A dumb question but I'll ask anyway (TW: Huw Edwards, child SA)

[PoodlesRUs]

How come Huw Edwards wasn't charged for each image? He had 41 (iirc) child SA images yet didn't face 41 charges. There is a reason for that presumably but can any legal minds explain why? Does it not make any material difference?

If possible, I'd prefer to focus on the above question rather than his sentencing. I say this because I know emotions run high.

Thick working class men get suspended sentences for viewing images of child abuse every day of the week.

My god. I’ve never seen such a ridiculous post! Does the poster think that Starmer and Labour politicians are also judges?!?! I despair at the level of education in this country. Back to school for you, poster!

The person sending the images only got a suspended sentence too, so unless HE had committed other crimes he wasn’t going to get a longer sentence than that person. So nothing to do with money or fancy lawyers. And in fact if it hadn’t been for that other person being investigated HE would have got away with it

You might want to check what Keir starmer did for a living before becoming PM

I know. But what’s that got to do with Huw Edward’s sentencing? You’re talking nonsense.

Yeah he was a lawyer. How does that affect sentencing by judges after he became PM?

Your post is ignorant and hostile.

Am I surprised that a hard lefty is resorting to personal attacks ? Incapable of critical thinking and can only sling mud and name call when you don't agree with an opinion ? (But you're the one doing "right think" of course) Like a good little disciple to the regime.

It's really quite telling that you believe your post is the one that is the reasonable one.

Thanks for proving the 'horseshoe theory'.

The irony of calling another poster ignorant…

The Secret Barrister has done a good explanation of this on Twitter.

Keir Starmer sent a woman to jail? Is he a Judge now as well as PM? Are there no end to his talents?

I don’t disagree.

For me it boils down to, which one would benefit most from a counselling/ education course and community service and actually not reoffend? The uneducated woman writing threatening messages on social media or a an educated man, with extensive experience in reporting on such crimes, who has downloaded child abuse images?

I think it’s been proven that these men can’t have these predatory practices “educated” out of them.

Because his crimes didn't pose a risk to widespread civil law and order. She was encouraging rioting, lynching and murder - and with the potential consequences of that level of social unrest also comes an increased risk of sexual assault.

Is it like if you shoplift 10 items from a shop you don't get charged 10 times, but one charge of shoplifting?

Kerr Starmer didn't send anyone to prison. He's not a judge. Judges are following sentencing guidelines set under the Tory government.

HTH.

And yet we know those riots were caused by a lot of lies and racism on social media. You know, the riots that had idiots attacking and threatening to burn down hotels and mosques. Not only was it a credible threat, we saw the results in action whilst innocent people trapped inside were terrified for their lives. Why should the social media poster get off just because she's thick and uneducated?

Before becoming PM, he was an MP and leader of the Opposition.

Even back when he was DPP, he was not responsible for sentencing.

Presumably you're aware that we have an independent judiciary?

Crimes are often grouped together. If you're charged with supplying drugs you don't get a charge for every individual customer. Although I think the quantum is taken taken into account.

The poster isn’t nuts. The children in the photos were very vulnerable, they have been harmed in real life and their lives have been damaged. The woman said very nasty racist stuff that I totally disagree with but it isn’t as though she was buying photos of real life immigrants being tortured. Which is the equivalent to what Huw Edward’s was doing and seems more serious to me. I think they should both be in jail.

Downloading abuse images does not typically result in a jail sentence, regardless of income, education or public recognition.

You can disagree with the sentencing and you may have a valid point, but suggesting that Starmer is somehow to blame for this, and/or that the difference is because one was educated and one was a "thicko" is extremely ignorant. So yes, that poster is nuts because they are talking nonsense.

In this case he had images he was sent, there lacked proof that he was involved in other activities other than being sent them and his legal team argued that he didn't solicit the worst material, was interested if that's the word in young men not children. Obviously we don't know the truth but receiving an image isn't treated the same as sending it on. Seems a lax sentence to me, but I'm not sure of current sentencing rules for this sort of offence as opposed to creating images

We currently have men convicted of raping children not serving any jail time.
We need a huge evaluation of our criminal justice system.

It’s a mess.

A jail sentence would not be unusual for possessing child abuse images.

The problem is that the system does not take sexual crimes seriously enough. Absolutely paltry sentences for rape on the rare occasion of it actually being prosecuted.

My question, for someone who is more knowledgeable, what is the reasoning behind concurrent sentences?