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

[UCConfuseMe]

Just read that Hugh Edwards ahs been given a suspended sentence.

And if course it's not his fault. He had a mean Daddy and some mental health issues and some bad things going on in his life, poor lamb.

All that made him say 'amazing' when sent photos of children as young as 7 being molested.

Having a rough time and a strict father doesn't make you a fucking paedophile!!!

Take responsibility for your predatory and vile behaviour!!

I do wonder about some judges and how the law is applied.

Perhaps the law needs amending.

Come on @TealTraybake and @YellowphantGrey we all know there's no such thing as a NAMALT free thread about an offending man. The thread about Gisele Pelicot last week had them NAMALTing and Not My Nigeling all over the fucking place. A thread about 70 plus men raping a woman.

We should also remember it's the fault of the women who raised them and that women should really be taking responsibility for fixing the problem. But then women are just as bad, aren't they?

What the hell is wrong with people?

@ClockwiseHoneysuckle Are you male or female?

Errrm, some do though. Am pretty sure you would be rather shocked (as I was) if you seen the no. of females known to SS for csa.
Predominantly pathetic disgusting males though.

Who are you calling paedo apologists? I haven't seen one.

I think sentencing guidelines are arrived at by research into what seems to work best in reducing reoffending.

The law is cold and rational and sometimes seems unfair. But that's because the system attempts to apply it equally across the board. Using logic rather than emotion.

If you sentenced according to impact on victim, you're basically sentencing according to how vulnerable or resilient the victim is. If a victim manages to avoid mental health problems or impact on career and relationships etc - should a crime against them have a lesser punishment?

Obviously not all of them, which is why I mentioned non violent female prisoners. Jesus wept.

It’s a bit rich to talk about how I come across and then call me a “nonce defender”.

The posters who have access to statistics about the number of women who are charged with CSA offences (in whatever capacity) or who are 'known to SS' - it might be helpful to post them and/or links to them in the interest of a fuller context for your posts.

Nope. Again you miss the 'justice' and 'punishment' elements of our criminal justice system, in favour purely of 'reducing reoffending'. If you lean any further left, you're going to fall off the edge of reality.

It is completely legitimate for people to question why the 'cold' and 'rational' law does not appear adequately punitive to the perpetrators of CSA which is one of the most hideous crimes.

I’ m not surprised by any of the comments on here, this has gone down exactly as I expected it to.

As I've said a few times, it's the scale that's the problem with this crime. If the sentencing guidelines said to, for example, imprison someone with HE's circumstances to 5 years and ban him from Internet access etc. as part of his prevention order on release, how are you building and staffing half a million prison places, and funding the probation officers and courts to deal with the fallout?

I don't think anyone is in disagreement that law enforcement and the courts should be doing everything in their power to prevent and deter this crime type. But what is the actual solution? Locking up potentially 830,000 UK offenders isn't possible no matter how much we'd like to.

Say you give people who share child abuse images a default life sentence, no mitigating factors taken into account.

What do you then make the sentence for more severe crimes? Would you give the same sentence to someone downloading images and abusing a child in person?

Smug

Once again, sorry if my posts irritate you, but that’s what happens when people make points that go against the accepted narrative on here. Interesting that I am not the one throwing insults about or being overly critical either. There are plenty of comments I don’t like on this thread, but I haven’t once felt the need to be rude, personal or derogatory, or question someone’s sex. Why don’t you have a think about that?

Be careful. That's just not true. A few do. We can't ever assume that a woman can't be a paedophile.

OK 🙂

Where did I say anything about life sentences? Pretty big leap from 6 months suspended.

And for the record, participation in any kind of CSA IS one of the worst crimes. Why do you think it isn't?

FFS. Can people not read? The post says ‘almost’. Therefore acknowledging that SOME are. By comparison to males it’s minuscule but no one is saying that NONE are.

Considering you've been accused of being a man and a nonce defender, you've been unfailingly polite.

Simply not true and very dangerous as a statement.

And every one of your 40+ comments over the past 12 pages has been predictably smug and patronising.

Absolutely!

I said “almost none”

men are responsible for 98% of sexual violence

Good job that others take an alternate view then, and are prepared to voice it, as it gives some balance 😉