Are we being scaremongered by the news or is this reality

[FlatWhite2]

I tend not to watch the news but have seen an article this morning about Huw Edwards and his lenient sentence. The article went on the highlight other lenient sentences handed to pedophiles who committed horrendous crimes. As a mother, and just a normal person I’m horrified by this. Is the media manipulating us into believing these crimes are more common and prevalent than they are & that they’re not as ‘frowned upon’ as they should be, or is this reality? Asking to put my own mind at ease! Thanks

I agree.

Some of the comments on this thread are really disturbing.

I’m not. I said I view the abuse of the teenage boy as worse than viewing the images.

If we managed to prevent the actual abuse, there wouldn’t be images available.

If someone who viewed images lived on my street I’d be disgusted and avoid him.
If someone who abused children lived on my street I would need to take other actions.

Go read the sentencing guidelines. What you are describing as lenient sentencing is quite high in the guidelines.

If you don't like what you read, contact your MP and ask that the Sentencing Council be asked to review the whole of the guidelines.

Handwringing is not the answer here. Educating yourself as to how and why things happen is essential.

I also draw a distinction between people who view images of sexual abuse and those who conspire and groom and attack children.

I don't draw much of one myself. Those viewing the material are complicit and are a key reason it's getting made and distributed. When children are abused for years and manage to flee or get rescued, having to deal with the fact that the footage is out there forever is just awful.

@SensibleSigma what actions would you take against someone abusing children that you wouldn't against someone viewing it?

Exactly.

People viewing these images are no better than those making them, they’re fuelling the demand for it.

The children in these images are not just abused by those taking / making the images; they often know they’re being filmed because other adults are taking pleasure in watching them suffer. It’s another layer to the horror of their abuse.

You should be ashamed by the comment. He caused harm to children by viewing that content.

Where's the evidence that's what he asked for? I've only seen he was okay with 14-16, which is criminal & deviant, but it's not clinical paedophilia and it doesn't help anyone thinking it is.

In what possible way does it “help anyone” by somehow assuming it’s slightly better - which is implied by your post - that it was a teenager rather than a younger child? Both are underage. Both entirely wrong. One of the reasons teenagers are so vulnerable to these kinds of predators is because people like you are so quick to say “oh well it’s not paedophilia” - it’s not helpful to anyone. Abuse is abuse.

We are sadly extremely riddled with paedophiles, and sexually violent men, and the establishment not only turns a blind eye, they actively participate. Emphasis on kids in care, or kids who are on the cusp of being in care, because they are considered to be entirely disposable, so they end up falling prey to these utterly disgusting men.

When people say that there are paedophiles/sexual abusers/rapists round every corner, they are laughed at and called hysterical on this website.

Thing is, it's actually true.

Oh the irony.

My Stbxh was investigated for similar. It's been 5 months of waiting for police to process one phone due to the sheer backlog of devices being checked for this type of offence which is just horrifying.

I absolutely think people who do these types of crimes need harsher sentencing, however I also am not convinced that prison is the best place for them because they might be introduced to others who have the same proclivity. I think there's more that needs to be done to really research and understand why people do this in the first place. Though understandably noone wants to fund that research. Plus the social stigma that goes with it I think actually might make reoffending more likely - once they're found out they've nothing to lose, very few will stand by them so what's the incentive to behave in a less harmful way the way you might with other crimes.

I also really really worry about how children now are introduced to porn (and more extreme porn) at such a young age and what that means for their "blueprint" in terms of having healthy relationships/ healthy body image/ respect for women and girls and being able to draw the line with where pornography stops being a fun and more or less harmless thing to do and when its starting to become problematic. It's just so, so accessible and online platforms are not doing anywhere near enough to regulate their content and who has access to it.

I’ve also been told (by someone who would know) that there are many more paedophiles about that most people would think.

I echo advice about vigilance and caution. Without becoming overly anxious about it.

It’s very common I’m afraid.

The National Crime Agency estimates that 1 in 35 men in Uk have a sexual interest in prepubescent children. This is based on IP addresses accessing CA images.

For this reason I will not let my children go on any sleepovers. I have a strict policy. The exception is girl guiding as it’s run by women.

I wouldn’t be able to take action against them, beyond cold shouldering.

If I were still fostering I’d declare it to the social worker, have additional safeguards in place for my children, and encourage active safeguarding and awareness on the street. Be even more attentive, basically.

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106.amp

Estimates say 1-2% of men
So in an average street of 100 houses 1or2 men a street. That's fair amount and I'd imagine those that want to groom will go into positions of power and access.
Teaching/scouts/church/sport clubs and so on so percentage probably slightly higher in that demographic

Yes. This is why I really limit my consumption.

This is well out of date- estimates now are far higher

Both are appalling.

Would you not rank one as more dangerous than the other, though?

There are people who will abuse others because they can and want to. They aren’t necessarily pedophiles but are just generally predatory. Children make easy victims.

There are people who would view images but wouldn’t touch a child.

I consider someone who drives the abuse by buying images of it to be vile. I consider someone who lays hands on a child to be worse.
Someone who abused a child in order to make a profit- possibly having no real interest in the child- is even worse than someone with the interest but who doesn’t access children.

Ideally, all such people would be housed on an island where they have to set up and run their own community. Safest place for them.

@WanOban

Yes I suspect your probably right sadly

I work in mental health and worked on a ward with sex offenders.
It's shockingly common.
But the thing is there's a lot of men for whom it's not really 'peadophilia' as in how you would traditionally think of it. It's more passive. It's rooted in sex addiction. So it's not so much about them being inherently attracted to children... it's about getting more and more numb to ordinary pornography and getting thrilled by anything which is taboo or feels powerful. So you see many guys who are convicted of possessing child porn who basically have general sex addiction and are not really predatory paedophiles. They have been obsessed with pornography downloading progressively more extreme pornography in order to get the same 'high'.
This is actually the most common type of possession of child porn. It's frighteningly common and on the rise. But these guys compartmentalise it so much because it's on a screen. They would never approach a 'real' child in their lives it's just they've lost sight of the fact that these are real children being harmed in the stuff they've accessed. So you get quite otherwise 'normal' seeming nen with normal families and previously normal sex lives, cropping up in this situation due to sex addiction.

Of course the harm to kids is the same but if you are thinking these are like paedophiles who lurk in park bushes waiting to snatch your kids.. they aren't. That's still incredibly rare.
But this sex addiction slow numbing to progressively more fucked up content is sadly on the rise and is frighteningly common.
Obviously my experience is from the mental health side of things o I would come across a lot more mental health/addiction based stuff.
But it's distressingly common. I'd say over 50% of male patients I'd come into contact with thru my job had had some issues with accessing child porn.
Even where I currently work for example, in one night not long ago, I dealt with 4 male patients in one night, every single one of them had child sex offenses on their record.
But I have 3 kids myself and I don't actually think of any of these people as a direct threat to my kids. Sadly it's consumption of child porn and occasionally opportunistic exploitation of kids who are already in very fucked up situations. So it's kids from very difficult backgrounds at risk. As it usually is.. kids in care.. kids from the poorest parts of the world.
It's incredibly depressing yes.
But I don't feel afraid for my own children in that respect although I have many other fears Obviously.
I think when people say Edwards isn't a paedophile they aren't trying to defend his behaviour. His behaviour is obviously horrific and harmful. It's just that they mean he isn't predatory and it was based on an escalating sex addiction. Guys in that situation become very detached from reality. I don't know much about the law but I guess it has to treat that kind of thing differently to actual predatory paedophilia. Particularly as this passive consumption is on the rise in men. More needs to be done about it. As its addiction and mental health based harsher consequences don't really address it. I don't mean this to say anyone should be let off the hook.. but if you are trying to protect children from harm we need to look at why thus is happening and try and prevent it from happening before it does.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt through this post until I read your last line.

You do realise he was in possession of:

"... 41 IIOC comprise 7 Category A images (6x moving and 1x still), 12 Category B images (all moving) and 22 Category C images (1x moving and 21x still). The estimated ages for the children present in the Category A images is generally around 13 to 15 with two of the moving images showing a child aged around 7 to 9. The estimated ages for the children present in the Category B images is generally around 12 to 14, and for the Category C images generally around 12 to 15"

www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/ex-broadcaster-sentenced-possessing-indecent-images-children

The conversations he was having with the man who sent him the photos were of a sexual nature, he gave him money and gifts in return for the images, and he said yes when asked if he wanted more of the same.

Two of the category A moving images showed a CHILD between 7-9. I suggest you look up what Cat A covers if you don't already know.

He is a paedophile. He may not be snatching children off the street but men like HE are part of paedophiles' supply and demand business model.