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

I understand the impulse to see them suffer but my idea is really only about the risk of them re offending being reduced to zero.

They can be a self supporting community. There will be people of all professions and trades. We can provide them with the materials to build houses, grow food and set up their own healthcare system etc but they will not have any access to children or the internet where they could access child abuse images. In many respects they are capable of being functional adults it's just that in the one aspect they aren't, they cause unacceptable harm to children. It's their seeming normality that allows lots of them to go undetected.

I think as a society we are in denial about our ability to fix or manage these type of offenders and I don't think children should pay the price for our stupidity, naivety or arrogance. Our willingness to accept all sorts of excuses in mitigation for their offences is an insult to other people who have had difficult childhoods or mental health problems and who, by virtue of being normal, decent human beings, manage not to sexually abuse children.

I think about the years of "rehabilitation" John Venables had between the ages of 10 - 18 and he still reoffended and I wonder just how early do we have to catch them and how long do we have to rehabilitate them to be sure we are not putting children at risk by releasing them into society? In this situation if you feel the need to "assess risk" then the risk has already exceeded the tolerable threshold for a civilised society.

The human rights of child abusers should be never be a higher priority than children's safety and well being, its our job to make sure that standard is maintained, we are failing.

"The state has a responsibility to safeguard the personal safety of people in custody. Including horrible criminals.

Paedophiles generally get put in separate facilities as they're more at risk of attack, famous or not.

You might think it's wrong in this case but if the state could basically facilitate attacks on paedophiles, who else would they do it to?"

Whilst I understand my thoughts and opinions won't change the 'justice system' or 'safeguarding' of this country, I pray for a day where we would dangle people like Huw Edwards from bridges instead of 'safeguard' them. I mean, when you're literally lower than than a shit on the floor why do you deserve to be safeguarded? Get shut of him. Again, it's never going to change but it's a real shame that the safeguarding of a nonce is more important than him/her actually facing justice.

Yes I totally agree. Being physically attracted to child is their sexuality. It can't just be switched off. It's like asking someone to just stop being gay.

No excuse at all, unfortunately I believe that if someone fancies children/ has an attraction to them it can’t be removed from them. I think all these stop it now! Services, therapy etc they make people who get caught do a complete waste of time and money. Sure it might help them from being able to act on it (whether first hand or viewing images) but they will always go back. It’s like trying to stop someone being gay, straight or asexual. It ain’t going to happen. Money needs to be spent on
more prison/ ensuring they don’t have access to children irl or online.

I think many people might be surprised, if they realised it's not that uncommon for abusers to be working in positions of trust and dealing with vulnerable people.

It's something not talked about, acknowledged, or addressed enough, I guess partly because often organisations have a "cover up culture" and prioritise "protecting the organisation's reputation" over the safety of the public.

Probably also doesn't help that the safeguarding or similar positions of trust give the abusers a false cover of being a decent and respectable person with good morals. People don't want to believe accusations because "so and so is such a lovely person and does such good and important work".

I imagine that's exactly what attracts abusers to these roles.

Paedophiles are lower than vermin IMO. Their "human rights" should not even be a consideration.

Ah! Safeguarding! Wonderful word. So glad you’re using it as a tool of enlightenment to educate the rest of us.

Speaking of safeguarding. My former husband was an NHS clinical safeguarding lead for over a decade. Safeguarding is such a big responsibility. And how ironic that the very person (my ex) who breached everyone’s trust and deceived them under the banner of ‘safeguarding’ now depends on being safeguarded in prison (he’s a paedophile predatory sex offender)… as in ‘life or death’ depends on it.

I’m not on this thread to be swayed into favouring the protection of human drek.

Boo fucking hoo.
he’s a risk of suicide is he? Well so are many people who were sexually abused as children, the real victims in all of this.

I would so vote for this. Just dump them all on an uninhabited Hebridean island and let them fight it out amongst themselves a la The Purge. And the rest of society can forget about them.

The "state" doesn't create the prison hierarchy so they would not have the power to decide which groups of offenders other inmates determine are due some "prison justice", so your final question is redundant.

I'm not convinced it follows that other demographics would be attacked.

Seems it mainly those who harm.children who get the worst of it

The state has a responsibility to safeguard the personal safety of people in custody. Including horrible criminals.

Paedophiles generally get put in separate facilities as they're more at risk of attack, famous or not.

You might think it's wrong in this case but if the state could basically facilitate attacks on paedophiles, who else would they do it to?

Because it was a report into his psychological state, which is a normal thing in a court trial.

I feel absolutely sympathetic with her.

The newspapers ran photographs of her holding hands with him yesterday, which were years old from what I could make out, as though she'd been standing beside him in support as he attended his sentencing hearing.

She'd done nothing of the sort and doesn't deserve to be tainted by association. The woman must be reeling, as must their children.

Yes and I think it might be best to avoid mentioning her name. I know it's probably been reported in the news but no need to include it here. I'm guessing she wants and needs to distance herself from him as much as possible.

Feel sorry for her and so sorry for his children.

Absolutely. They've got to repair and heal whilst people cast aspersions over them, meanwhile he gets the benefit of a secure and safe place to heal.

I have enormous sympathy for his wife, his adult children and their own children (if they have them).

Their humiliation and shame at his horrendous actions must be quite brutal, even though they are innocent of any crime here.

And it's her life ruined too because I've no doubt whatsoever that someone will blame her because should have known.

Yes @Blondiebeachbabe Vicky Flind is divorcing him

There can be NO excuse for this kind of crime, none. It's a deeply ingrained desire to view children sexually. It doesn't happen by accident.

"Oh, my Mum died on Monday, and by Thursday I was a paedophile"

Fuck right off with that Shite!!

We all have sexual preferences, and they don't spin on a dime because of trauma.

Another point I want to make : how much money has this court case cost? If there was no punishment at the end, why fucking bother?

Last point - he hasn't repaid the BBC for the £200k he received for no work - tells you all you need to know about his morals.

Has his wife left him, at least?

No one has said woman are innocent though? I've said several times that I'm aware women commit crimes but it doesn't need to be raised every time a man commits a crime does it?

It doesn't happen on threads about female crimes.

However you look at it his brain was affected.

Nope, just fed up of people on here claiming folk who say all men are evil/women are all innocent saying anyone who disagrees is a troll.

Why is SUCH an emphasis being placed on HE’s mental health? I’m sure he’s not doing well but that would be true for the vast majority in his situation or similar. What about the mental health of the children being abused?

Imagine if women, or black and Asian people, were suddenly responsible for 95% of violent crime. The headlines it would make! Male violence - against women, against children, against other men, is an epidemic. No, a pandemic. It's just that nobody calls it out because it's the way it's always been. And when you call it out, you're faced with cries of "not all men!" Not until men have the guts to ask the questions of their fellow men that women are currently asking, will anything ever change. "It's just the way it is" is not a justification of the levels of male violence we see, and have always seen, throughout history.

I'm the mother of a perfectly lovely son, wife of a perfectly lovely husband. Of course I know it's Not All Men. But if the good men (and their wives and girlfriends) don't stand with the rapists, the abusers, the muggers, the hooligans etc, then there's a line in the sand and they should be standing with women, and with children, and with other good men and demanding action - not absolving themselves of any and all responsibility.