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'm sorry, but I fail to see a huge moral distinction between the person carrying out the abuse and the person 'viewing' the abuse, whatever the difference may be in law and sentencing.

'Viewing' child abuse is a sanitised descriptor. These are men wanking off to videos of children being raped. They actively seek out and get pleasure from watching the rape of children. They orgasm to it. They are as complicit as the person raping that child.

Do you truly think the person who raped the child is no more dangerous than the many who go on to view it?

I think Huw Edward’s is despicable. He directly harmed the teenager he groomed and paid.

I think it’s important to keep a distinction between all the different crimes, for risk assessment and treatment/prevention. Unfortunately we can’t shove them all on an island and pretend they don’t exist.

This a wild take, bloody hell they walk among us. No, someone in law enforcement who has the horrendous job of categorising offenses is not a paedophile. Someone who willingly accepts images and doesn't report the ones of underage boys being abused if these werent wanted is very fucking questionable. It's appalling he keeps his BBC pension as well as avoiding a custodial sentence, as if anyone needed any more reason to stop paying their TV license.

OP it is disgusting, all we can do sadly is try and protect our children as much as we can. There's a convicted paedophile who did serve a prison sentence a few years back who now lives right by a school- no one cares or finds it abbhorent that he can see into the school from his window; they are everywhere but worrying about it doesn't help.

I think viewing the images, grooming, and abusing children is all sickening (obviously)
And I actually am of the mind set to string every single one of them up.

Cannot understand people saying Edwards isn't a pedophile??

Oh god can we stop saying child porn !! It’s child abuse images. The use of that disgusting term is one way that society (men) seeks to normalise this stuff!

But the perverts/paedophiles viewing/purchasing the images are fueling the abuse/rape of children!! If disgusting bastards like Hugh Edwards weren't purchasing the images, children wouldn't be being filmed and photographed for financial gain. Jesus christ.

Yes!! This is really pissing me off too!

The fact that he’s a convicted pedo and he’s not received any prison time is awful. I think it minimises his crimes, judging by the responses on here its worked. A lot of people are saying ‘he’s not really a proper pedo’ hes only looked a pics.
Let’s hope that your own children never are sexually abused or have sexual/naked photos taken that thousands of men masturbate over and then women on a parenting website saying it’s not that bad.

Because the discussion has taken a tangent whereby those trying to explain the clinical definition are being accused of 'defending' him

Describing someone as a paedophile is unhelpful in any case, the question is, is the suspect a sexual predator, is he a sex offender and are those sex offences against children. Yes in the case of Huw Edwards.

The word paedophile simply describes the attraction, not the crimes. As another poster set out above, you can be a child sex abuser but not actually be a peadophile.

But that aside, Im sorry bring to people's attention that statistically children are more at risk from kith and kin than they are from that random man on the street.

Thank you! I was coming to say exactly the same thing.

It is not “child porn”. It is child abuse images.

Honestly the comments on this thread minimising what he did are so vile. These posters don't seem to understand and comprehend a child between 7-9 was abused and Huw enjoyed seeing that. Fucking disgusting reading some of these comments.

I didn't say he wasn't an offender, I was just putting it in context. As for wild takes, using this case as reason to not pay your TV licence? That's bonkers.

Let's defund the scouts, the police, schools, care homes, the church etc, because they've all actively protected sex offenders.

Why do you think it is minimising it? Is it less bad if he's getting his kicks from 14 year olds than 7 year olds? The idea that it's only really bad if it's pre-pubescent children is actually fucking disgusting.

Please don’t use the term child porn, it’s really offensive and disgusting to call child sexual abuse porn.

Hatfullofwillow · Yesterday 16:21
Not that I know of. As far as I know, and to be fair I've not really followed it, he was sent a cache of stuff, some of which was of children. I've no idea what he viewed of it or what he got aroused by though.”

He entered a guilty plea.
Why are you excusing this behaviour? You’ve no place commenting if you do not know the details.

I've just re read page one of this thread and you literally are the same person who admitted he asked for sexual images of 14 year olds but then you went on to insist that doesn't make him a paedophile.

I suggest you get a life

Hatfullofwillow · Yesterday 16:21
Not that I know of. As far as I know, and to be fair I've not really followed it, he was sent a cache of stuff, some of which was of children. I've no idea what he viewed of it or what he got aroused by though.

He entered a guilty plea.
Why are you excusing this behaviour? You’ve no place commenting if you do not know the details

I've just re read page one of this thread and you literally are the same person who admitted he asked for sexual images of 14 year olds but then you went on to insist that doesn't make him a paedophile.

I suggest you get a life

There isn’t a more horrific crime than child sex abuse. All the perpetrators should rot in hell.

Sorry, what??? I can’t even begin to pull apart everything that is wrong with your comment. People like you are part of the problem. How you can be anything but outraged at H.E. Is mind-blowing.

Putting it into your own made up context, yes. I don't really see the stretch to be honest, a £300k a year pension funded by people who have to pay a fee to watch any live TV (not just BBC) is gross, not DeFuNdInG but choosing how to spend your money.

Huw Edwards is set to take home just shy of £15,000 per month if he really does have a £300k annual pension. That is plenty of money to pay for therapy and then live a life of luxury in private. All funded by BBC staff and the licence fee payer. Which does feel very unfair given he’s brought the BBC’s reputation into disrepute.

All the money in the world won’t help if his friends and family don’t want anything to do with him though. He faces a lonely future life without much meaning.

Exactly this.

I think you mean there is a huge rise in male violence and sexual crimes! The news is only reporting on it. Would you rather they sweep it under the carpet? We deserve to know.

The Police chiefs council recently put out a call to action about the level of violence against women and girls - this includes sexual violence by male perpetrators. They called it an epidemic!

I think you need to wake up