Huw Edwards

The judiciary don’t sentence according to emotion.. some comments I’m reading on FB show feeling is high but that can not affect sentencing…
I agree it seems imbalanced against the rioting sentences dished out but again, they’re following strict guidelines…
Some are daft enough to suggest Starmer has influenced the result and complaining only heard in magistrates and not crown court… I’m guessing that’s because he plead guilty do no need for trial..
Also, his willingness to seek help will mitigate his sentence…

His career is now ruined and as such he’s out of public life now.. good riddance to the pervert..
 
atypical_boro said:
I thought he'd said "Don't send me anything illegal" - was there more to it than that then I guess?
Click to expand...

Under 18 is illegal. Edwards replied "yes" followed by three 'X's when asked whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16". The court heard that after he was sent pictures of someone between 12-14 years old, he went on to discuss Christmas presents with the man who sent them.
 
As said two months ago when from when he pleaded guilty, the BBC should ask for his very high salary back, from the time he received his first child porn. His illegal actions have seriously damaged the reputation and image of the BBC.

I believe they paid him till the end of April 2024 and the child porn sharing went back well into 2023.
 
No surprise really, he’s probably very lucky that the Prisons are in crisis. I hope the court of public opinion re-sentences him every time he is seen out in public
 
kuepper said:
Under 18 is illegal. Edwards replied "yes" followed by three 'X's when asked whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16". The court heard that after he was sent pictures of someone between 12-14 years old, he went on to discuss Christmas presents with the man who sent them.
Click to expand...
Ah right. Fully fledged nonce then.
 
I was listening to the radio and a legal person was explaining that a 2 year suspended sentence was harsher than a 6 month prison sentence. This was because there are much more restrictions that go with the suspended sentence and 7 years on the register of offenders.
 
Billywindsorsgoingbald said:
Not much seems to have been made of the fact they can't find the phone which he received the images on. I bet there will be a lot more on it if they could find it.
Click to expand...
Good point. Though I suppose they just can’t do anything about it? Can’t sentence him for longer based on “probably”. Though I do agree with you.

I don’t think any of his friends or family will be letting him near their kids anytime soon anyway.
 
Redwurzel said:
As said two months ago when from when he pleaded guilty, the BBC should ask for his very high salary back, from the time he received his first child porn. His illegal actions have seriously damaged the reputation and image of the BBC.

I believe they paid him till the end of April 2024 and the child porn sharing went back well into 2023.
Click to expand...
The allegations came to light in 2023 when police got hold of William's phone in connection with another investigation ... he was sending pictures to Edwards from 2018/19 iirc
 
atypical_boro said:
Ah right. Fully fledged nonce then.
Click to expand...

According to the judge the money that Edwards had paid Williams shouldn't be taken to mean that he had been paid for the indecent images! "It was more a case of “thank you” for whatever was going on between them - in effect gifts". Of course it was
 
Redwurzel said:
As said two months ago when from when he pleaded guilty, the BBC should ask for his very high salary back, from the time he received his first child porn. His illegal actions have seriously damaged the reputation and image of the BBC.

I believe they paid him till the end of April 2024 and the child porn sharing went back well into 2023.
Click to expand...
It was on radio 4 that they expect the salary back
 
If they expect, they are being a bit naive. Why give it back? From a legal stand point. He's under no obligation to return his salary at all. He was suspended on full pay.
 
Apparently only a 'medium' threat to children. So being a medium threat is 'fine'. Absolutely ridiculous.

I know everyone has the right to legal representation. Yet good grief. You wonder how some of these lawyer's sleep at night trying to get reduced sentences for guilty people.

You'd think anything to do with children and sex would be a prison sentence. To think people are currently banged up for tweets.
 
S7DiscoDown said:
Apparently only a 'medium' threat to children. So being a medium threat is 'fine'. Absolutely ridiculous.

I know everyone has the right to legal representation. Yet good grief. You wonder how some of these lawyer's sleep at night trying to get reduced sentences for guilty people.

You'd think anything to do with children and sex would be a prison sentence. To think people are currently banged up for tweets.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more that offences relating to children and sex should be mandatory custodial ..

Couldn't agree less that people who encourage others via tweets to commit murder, race based violence or arson, or either or at the same time , ....don't deserve custody equally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top