Huw Edwards

Seems a bit light compared with 2 years given out for throwing objects at the Police etc or even the 7 years Johnson got for sexual contact with a 15 year old?

Wasn't there issues previously with Huw Edwards and grooming a 17 year old boy for sordid photos, but it was deemed that he had not broken the law?
 
Last edited:
As someone who has worked in law enforcement for a number of years, I can assure that this sentence is entirely consistent with standards across the criminal justice system. That's not to say I agree with it, but it is common for offenders caught with over 40,000 category A images to get a suspended sentence so he was never going to get a custodial.
 
Mayor Goldie Wilson said:
As someone who has worked in law enforcement for a number of years, I can assure that this sentence is entirely consistent with standards across the criminal justice system. That's not to say I agree with it, but it is common for offenders caught with over 40,000 category A images to get a suspended sentence so he was never going to get a custodial.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Apparently the level of the images included the most serious level of images. You would always have expected any images at the most serious level to be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing, which he obviously was, and for it to attract a sentence of immediate custody. But as you say in his case the number of images sounds like it was relatively low for this type of offending (sadly often in these sorts of cases the types of offender involved want to obtain much, much higher quantities of images than he had) and that's a factor too.


I'd say it would have been quite finely balanced as to whether he got a SSO or immediate custody. Likely susceptibility to any kind of rehabilitation programme probably his saving grace here I suspect
 
Mayor Goldie Wilson said:
As someone who has worked in law enforcement for a number of years, I can assure that this sentence is entirely consistent with standards across the criminal justice system. That's not to say I agree with it, but it is common for offenders caught with over 40,000 category A images to get a suspended sentence so he was never going to get a custodial.
Click to expand...
Surely this was an opportunity to set an example to others and it doesn't The fact he made salacious comments about the images, that he paid £100s for them and obviously encouraged the other guy to find and send images to him seems to have been overlooked. Must have been represented by Pete Townshend's lawyer..
 
Surprised at the sentence, but the fella who actually sold the pics also got a suspended sentence.
Maybe thats standard, it shouldnt be , but i dont think its because hes high profile
 
I do agree he should be dealt with the same as anyone else, no better no worse.

It says on Wiki he has 5 children, another example of a parent of children acting against children, which most people find hard to believe and I used to not believe.
 
Last edited:
kuepper said:
Surely this was an opportunity to set an example to others and it doesn't The fact he made salacious comments about the images, that he paid £100s for them and obviously encouraged the other guy to find and send images to him seems to have been overlooked. Must have been represented by Pete Townshend's lawyer..
Click to expand...
Believe me, regardless of how high profile he is, this is literally hardly even a drop in the ocean in the world of online paedophilia.
 
Unfortunately, it's not a particularly light sentence. I've said it before and will continue to say it, anyone caught with the highest levels should go to jail as their actions perpetuate the creation of the filth and the consequent abuse of children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top