Huw Edwards given suspended sentence

There's always an excuse and never a reason. The thing is, people believe this shit. I had my mother repeat it to me the other day and believe it. A normal person goes to the pub and gets drunk. His behaviour shouldn't be excused.

Yes, that really winds me up. We know men statistically get the most benefit out of marriage yet so many men if they're expected to give even a tiny bit seem to fall apart and then blame the wife. I'm all for speaking up about mental health but this very much feels like blaming anything and everything to avoid any responsibility. Decent people don't wank over pictures of children being abused. It really is that simple.

There was some business in court about his marriage breakdown, apparently his wife was looking after his sick mother and wasn't able to pay him enough attention and as a result of her being busy with her sick mother their sex life flagged.
Another stupid fuckwit who can't stand the attention being taken away from him for one second and looking to blame someone else for his behaviour.
He must have been awful to live with and a complete sex pest.

The Mail are on the case of other online paedophiles not being jailed:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13863659/online-paedophiles-walked-free.html

I would love to know who wrote character references in support of Huw. How many BBC colleagues will dick ride Huw, even at his worst?
Personally, one of the single most difficult emotional hurdles for me to get over has been my failure to come to terms with the fact that people I trusted, people who sat in my living room, holding my hand, holding my daughter’s hand, turned around and wrote letters to the court in support of my daughter’s abuser because he’d been a good friend, a good colleague, despite being a terrible man.

He doesn’t pose a risk to anyone over 18! Just children then? Wtf

So so sick of this shit.

The whole thing - sentencing and attitude of the BBC - is so fucking depressing.

No wonder sick fucks who wank to pictures of 7 year olds being raped think they can get away with it. They absolutely can! Especially if they know the right people.

I invite you to lay out your concerns on another thread and propose a safeguarding plan based upon your data and fully evidenced thought-through plan.

I'm fuming about this sentence, it's so Wrong on every level. He's a piece of shit 💩in my eyes.

You may have chosen to interpret my comments in the way that you outline but it was certainly not my intention. I can't respond to your interpretation because it's so offbeam.

For general safeguarding purposes, relative risk and an understanding of numbers is important.

The female sex offenders can be anywhere. They hide in plain sight and people are less suspicious about them but don't doubt they are there and the pain they cause is tremendous.

Have you any idea what it is like for women who were sexually abused by women when you dismiss what was done to us? The minimising and quoting the numbers involved and all the rest of it is so hurtful. Remember that every single person who was abused has a right to their pain and my pain is just as justified as someone who was abused by a man.

The excellent SEEN in journalism twitter account linked this article below reporting on the work of the Sentencing Council that, back when Starmer was the DPP, formulated new guidelines related to 50 different sex offences. They decided that 8 offences where the principal victim is a child could be dealt with as community orders rather than prison sentences! Including 'sexual assault of a child under 13' to 'possession of an indecent photograph of a child' to 'paying for the sexual services of a child' and 'arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child'.

https://x.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1835739682438558096

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11958253/Keir-Starmer-present-meetings-decided-not-sex-offenders-prison.html

The Mail's take on this is that Starmer was fully in favour of these changes as he attended most of the meetings and raised no concerns. I'm concerned that some of the numerous predatory males in the judiciary, the CPS and a variety of organisations were able to use the consultation and exert their influence in order to remove some child sex offences from deserving prison sentences.

As we wonder why Edwards and other paedophiles are repeatedly released back into the community, it looks as if the Sentencing Council and their lack of concern for the safety of children from predators may be responsible?

Assuming that is a verified diagnosis of (presumably cerebral) small vessel disease (SVD), it may be fairly difficult for him to have insight into his actions (at some odds with other trial material but mentioned in sentencing remarks).

I have read the Neuropsychiatric Report prepared by Dr Issac and do not intend to repeat the information contained within that report but note the comments relating to the impact of his diagnosed mental health problems at the time of the offences; "The overarching diagnosis is major depressive disorder, moderate, recurrent, without psychotic features". Additionally, he has been diagnosed with small vessel disease (arteriosclerosis) which is described as cognitive disorder with behavioural disturbance. "The qualifier 'with behavioural disturbance' reflects changes in Mr Edwards' behaviour, but in my view fed into his overall judgment and capacity to make decisions, mainly because of the development of his mood disorder, but compounded by the presence of the neurocognitive disorder, from 2018 and well established by the material time at the end of 2020. This condition will have reduced Mr Edwards' cognitive reserve, rendering him more vulnerable to the adverse cognitive effects of alcohol.
Since approximately 2018, both of these conditions (neurocognitive disorder and mood disorder) are more likely than not to have impaired Mr Edwards' decision making and judgment, including his ability to comply with management instructions, reducing his normal inhibition and becoming 'stuck' in behaviours, such as obsessive messaging, whether appropriate or not, but at the same time detached from his communication, in that he would either forget what he had said or do so on a kind of 'autopilot,' without any real judgment of how such communications might be perceived or his actions impact on others." (Dr Isaac, 28/08/2024)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/EDWARDS-SENTENCE-REMARKS-FINAL.pdf

The corollary is that it may well be fairly tricky to supervise him and his actions in the community. This would be worsened by his tendency to blame others for his actions albeit this is hard to disentangle from behaviour-as-usual for paedophiles, the entitlement of men in the public eye, and the SVD.

A very much former friend got a suspended sentence for 1700 images including the torture of toddlers. Like HE, he got credit for it being his first offence, an early guilty plea, and remorse. Although the remorse didn’t stop it him in the decades he was looking at this stuff…

So I am not surprised by this.

I know the courts tend to try and avoid sending people to prison for first offences, because they come out more likely to reoffend. So I can grudgingly get on board with that, IF there are robust community measures to reduce the chance of reoffending. Sadly I am sceptical that much actually works.

There’s too many of these men to lock up. Maybe we could send them to a remote, uninhabited island without internet access and just leave them there.

I think the sentence is very lenient, though typical for this kind of offence. Sadly, there are tens of thousands of men arrested for this kind of offence every year - perhaps the authorities work on the basis that there isn’t enough jail space for all of them.

Your social values and sentencing guidelines rather than freemasonry. Did you pay attention to what Penny Mordaunt's perp brother got for trying to meet up with minors for sex?

I've read the defence mitigation and he is blaming everyone else. He's taking no responsibility whatsoever. Having a traumatic childhood is not an excuse for this type of offence. Then he blames his wife for not being sexually responsive to him whilst her mother was dying.

Sadly the sentence is in line with the tariff. I think the tariff is wrong and that he - along with everyone else committing CSA offences - should be in prison.

the only cold comfort in all this is that (given some people recently got banged up for years for posting dubious sentiments on Facebook, but Edwards gets to walk despite his crimes) he will spend the rest of his days as a total pariah, looking over his shoulder, forever. That's not going to do much for your mental health now, is it? Shame.

Yet someone who posted racist comments on social media was served time. I don't agree with either offence but it seems ridiculous this man is essentially walking away with a slap on the wrist for the most heinous crime whilst someone who committed something so much less serious was sent to prison. Bonkers, what is the justice system in this country playing at.

The thing that I've been most struck by in these threads is how CSA is minimised, on another thread someone mentioned a "minor offense"

How is this OK (by the law) that he - and the person that sent the pictures - (and probably thpusands of others) got such woefully minimal sentences?