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!!

@YellowphantGrey why are you so determined that I want to control the narrative? It’s a discussion board. There IS no narrative. For the umpteenth time, not one person has defended any criminal. Why don’t you get that?

You're brave.

Interesting to see how well he will be defended on here

The legal nuances are a fact, and why we are where we are. That’s the whole essence of this thread.

👍 ok

@ilovesooty You think there is no purpose in sending a child abuser to prison? And you don't understand why people would like you to justify that stance, which, by the way, is not just simple statement of the legal position?!

I also note you are not a mother so perhaps this colours your view.

Right, we know, all of us, in this country that raping a child is wrong, yes? The reason we know nonces know it's wrong is because they hide it. Yet, men still (and I am going to use blunt words instead of simple fluffy language) push their erect penis' into small children and keep doing so until they orgasm. That happens to those children repeatedly. Their pictures are then spread far and wide amongst similar cretins for them to wank over. When they get bored of just wanking over them they move onto the next stage and we know what that is don't we? They only stop when they are caught. So, tell me, how do you rehabilitate that? Why does that man warrant decency? And, when those people are receiving very low sentences where is the justice for the victim?

I don't think I've scolded or berated anyone. On the other hand I've been told I'm finding excuses for paedophiles. I've pointed out what the sentencing guidelines are. The prisons are full. It's simply not realistic to incarcerate every offender who commits CSA. As it happens I think he should be on the register for life, not seven years. And if those who do get sent to prison are not safeguarded it puts prison staff and the prison population at risk. I'm not commenting on your last sentence.

I don't think I've scolded or berated anyone. On the other hand I've been told I'm finding excuses for paedophiles. I've pointed out what the sentencing guidelines are. The prisons are full. It's simply not realistic to incarcerate every offender who commits CSA. As it happens I think he should be on the register for life, not seven years. And if those who do get sent to prison are not safeguarded it puts prison staff and the prison population at risk. I'm not commenting on your last sentence.

Whilst in theory a Suspended Sentence comes with the "threat" of activation, it very rarely happens unless there is reoffending (even then not always).

If someone breaches a Suspended Sentence (or Community Order) a first breach usually is punished with a nominal fine.
A second breach could attract a Curfew or Unpaid Work.
It's generally only the third breach that would result in a Suspended Sentence being activated (or a Community Order being revoked/resentenced).

So it is a little misleading to imply he has a custodial sentence hanging over his head. It would take a lot for it to be activated. Plus, by the time it was, the custody time would be reduced in line with how far through the sentence he is.

Some of you have made some worthy points so it's a pity you feel the need to undermine yourself in this passive-aggressive manner.

I wouldn't have appreciated being tagged, had I been one of the three posters mentioned.

I agree.

There was a case recently of a man who was given a two year suspended sentence for raping a 12 year old. He breached the conditions of the sentence by leaving the country to go on holiday without informing the police. He has been given a suspended sentence for breaching the terms of his suspended sentence for rape.

We all understand the stated intentions of the law but to describe a suspended sentence as a custodial sentence when the offender is not in custody is just mind fuckery.

Well, it’s a good job I didn’t tag you then isn’t it? It’s also a shame that posters can’t see the number of ‘Thanks’ acknowledgments that others give to posts. Perhaps you might assess the response to my comments a little differently if you could.

@DancingLions activation is always the first consideration and a fine should only be given for the most trivial breach.

Child abuse isn't treated seriously enough because all the elites are at it.

The voters don't get what they want though. Every election people vote for less immigration but get more.

The whole system is a sham.

I suspect there is a horribly high degree of truth in that observation.

Abusers are protected. They're protected by the system. And they're protected by silence.

The silence happens because when a child or a woman is abused, the default assumption is that we must be liars. Because NAMALT. Because this powerful, respected male couldn't possibly be guilty of such an act. Because, for whatever reason, it's more comfortable to believe that women and children lie than that male abuse of these physically weaker demographics is endemic.

But endemic, it is. It's happened to me in the workplace only a few years ago. Harrassed, unwanted touching, and later stalked by an older male employee. I reported this, because NO man is ever going to put me through this shit again.

He was eventually removed from his post but not before I was the one made to suffer. The witness reports broke me. Colleagues sided with their eccentric, avuncular colleague and attempted an assassination of my character, aided and abetted by a union rep who strayed well beyond his remit.

When the grievance panel concluded in my favour, did it transpire that I was no liar and he had a track record a mile long behind him, which had conveniently been rugswept by past management?

Of course it did.

In theory it should, in practice I don't see it happening. Although could be somewhat area dependant. I find London Courts to generally be more lenient than those outside of London.

You being a parent is irrelevant, you don't need to be a parent to know that paedophiles are inexcusable

For me what infuriates me, is how men get their crimes portrayed compared to women.

I dipped in and out of the lucy letby threads and didn't see any comments about it not being all women or any male posters saying their wives or girlfriends wouldn't do that etc. On here, some posters contributed once to defend their male relatives and missed the point entirely

It infuriates me that our justice system doesn't work the very best it can when you see the unfairness that happens and therefore I know that the death penalty wouldn't work. We have to put our trust into an already questionable system and process that favours men.

I'm aware paedophilia only becomes illegal once those thoughts are acted on and carried out. How many men/women have these thoughts but don't act on them and why not? What's stopping them?

Then you get those that act on them. In this case, it seems he got caught, given a light sentence and the driving narrative is that it's his poor mental health and the focus on being this and how important it is we focus on rehabilitation and getting him back into society.

When a woman comitts a similar crime, all empathy is gone. There's lots of blame and anger and a distinct lack of how we can get her back into society

There are lots of people up in arms about lucy letby appealing and a distinct lack of people pointing out that it's her legal right to do so and people refusing to acknowledge this because there were babies involved. There were also children involved in this case, they've largely been ignored

People needed a place to be angry and upset at the injustice of a paedophile being dealt with the focus of how Huw is feeling being the most important thing. His mental health has been considered and used to his benefit

Just let people feel anger without pointing out the importance of being fair to Huw, nothing about this is fair without being reminded every other post that he needs to he considered

I could have predicted you'd give that exact response.

You didn't disappoint.

The details contained in this article are repugnant. Like you, I totally understand Edwards (and his "supplier", Williams) were sentenced in line with current guidelines, but when more than 80% of paedophile perpetrators are not given a custodial sentence at first offence, all this tells me is the sentencing guidelines need to be amended.

Exactly DancingLions and again having a good legal team behind you would once again gain you leniency

HE isn't even under a SHPO (sexual harm prevention order) no viewing his devices. Yet this is exactly the crime he was found guilty of viewing the rape of young children and teenagers on his phone (that has of course conveniently gone missing).

And there is room in prison for men like HE in prison. These men have violent perverse sexual desires its not a sexual orientation and should not be treated as such their desires are about children suffering horrendous sexual crimes. Our justice system considers other crimes to be more of a danger to the public like committing crimes against property, fraud, low level drug dealing

Our priorities are wrong these men deserve to be punished by serving time in prison. So what if HE was treated more harshly than others he has carefully protected himself as much as he could. Other need to be treated more harshly. Prison is real punishment for them not because they shall be attacked (they are well protected) but to experience autonomy taken away from them.

Seven years on a sex offenders register is an inconvenience not a punishment

Quite. People complain the system is broken but it was built that way. To protect those that matter

It's not a popularity contest and this is why they are hidden, to stop posts like this "well I've got 3 likes so I'm definitely not wrong"

Pleased to hear it. I would definitely lose sleep over disappointing you.

As you correctly point out, it’s not a popularity contest, so why are you concerning yourself with who I do or don’t tag?