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.

But by the same logic, possessing images of child sexual abuse fuels the abuse happening and being filmed in the first place. How is that not as bad?

Thanks for supporting me in the sea of hard left bullying (because that's what it is )

Lower working class (or the underclass unfortunately) are easy targets to make examples of.

Does anyone think what that woman said was acceptable? I highly doubt that.

Educated or intelligent people can articulate themselves well and form a coherent argument without resorting to insults, threats and 'isms (well, except for the hard left : proven )

We're all for educating people and realising their disadvantages in intellect and wealth may at fault for how they act and behave in certain circumstances, but if that effects a left wing protected group - send em to jail for 7 years ! That woman posted no credible threat to society. She needs educating.

Huw Edwards doesn't. He needs punishment.

Sorry, do you actually believe that other people are charged individually for each image, and that Edwards was treated differently in this regard?

His sentence in general - the person who sent him the images only got a suspended sentence so I doubt it was ever a realistic thought that Edwards would be sent to prison.

The issue is light sentences for CSA overall. Suggesting Edwards got special treatment implies that other people convicted of the same crime get more appropriate (more severe) sentences. They don't. If you focus on Edwards and say it's special treatment, you ignore the very significant problem of the (in my opinion) insufficient sentences for everyone convicted of this.

I agree that the government’s immigration policy and Starmer’s clamp down on the rioters is not really relevant. But I think people being released from prison early and more lenient sentences for more serious crimes is the government’s responsibility and is bound to upset people. I wouldn’t dismiss it as total nonsense.

Highly offensive. You're calling me thick and a loon? Marvellous.

You honestly think your way of thinking is "correct".... I honestly believe you really do. Name calling, mud slinging, accusations of being mentally unstable. But that's acceptable isn't it nowadays if you're not into the new left wing indoctrination. Really lovely times we live in.

The severity of the offence is influenced by the number of offences, you don't need to be charged for each individually. If he had only viewed one image and said my god I don't want to see that sort of stuff, it is less serious than knowingly viewing numbers of images over a period of time as he did. He wasn't charged with viewing one particular image he was charged with viewing all of them.

Not a legal type but I can think of some reasons.

If you have say 1000 images and the police look at 40 of which say 10 are the worst category then do you have enough evidence or do the police have to go through the full 1000?

Children who have been abused want the fewest people possible to see those images (I know that is badly worded no image should be taken or distributed) so is it better to stop?

The person who sent these images to Edwards had already been found guilty so again maybe they had enough evidence?

This is a difficult thing to type and you might want to stop reading.

A category A image of a pre pubescent child there can be no argument that it is illegal.

A picture of an older child it may be argued they are 18 and if the child has not been identified. Do you charge and risk this being discussed in court?

I don't think she is thick or particularly uneducated, she certainly wrote pretty well, she is just a racist, believing the stuff she saw on line and fuelling the fire by inciting people to commit mass murder. I doubt she will spend much time in real prison though.

I'm not really sure what the difference is between charging someone 40 times for one image versus one time for 40 images. The judge already takes into account the number and category of the images when sentencing, so why would the number of individual charges matter?

I suppose it proves he’s a serial offender.

So within just ten weeks you expect them to have changed all of the sentencing guidelines, built more prisons and trained more prison officers? What would your solution have been to the acute lack of capacity within our prisons, and how would you have implemented it so quickly?

I think what we've learnt from this whole disgusting debacle is that wealthy, white men are the most important people on the planet.

Plus the probation service, which is underfunded and understaffed, not least after the disastrous Tory privatisation then renationalising. Get that sorted in 8 weeks too. He’s on a compulsory sexual offenders programme so presumably the funding for that can be sorted out at the same time as people are complaining about increasing taxes.

The whole of the UK judicial system needs a complete review and overhall.

When someone with multiple images and films of the highest category child abuse gets no prison time because he went to Cardiff uni and not Oxford or Cambridge it is time to call time on this shambles of a system.

It’s a good question OP, thanks for asking it.

I was on a jury many years ago. A man faced charges of sexual assault. There were about 20 charges - assault a on date y, assault b on date x, etc. And it meant that although we were all entirely convinced he had assaulted the victim, the defence was able to call the actual instances and dates in to question, and so finding him guilty of the specific offences on the specific days was very difficult.

A bit off tangent I know, but it reminded me of how the specificity of a charge can make a big difference.

That pathetic excuse wasn't the reason for his sentence. The sentencing guidelines are the reason.

Incitement to racial hatred and arson, contributing to an attempt to mass murder is worthy of jail time. She was not a "thicko" - the judgement said "You are an intelligent, articulate and media savvy person."

"The culpability is high, category A because in light of the timing and nature of the postings you clearly intended to incite serious violence. I assess the harm as category 1. The messages directly encourage life-threatening or life-endangering activity, within the context of racial hatred offences. The nature of the social media platform means the posts could have been viewed by any member of the public. The captured posts show views ranging from the low hundreds up to 3457 for the post referring to setting fire to hotels which amounts to widespread dissemination."

I think you misunderstood or were blinded by what you thought might be a criticism of Keir. The original poster asked why did ranty racist get jail time when HE didn’t. Cue people calling the OP a nutter. I said that it wasn’t that nutty as I agreed HE was worse. It is the responsibility of the government to try to solve issues like this. Labour has said in their manifesto that they will review sentences especially ones that don’t make sense to the public, so presumably the Labour Party agree with me.

Why are we discussing Keir starmer?

I didn't misunderstand anything, thanks, and I wasn't in the least bit blinded so you can lose the patronising tone, thanks. The post in question was utter nonsense, and from what you've said here, I think perhaps you're the one that misunderstood exactly what that poster was saying and why others referred to her as a nutter. But as the post that we're talking about has been deleted now, there seems little point in discussing it further.

Because @Halloumiheaven doesn't understand how our legal system works. The relevant post has been deleted now so it won't make much sense if you're coming to the thread late.

That was what I was getting it. But unfortunately, I've been name called and everything from "idiot" to "nuts" to "thick and need to go back to school". I genuinely find that akin to bullying. Never mind, they can all have their one sided debate. I'm out.