Huw Edwards Sentencing

[JoyousPinkPeer]

Will Huw get a worse/lighter sentencing today because of his fame?

YABU ... Worse sentence
YANBU ... Lighter setence

do you think that the sex offending PC Carrick was entitled to all of his pension or do you agree that 65% being withheld was the correct thing to do?

Given that he’ll probably be locked up for the rest of his life I don’t think it really matters to him either way. Presumably it’s his wife and children who will suffer. Do you think punishing innocent people is the correct thing to do?

Will she get the remaining 35% (£8k pa)? I hope she does.

However, I don’t think she should get his full pension, the 65% should be donated to women’s refugee/ rape charities.

Apples and oranges.Legally police officers (and a few other other public servants eg in the NHS) can lose the contributions element of their pension because they are public servants and only in extreme circumstances such as if they commit a very grave offence in connection with their service. Carrick raped one woman while holding his police issue gun to her head, used his police issue handcuffs on another and used his police officer status to both make women trust him and then to threaten them. Huw Edwards may be repulsive but he was not a public servant and this does not apply to him. It would be illegal to remove his pension. www.pensionsage.com/pa/Convicted-rapist-and-ex-police-officer-stripped-of-pension.php#:~:text=Under%20Regulation%206(1)(,a%20Minister%20of%20the%20Crown

I agree. We've got it all wrong in this country.

Chemical castration should be discussed and much harsher sentencing guidelines for convicted paedophiles and members of grooming gangs. It's a problem that's spiralled out of control.

Keir Starmer when asked about Huw Edwards saying 'it's a matter for the courts'. Shame he didn't feel as passionate about this as he did about making sure people were locked up for Facebook posts a few weeks ago.

I didn't say it is the exact same situation.

I said sex offenders should lose the part of their pension that comes from taxpayers money. Let's hope things change and the same rules apply to sex offenders in the police and sex offenders who read the news.

Chemical castration is a human rights nightmare. I can't see it ever happening in this country.

@DysonSphere Neither can I. We aren't brave enough. We'd rather sacrifice the human rights of children than predatory men.

Years ago it could be done under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act but arguably these men aren't mentally ill [as defined by the act/more recent diagnostic criteria]

And anyway it's not effective in reducing offending

They need to change the name so it doesn't sound like actual castration which would shock some people who dont understand it. 'Medications to manage one's perverted urges' or similar would be more appropriate.

Its odd, they don't care about human rights when they make people wear tags etc (and nor do I tbh) but medication that would control perverted urges is a no no.

And anyway it's not effective in reducing offending

Any idea why that is?

Isnt it? Surely it reduces the compulsions if they can't get any gratification for it I'd have thought

This constant minimising of the disgusting actions of those inciting violence looks very much like the usual ‘political correctness gone mad can’t say anything any more’ nonsense peddled by racist sympathisers.

It's a male world.

The male erection is sort of sacrosanct. We have had adverts on TV about treatment options for erectile dysfunction. It is taken extremely seriously.

Contrast this with women losing their libidos due to low levels of 'sex' hormones and how they may have to fight for a little HRT. As well as myriad other issues affecting female sexual expression.

So with this backdrop, I think CC is likely to be seen as unpalatable generally. Distasteful. Even though children are the ones who suffer.

A tag is therefore preferable even though a tag can result in social ostracism.

It doesn't always significantly reduce sex-drive
Impotence can result in offenders using other objects to abuse potentially leading to more severe injuries
Can lead to complacency that the problem is 'fixed'

Lots of research 40-50 years ago ?in Sweden - can't remember

I'm not minimising anything. If crime is a matter for the courts, then all crime should be a matter for the courts. Or if crime is a matter for the PM to weigh in on, then all crime should be a matter for the PM to weigh in on.

If you read my post, I never said KS was right or wrong to do what he did. I'm just disappointed that he doesn't consider sexual violence against young children equally pressing.

Everyone’s employer pension contributions come from ‘taxpayers money’. Taxpayers pay for food in Tesco, so all Tesco employees are ‘taxpayer funded’. An employer can’t take a supermarket manager’s pension away because they are convicted of drunk driving. Viewing child abused images is a despicable act that causes harm to real children. That should go without saying. But there are downsides to making a law that would allow all employers to strip people of their pensions if they are ever convicted of a crime. Not that this would ever happen.

Not any and all crime.

Sexual abuse of minors.

The Tesco analogy isn't quite the same as directly paying a licence fee that may directly go to the BBC's presenters.

But I'm open to being challenged on that thinking. I can certainly see the working rights issues and the possibility of misapplication.

I thought he was divorced?

No, I don't think anyone should receive the state funded occupational benefits of a sex offender.

As a PP said Tesco is not the BBC. We have little choice about paying the licence unless we choose not to watch any live programming.

I'm not suggesting anyone is 'who committed a crime is stripped of their pension', rather those who commit serious crimes lose the public funded contributions of their pension.

If he’s divorced his pension probably formed part of the divorce settlement which would mean it wasn’t even his to lose. It’s a slippery slope to start messing with people’s employment rights.

We have little choice about paying the licence unless we choose not to watch any live programming.

Of course we have a choice, BBC output is a tiny fraction of programming available and revenue from the licence fee is falling all the time as increasing numbers of people opt out. Equally licence revenue is a fraction of the Beeb’ revenue. However you try and spin this it doesn’t wash.

So you’d keep your pension for murder but lose it for being sent naked selfies from a 16 year old? Huw Edwards is repulsive but this isn’t going to work.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/18/chemical-castration-soft-option-sex-offenders

He did a bit more than receive naked selfies from a 16yr old.

We all know what serious crimes are, whether it is murder or sex offending? I don't think anyone is suggesting withholding the public contributions of a pension for a minor offence. But if Carrick's was, so should Edward's.

Why are you ignoring the category A image of 7-9 year old?

A category A image is the worst type of image, involving penetration.

Some of the images were moving images (I.e. videos).

The two aren’t remotely comparable, either in the nature of the crime or the funding of the pension. I think, given his sentence and that the removal of his pension is essentially punishing his ex wife not him, it’s the wrong call in Carrick’s case too. What difference does it make to someone who’s in prison for 30 years?