To be absolutely sick of excuses being made for men's disgusting sexual behaviour? Trigfer warning. Hugh Edwards sentencing.

@GardenOfficer Regarding the HE sentence, self filming is relevant. I’ve not heard that this sentence is being reviewed.

Yes, that article is a bit jarring in switching on to talk exclusively about men watching the abuse of female children, when HE was looking at males.

It's on point about the scale of the problem and the role of porn though. And to go to your point about OnlyFans and PornHub - I think the problem is that a whole heap of the problematic "Lolita comes with dad" type content she mentions is it isn't technically illegal because the actors are over 18 in many cases. But it does break the taboo of watching this kind of stuff and even more of a problem, it trains mens brains to be aroused by breaking the taboo.

I also think (cynically) that PH/OF may well accept the risk of "inadvertently" hosting illegal material and build the costs of fines into their business model.

I personally think streaming porn should be banned under decency laws and there should be much tighter controls over live broadcast sites such as only fans. The Andrew Tate case shows how some women end up trafficked and forced into this line of work. But I can't see that happening because of the importance the patriarchy places on mens penis needs.

Here’s an archive link for Janice Turner’s article on HE from today’s Times:
https://archive.is/tvFuc

It’s powerful about the scale of the problem and the malice of the offenders. But I think it’s off on a few points.

Firstly for some reason there’s no mention of male victims.

Also there have been huge court cases in the past against the big adult porn sites like PH / OF. So surely by now they are vigilant against illegal material. They make so much money legally anyway.

Also JT’s article doesn’t connect the problem to the arguments against under 16s having unrestricted smartphone and social media access. Perhaps that’s another article but surely it’s part of the story.

I read somewhere that 95% of HE’s offending was photos/videos which was self-shot by the underage subjects. (Probably all the material showing just one person).

So it sounds like children have in various ways been groomed into photographing / filming themselves with their phones. It could be they’ve been active on social media, chasing likes with selfies, and then tragically
a HE figure had made contact with them privately and it’s escalated out of control. That sounds like what happened in HE’s first court case. Or else an immature young boyfriend has leaked something that’s been shared privately.

Jonathan Haidt linked to this article the other day which is worth reading:

katherinemartinko.substack.com/p/want-kids-to-be-safe-then-ditch-their

Because we can't afford it and even if we could it would take years.
It's been a dereliction of duty by previous governments to let it get to this position by kicking the can down the road

IDK @DavesSpareDeckChair longer and harsher sentences are popular vote winners which is a good part of why the prison population has doubled in the last 30 years

But 'build more prisons' doesn't even really feature in lists of voters concerns

Politicians aren't always honest and voters can be naive

Haven't read the full thread but if the issue is the prisons are full, why isn't any political party promising to build.more prisons? Not only for crimes like this but for crime generally - everyone seems to be worried about rising crime generally these days. Surely it's got to be a vote-winner? (And it must help create jobs etc?)

On an individual case yes. But the riots as a whole had a wider impact and the potential to be extremely dangerous if they continued. So tough action was needed to shut them down.

Regardless, what Edwards did was a far more despicable crime.

No. He was jailed for violent disorder, part of which was shouting at a police dog.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2nm5jgxlko

He sounds pretty unpleasant and violent disorder seems in keeping.

McCarthy admitted violent disorder at a previous hearing. He has convictions for violence, weapons offences and public order.

Didn't someone get jailed during the recent riots for shouting at a police dog?

I think that is exactly what they will be thinking - get caught and no real consequences for the "ordinary" paedophile. To think that we as a country don't believe that the vilest possible crimes against babies and children should mean years being locked up (ACTUALLY being locked up - not on suspended sentences), fills me with despair. Where are our values when property crimes attract long prison sentences, but these do not? Its sickening that our values and priorities are so skewed.

@mrsmiawallace3 The way I read it was his father’s attitude to this failure. Lifelong disappointment. I think the other issue is a very complex person. Not straightforward. The magistrate didn’t accept all the report’s views.

We would have reason to expect a higher quality of defensive argument from a senior consultant psychiatrist at UCL surely. The link between failing to attend Oxbridge and committing a heinous crime is tenuous if not entirely laughable.

What a brilliant article from The Guardian. Summed up so well.

Interesting article in the Graun today feels relevant to the thread.

I should have said I do not believe a child sex offender can ever be rehabilitated

Its not a sexual orientation it’s a desire to harm children using sexual violence

No

I absolutely agree. I've tried to use blunt language on this thread that has felt uncomfortable typing but I think it's necessary. It's no use just saying 'child abuse' because it doesn't adequately describe what those children are enduring and what this country considers a crime not worthy of a lengthy prison sentence.

If the prisons are full then release the ones that are drug related, theft related, fraud related and lock up the ones who (here comes that blunt language again) insert their penis into children including new born babies, along with the ones who ejaculate while looking at the pictures of it.

I don't give a fuck about rehabilitating these monsters, they don't deserve the opportunity, stop safeguarding them, they had no issue with assaulting children so who gives a fuck if they get battered by one of the 'bigger boys'.

I appreciate that there are sentencing guidelines. But they don't fit the crime, so, here's a novel idea, change the fucking guidelines.

Don't come at people with 'I want to live in a civil society' when you're comfortable with that society containing convicted pedophiles roaming free.

Not as an adult.

Starmer should absolutely comment on this. He was present when the sentencing guidelines for this offence were changed.

He is disgusting.

As for it not being the worst crime against children, words fucking fail me. SO he didn't physically touch a child? perhaps not but he fed the fucking market for it - so some child will be physically harmed as a result of his actions.

I truly hope that pig Edwards dies soon.

If we don't send paedos to prison, nobody else should be in prison.

Do you think a pedophile can ever, truly, be rehabilitated?

They are guidelines judges/magistrates have the power to use their discretion when sentencing

HE was treated with leniency, again seven years on the sex offenders register is an inconvenience nothing more. His sentence could have been harsher it has been for others

HE has been very lucky to have had rather sympathetic magistrate who stated in court he could be rehabilitated (on evidence given, that is quite a statement I cant think of one professional who would make such a statement and I work in rehabilitation), stated he was no longer a risk to children (have worked with many sex offenders never have I seen this stated in professional reports) and was concerned over HE safety if he went to prison (this is a concern for all child sex offenders)

There is absolutely no excuse for such leniency

Its very concerning we have professionals that have powers to sentence, set conditions that have such sympathetic attitudes towards sex offenders

Exactly, DancingLions, and while fines are only supposed to be for a minor breach of conditions, there's always a risk of that definition being watered down in the context of pressure on prison places

Again it's the infrastructure and guidelines which are at fault and as always I come back to the issue of public confidence in the system. It hasn't been there for years and is getting worse now we're seeing politically motivated jailings, and for me it needs changing - urgently

TBH we don't know what his mother thinks/feels - he may be unwelcome, there under duress - cant imagine that she's not suffering some kind of distress/conflict

My point was that he's no longer leading his glamorous lifestyle in his lovely house in Dulwich

It's standard stuff.

Every defence team has to present some kind of defence, if not for the crimes themselves as they are indefensible, but what may have contributed to it or what may be happening in their life now.

It made no difference to his sentencing or to the public perception of him.