Huw Edwards

outoftown said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "being banged up for tweets" thing seems to be the new catchphrase of a certain group in society recently. Heard someone say they were releasing rapists so they could lock people up for smoking in beer gardens the other day. I think they may have got two stories confused there. Did make me chuckle though.

Seems odd that so many people think that inciting people to commit mass murder via social media is no big deal. Like there should be some kind of free for all as long as it's typed online and not said in person. Mind boggling
 
I was reading yesterday that 99.1% of people caught with indecent images of children gets a custodial sentence in the US, whereas over here it is around 19%. Clearly that is a massive issue, but it is more of an issue about the number of prisons and lack of space in them than with the criminal justice system.

I think ultimately, Edwards offending was relatively minor compared to the vast majority of similar offending. He didn't even get given a SHPO either, which tells you a lot about how the judge viewed him. Being a celebrity has absolutely no impact on the sentence, and nor should it. Contact offences will always get a custodial, but like I said earlier in the thread, I've seen offenders caught with thousands of cat A images not get a custodial, so this outcome was entirely predictable.
 
On balance the sentence was probably right within current UK guidelines.

After what Edwards was doing with the 17 year boy was deemed legal.

These child porn pictures are his first offence and he must be now very cautious of his behaviour towards children and young people i.e. scared enough not to carry it on. I doubt he will be able to get any more paid work.

I suppose I can a bit upset when we have just criminally prosecuted a 12 year old child for throwing two stones at Police and he has a 12 months order put on him, while those older adults with offences against child appear to be treated in a similar manner. Or is my conclusion incorrect?
 
Mayor Goldie Wilson said:
I was reading yesterday that 99.1% of people caught with indecent images of children gets a custodial sentence in the US, whereas over here it is around 19%. Clearly that is a massive issue, but it is more of an issue about the number of prisons and lack of space in them than with the criminal justice system.

I think ultimately, Edwards offending was relatively minor compared to the vast majority of similar offending. He didn't even get given a SHPO either, which tells you a lot about how the judge viewed him. Being a celebrity has absolutely no impact on the sentence, and nor should it. Contact offences will always get a custodial, but like I said earlier in the thread, I've seen offenders caught with thousands of cat A images not get a custodial, so this outcome was entirely predictable.
Click to expand...
" How the judge viewed him" is the key. To the judge Edwards was a fellow well-heeled white middle-class male represented by a prominent KC and who incredibly didn't even believe that Edwards had paid for the photos. His defence team had obtained various reports purporting to portray Edwards as a victim whose judgement had been affected by alcohol etc which the judge swallowed hook, line and sinker. The judge also accepted Edwards hadn't really made the images even though he legally had, he believed that Edwards couldn't remember seeing the images, he believed Edwards did not use the images for 'gratification' (what did he want them for then?), he believed Edwards didn't read any text accompanying the images etc etc etc.

Amazing what justice money and class can buy.

 
Last edited:
Redwurzel said:
On balance the sentence was probably right within current UK guidelines.

After what Edwards was doing with the 17 year boy was deemed legal.

These child porn pictures are his first offence and he must be now very cautious of his behaviour towards children and young people i.e. scared enough not to carry it on. I doubt he will be able to get any more paid work.

I suppose I can a bit upset when we have just criminally prosecuted a 12 year old child for throwing two stones at Police and he has a 12 months order put on him, while those older adults with offences against child appear to be treated in a similar manner. Or is my conclusion incorrect?
Click to expand...
Please don't call it child porn. It is not, nor will it ever be, child porn.
 
Sorry I thought the photos Hugh Edwards was prosecuted for downloading, were photos of children in sexual activity.

What is the correct name? (genuine question)
 
Redwurzel said:
Sorry I thought the photos Hugh Edwards was prosecuted for downloading, were photos of children in sexual activity.

What is the correct name? (genuine question)
Click to expand...

He had 7 Category A images (6 moving and 1 still) and 12 Category B images (all moving). Category A = images involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism. Category B = images involving non-penetrative sexual activity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top