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

I know we mothers are supposed to forgive anything (unconditional love) but I truly think I could not forgive this.

No disrespect to his mother though, it's not her fault.

Some people didn’t look at consequences of the death penalty when offending! Sentences often don’t stop anything. Changing offending behaviour has more success.

And now allegedly lives with his elderly mum in deepest Wales

It's not just a little ticking off, though, is it? This is someone who was once massively respected who has lost all that and is now despised, he's lost his career and his family. I doubt that many potential paedophiles are looking at him thinking "He got away with it, I'll carry right on".

So what are you advocating? Life sentences for every offence? Otherwise there is no way of avoiding the fact that there are thousands of people living in society who have been convicted of offences.

Think about it - if you are going to prison for a long time even for offences at the lower end of the scale, what incentive is there to limit your offending? Why wouldn't you threaten and kill potential witnesses if you get no more for murder than you do for theft? Why would you hesitate to assault prison staff if it isn't going to increase your sentence? The thought of locking everyone up indefinitely may sound great, but it just doesn't work.

What message does this send out to his poor victims? This happens to you and Huw just gets a little ticking off and sent on his merry way.
It makes me sick, I feel so enraged. There is no justice for the children in this m, I would lock Huw in a cell for a long time and be wearing his dingly danglies for earrings if I had my way.

Also have misgivings about politicians grandstanding/interfering/whatever in the judicial process - they tend to be fickle creatures with their own agendas and the welfare of children shouldn't become a political football

Tom Tugenhat seems to have been the only politician 'commenting' yesterday about the leniency of the sentence and appealing it to the Attorney General - he was quickly informed that's not possible because the case was heard in the magistrates court and the right of the public to appeal lenient sentences only covers the high court

So interesting to know that is the case and maybe he could raise extending the public's rights in this in parliament which is a better/correct place to 'comment' - where politicians can actually influence law-making

And yes not the worst crime against children - think about what happened to Sarah Payne and other children suffering at the hands of malignant sadistic predatory paedophiles - and the everything in between those crimes and HE

.

It's the public who have to pay for it all. And live in society with all the offenders that don't go to jail. Who do these so-called "trained professionals" work for, if not the public?

@SpudleyLass Exceot that in the vast breadth of this crime, he’s not at the top end. So the sentence must reflect this. As it has with similar offenders. All offences have degrees or everything will be “life”.

Plus the public clearly doesn’t set the sentencing rules. They just bay for blood. As they always do. It’s up to trained professionals to look at this. They will if it’s seen as too lenient. How many people are we going to send to prison from our courts? 200,000? More? When do we say other sentences are more appropriate?

Some of us on this thread are a minority in our views. We are allowed to be.

I’m not sure politicians should comment. If this is seen to be unduly lenient it will be looked at again. Starmer of all people understands sentencing! Those who know the guidelines believe it’s within them.

Legislation sets out max and minimum sentences and what else MUST be considered but considerable discretion is given to the judges because they are the professionals in this. It’s not for here today, gone tomorrow politicians to dictate everything. Or we start going down a very slippery slope. This is why, although some posters don’t like it, the sentences given must be left to trained people. Sentencing has got more and more tough. Not the opposite.

The sentencing guidelines for this crime need to be amended. I am somewhat perturbed that Starmer hasn't commented on this case, tbh - the public is sending a very clear message - Huw Edwards is perceived to have gotten away with what is arguably the worst crime one can commit against the most vulnerable demographic.

He should be in prison for the rest of his life. Everybody is vulnerable in prison - he is not special in that regard.

Very much agree. I’d like to see it all overhauled. I have to wonder is the legislation even fit for purpose given the evolving digital nature of these crimes? And then is the sentencing appropriate, both as a deterrent but as suitable punishment for these vile crimes. We need to send a strong message that CSA (and I’d like to see more broadly violence against women and girls) be harshly punished. After all, this isn’t spur of the moment crime. This is men deliberately harming children or seeking out footage of it. That in itself makes the crime very intentional and I think ‘mitigations’ should have to reach a very high bar to be considered in sentencing for CSA crimes.

Our justice system considers other crimes to be more of a danger to the public like committing crimes against property, fraud, low level drug dealing

I always say if the crime involves money (like fraud) you get decades in prison. You can’t help but feel the system is completely skewed to value money and things over people

@YellowphantGrey, to reflect your earlier post, 👍 ok.

I never made the comment about you tagging people though?! You were responding to someone else.

I don't need to scrape any barrel to have a go at you, you're doing that yourself and dragging others into it

It wasn’t eager in the slightest, it was simply a response to your increasingly desperate posts where you scrape every inch of the proverbial barrel to have a go at me.

I wasn't. Some else pointed that out. I simply commented on your eagerness to share you had likes on your post.

As you correctly point out, it’s not a popularity contest, so why are you concerning yourself with who I do or don’t tag?

Pleased to hear it. I would definitely lose sleep over disappointing you.

It's not a popularity contest and this is why they are hidden, to stop posts like this "well I've got 3 likes so I'm definitely not wrong"

Quite. People complain the system is broken but it was built that way. To protect those that matter

The details contained in this article are repugnant. Like you, I totally understand Edwards (and his "supplier", Williams) were sentenced in line with current guidelines, but when more than 80% of paedophile perpetrators are not given a custodial sentence at first offence, all this tells me is the sentencing guidelines need to be amended.

Exactly DancingLions and again having a good legal team behind you would once again gain you leniency

HE isn't even under a SHPO (sexual harm prevention order) no viewing his devices. Yet this is exactly the crime he was found guilty of viewing the rape of young children and teenagers on his phone (that has of course conveniently gone missing).

And there is room in prison for men like HE in prison. These men have violent perverse sexual desires its not a sexual orientation and should not be treated as such their desires are about children suffering horrendous sexual crimes. Our justice system considers other crimes to be more of a danger to the public like committing crimes against property, fraud, low level drug dealing

Our priorities are wrong these men deserve to be punished by serving time in prison. So what if HE was treated more harshly than others he has carefully protected himself as much as he could. Other need to be treated more harshly. Prison is real punishment for them not because they shall be attacked (they are well protected) but to experience autonomy taken away from them.

Seven years on a sex offenders register is an inconvenience not a punishment

I could have predicted you'd give that exact response.

You didn't disappoint.

You being a parent is irrelevant, you don't need to be a parent to know that paedophiles are inexcusable

For me what infuriates me, is how men get their crimes portrayed compared to women.

I dipped in and out of the lucy letby threads and didn't see any comments about it not being all women or any male posters saying their wives or girlfriends wouldn't do that etc. On here, some posters contributed once to defend their male relatives and missed the point entirely

It infuriates me that our justice system doesn't work the very best it can when you see the unfairness that happens and therefore I know that the death penalty wouldn't work. We have to put our trust into an already questionable system and process that favours men.

I'm aware paedophilia only becomes illegal once those thoughts are acted on and carried out. How many men/women have these thoughts but don't act on them and why not? What's stopping them?

Then you get those that act on them. In this case, it seems he got caught, given a light sentence and the driving narrative is that it's his poor mental health and the focus on being this and how important it is we focus on rehabilitation and getting him back into society.

When a woman comitts a similar crime, all empathy is gone. There's lots of blame and anger and a distinct lack of how we can get her back into society

There are lots of people up in arms about lucy letby appealing and a distinct lack of people pointing out that it's her legal right to do so and people refusing to acknowledge this because there were babies involved. There were also children involved in this case, they've largely been ignored

People needed a place to be angry and upset at the injustice of a paedophile being dealt with the focus of how Huw is feeling being the most important thing. His mental health has been considered and used to his benefit

Just let people feel anger without pointing out the importance of being fair to Huw, nothing about this is fair without being reminded every other post that he needs to he considered

In theory it should, in practice I don't see it happening. Although could be somewhat area dependant. I find London Courts to generally be more lenient than those outside of London.