men, 2 lives ruined because of him and their mother blames herself (wrongly) for not spotting it

 

[AbusementPark]

Fair enough

Unfortunately in my extended family we had a kiddy fiddler, my cousins second husband abused his step-daughter and his own daughter for a decade +, this is someone I knew and none of us had any inkling of what he was doing, eventually the girls told their mother years later and he was arrested, charged and found guilty, both girls gave evidence, he denied it - he got 26 years, he'll last 5 mins if he's lucky on the streets because there's a whole bunch of us very angry fellas going to be waiting for him, both girls are unfortunately baskek cases now, severe mental issues and unable to hold proper relationships with men, 2 lives ruined because of him and their mother blames herself (wrongly) for not spotting it

That’s a very positive result indeed. Without going into too much specifics, a serial groomer and sex offender having sex with underage children over multiple years and multiple victims, slippped through the net and only received a 3 year sentence even though it was maybe his 10th conviction for the same crime. His parents still supported him and viewed the victims as liars and the problem. Authorities didn’t do enough to protect children as he lived with 100m of a school, even when he had to leave the area his other address was close to a nursery and primary school. When he served his 3 year sentence he was released and offended while on license and sent back to jail.

 

[Red in STL]

That’s a very positive result indeed. Without going into too much specifics, a serial groomer and sex offender having sex with underage children over multiple years and multiple victims, slippped through the net and only received a 3 year sentence even though it was maybe his 10th conviction for the same crime. His parents still supported him and viewed the victims as liars and the problem. Authorities didn’t do enough to protect children as he lived with 100m of a school, even when he had to leave the area his other address was close to a nursery and primary school. When he served his 3 year sentence he was released and offended while on license and sent back to jail.

3 years in those circumstances is a joke and questions need to be asked about it

 

[Wibble]

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.

I doubt such a clause would be legal. If they didn't have the grounds to sack him before his conviction, or they didn't want to take the risk if they weren't sure then they have to keep paying him. What if it had turned out that it was fabricated and he was innocent (no matter how unlikely that was)? A sizable law suit would follow that would lilkey cost the BBC far far more than some lost wages.

Of course when it comes to sexual crime against kids I think most of us want harsh punishment and in anger that goes right up to slowly feeding them into an industrial meat mincer.

 

[F-Red]

You make good points, ive allowed anger and disgust at the sentencing to cloud my thinking.
The government need to update the sentencing guidelines around sexual offences and sentencing, too many slip through the net and aren’t punished or monitored closely enough when released.

The question here about Edwards isn't about government updating sentencing guidelines, there's already punishment there to be able to give sentences for up to 10 years.

The challenge in this case was why the Magistrates court didn't feel it was sufficient to put this case towards a Crown Court. A Magistrates court is limited in the sentencing that it can give, as evidenced by what Edwards received.

 

[Brophs]

The Queen must be turning in her grave to be associated with such a shameless, craven paedophile.

I doubt she’s too happy about Huw Edwards announcing her death, either.

 

[Red in STL]

The question here about Edwards isn't about government updating sentencing guidelines, there's already punishment there to be able to give sentences for up to 10 years.

The challenge in this case was why the Magistrates court didn't feel it was sufficient to put this case towards a Crown Court. A Magistrates court is limited in the sentencing that it can give, as evidenced by what Edwards received.

That's not correct, the guidelines indicate that for a first time offender that is not the punishment they should get. Most offenders, in most crimes, never get the maxiumun allowable sentence, espeically not first timers

 

[F-Red]

That's not correct, the guidelines indicate that for a first time offender that is not the punishment they should get. Most offenders, in most crimes, never get the maxiumun allowable sentence, espeically not first timers

You're not talking about a guideline though in respect here, you're talking about the aggravating and mitigating factors that a judge will consider on a defendant.