Stop derailing my thread please. Start your own if you want to, but to answer your points:
This comparison is a lot less straightforward than you're making out.
Firstly, Huw Edwards DID have Category A images, but the claim about a six-year sentencing guideline is misleading. The judge actually identified a starting point of 12 months for the Category A offending, with a range of 26 weeks to three years. He received six months suspended after mitigation and an early guilty plea.
Lucy Connolly, meanwhile, wasn't jailed simply for a badly judged tweet or for expressing an unpopular political opinion. She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred. Her tweet explicitly called for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire, during an extremely volatile period following the Southport murders. It was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times.
The sentencing judge categorised her offence as high culpability and highest harm, with a three-year starting point and a guideline range of two to six years. She received 31 months, and the Court of Appeal subsequently refused her appeal.
You can absolutely debate whether either sentence was appropriate. But comparing the two as though one man got away with possessing child abuse images while a woman was imprisoned for a slightly ill-advised tweet ignores the actual offences, the applicable sentencing guidelines, the circumstances and the judicial reasoning.
One was sentenced for making indecent images of children. The other was sentenced for intentionally inciting racial hatred through a public call for serious violence.
If you want to argue that there's two-tier justice, (and i thought the general gist of that was that white people got harsher sentences than immigrants so not sure where you're plucking this from in your scenario), at least make a comparison based on the actual offences and sentencing guidelines, rather than cherry-picking headline figures that don't even accurately represent the cases.