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

That ought to work out well.😳

If you have an issue with how magistrates are sentencing, then please apply to become one. [....]But don’t cast aspersions on those who are giving back to a community by volunteering to be the backbone of our justice system. volunteering to be the backbone of our justice system
Our justice system is held up by volunteers?! No wonder it's all such a clusterfuck🙁

How the apologists totally ignore the reality of escalation. Huw Edwards got caught the same way all predatory men who get caught do: Escalating behaviour and taking greater risks. How far was he willing to go? All the way for as long as he could get away with it.
”He’s not snatching kids off the street!” Well, A) Fuckin’ yay for that! Give the man a cigar and a table dance and just keep minimising his dangerous behaviour and crimes by reminding us that B) he’s a predatory abuser BUT he hasn’t snatched a kid off the streets. 👍
Understand that the next step was going to be having sex with a victim. Look at his timeline. Observe his patterns. He was heading towards sex with a victim. That’s how it escalates.

I think this thread shows the difficulties around subjects like this and why it's so hard to have a discussion without descending into name-calling.

It's so emotive, logic often goes out of the window with wild statements being made.

The problem is that being understandably angry at the perpetrators of CSA means it's difficult to have a rationed and reasonable discussion. Some of the comments just get a bit wild.

For example, as some knowledgeable PP pointed out - this is actually a fairly tough sentence compared to what others get. It's also been pointed out that the judge has their hands tied to some extent due to sentencing guidelines. And yet, there are PP who are accusing the judge of being a latent paedophile, and that's why Edwards got off so lightly. It's just ridiculous and unhelpful.

I think the vast majority of us here agree that there's a problem with sentencing guidelines, and an overhaul of the law would be helpful. That's an entirely separate issue but it's not what some PP are saying. There's no acknowledgement that actually, there wasn't much the judge could do because there are sentencing guidelines in place. Slating those who are implementing the current laws is unfair.

The law clearly needs radical change especially with such prevalence of CSA, which is truly shocking. Some of the figures posted here in terms of how many cases there are every year is sickening. It IS mainly men, just like other sexual crimes, and that's where the focus needs to be. However, comments about letting out all the women or making men pay more tax are just infuriating as they're ideological and also unfair.

The real question is, how DO we reform this? I don't know enough about the efficacy of deterrent custodial sentences but the fact is there's not enough prison spaces. So what crimes do we go lighter on to make spaces for CSA cases?

People on this thread are talking about not bothering to imprison for non-violent crimes. And yet, on countless other threads, MN posters are furious about benefit fraud and think people need to be locked up for it. We can't have it all.

The system needs radical reform but I don't know what that looks like, or how it could be funded. But there needs to be real appetite for huge change - and the difficulty with that is that the public won't agree on what's OK and what's not. Look at the furore about Labour releasing some prisoners early - and that's now bitten them on the arse. People are outraged about early releases while simultaneously wanting extra magical spaces for CSA.

I don't think pointing out the practicalities or underlining the difficulties means you don't care. It's possible to have been personally affected by CSA and still want a rational and fact-driven resolution that protects our children in the most effective way.

And also, that means enabling paedophiles to come forward without shame for treatment/help. I'm not referring to people who are doing harm - I'm talking about (probably young) men who realise they have unhealthy attraction to children. BEFORE they access images of children, BEFORE they touch a child......let's get these people help. There will be some that don't want help and glory in their sick tastes - but there will be some that are disgusted with themselves. Right now, there's no easy way to seek help - there needs to be a pathway that can be offered to men to prevent them continuing, to prevent them doing harm to children. People don't like to talk about this because it's dismissed as being a "paedo sympathiser" but nothing can be further from the truth. Prevention is so, so important because only by throwing resources at early prevention together with deterrents and restrictions for offenders, will we actually achieve anything. It's how we protect our children.

I'm 48 and I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth of men and their sexual crimes, our patriarchal society, and misogynism. But at the same time I recognise that we need practical, achievable goals that are actually effective and don't just service an emotional demand.

(Ps - @WinterMorn, thank you, I've found your responses to be balanced and informative, even though it's perhaps not great reading in terms of what's expected and normal in these cases).

@Puzzledandpissedoff you have nailed it, and I cannot see any point in the future where this changes.

But you should have known when the cretin who supplied him with the photos only got a suspended sentence. No way was Edwards going to be handed a custodial sentence in that context.

Unfortunately, people just aren’t interested in criminal justice the same way they are with something like the NHS and as a result, the attention, funding and focus just isn’t there until something like this happens

As you rightly say it's unfortunate but very true, @WinterMorn, especially as some have very short memories and while they may need the NHS (or whatever) tomorrow, reports of crimes such as this are more sporadic

Which probably also explains why the pitiful "lessons will be learned" is trotted out so often and even works for some ... until the next time

The supplier of the photos only got a suspended sentence. So Edwards was never going to get a custodial. He’ll be on the sex offenders register and any transgression during the suspension period will likely result in prison. I don’t agree with either sentence - it’s not sending a strong enough message about all the ramifications of this kind of behaviour, least of all the suffering of the children involved. But I don’t think anyone can claim he’s been given any preferential treatment because this is the way the law works.

Yanbu

I am stick to the back teeth of the minimising of such crimes by the legal system and by wider society.

He should have thought about his family and public image etc before he did it.
Why do they think they won't be caught or don't they care of they are?

I’m very curious as to who the (at my last check) 5% of people who think YABU. Maybe they need looking at too

@Puzzledandpissedoff I totally agree, we should be getting it right all the time. Unfortunately, people just aren’t interested in criminal justice the same way they are with something like the NHS and as a result, the attention, funding and focus just isn’t there until something like this happens. I have long maintained this position but the truth is, a lot of people are happy with this status quo as they don’t want to spend any money on something they consider to be a lost cause.

YANBU.
Suspended sentence!! I might have damn known.

Absolutely spot on!

Do it then and asked MN to get involved, why shouldn't they, alot of the forum users are women.

You are minimising his crimes, real children were sexually abused to produce the disgusting images he was aroused by. Children who are abused are rarely snatched off the street, they are groomed and coerced by people they trust. The emotional and psychological damage will be every bit as serious as the physical injuries.

Locking up sex offenders has got nothing to do with vengeance, they can't abuse children or create a market for child abuse images when they're incarcerated and the longer that protection for children lasts, the better.

I have no faith in rehabilitation and my tolerance for rehabilitation failure is zero. Child abusers cannot be cured so our aim should be the protection of children at all costs.

That's probably fair, WinterMorn, but then it "going right" is what we're all paying for and surely the very least we can expect, especially with such damaging crimes

Nobody pretends any system will get things right all the time, and I fully accept that public abhorrence around child sex abuse will mean more attention's paid to the failures than might be the case with lesser offences, but then this comes back to my point about the importance of public confidence in the systems, which as things stand simply isn't there - and I don't think that's good for anyone

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is at least one post where I have directly addressed the impact of sexual assault to someone who had mentioned it. At the end of the day, you don’t agree with me, and that’s fine. I have also clearly stated that I have real problems with how the system is operating at present. However, I have managed to interact with you in a polite and civil manner, and you won’t be able to say the same.

I haven’t been disingenuous at all. The only view that I have consistently offered is one that is without emotion because it is based in law, rationality and the ‘norm’ in these sorts of cases. I wish that we could allocate significantly more resources to this area and yes, of course some people deserve far harsher sentences.

Sorry meant to tag @WinterMorn in my previous post.

Absolutely agree rainsofcastamere

There are far too many in prison for far lesser crimes that cause far less harm because they can not pay for an expensive legal team and do not know how to play the system - he has done both

'It’s possible to manage people’s behaviour without them being in prison.' Really? Not a lot of women on here's experience.
' If someone wants to re-offend, they will, whether or not they are in custody. If they don’t want to, they won’t.' The probation service should use this as their motto.
'Some are managed very effectively with extremely stringent risk management' Some is good enough I suppose.
I can't be bothered to go through all your posts but it's clear you're an apologist for the current system. You haven't acknowledged any of the victims of sexual assault on here and their very real need to see the people who have destroyed lives appropriately punished. Images of sexual abuse are not only not a victimless crime they are a crime with the most vulnerable of victims and men are getting away with sentences which are far too light.

I have a lot of respect for Karen Ingala Smith but think she's wrong here it was Huw Edwards not the judiciary who sought to off-load the blame onto the nearest available woman - typical cognitive distortion common to abusers = always someone else's fault and a way of thinking which is difficult to address in therapy

I would suggest it's because they're following sentencing guidelines rather than because they're raging paedophiles

Stop being disingenuous! All you have to say is that you can appreciate why a six month suspended sentence may appear to be inadequately punitive for someone involved in the sexual abuse of children, despite it being in line with the sentencing guidelines.

If you don't think that, why don't you think that child abusers should receive harsher sentences?