maffew
Well-known member
Should have been ordered to pay his 200k in wages he took to charity.
[News] Huw Edwards
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
maffew
Well-known member
Indeed
Like it or not am sure sentence is within guidlines. Howvever cannot believe he is also asked to pay expenses of only about £3500. Must have cost crown prosecution thousands to bring this case. What is wrong with telling somebody as wealthy as this to pay 200k plus which could go to charity supporting victims of this type of abuse.
nevergoagain
Well-known member
I think that reply nails it sadly but it shows to me how shite our sentencing guidelines are. A sexual deviant being able to walk away with 6 months suspended is just downright plainly wrong. I find this more recent trend of using mental health issues as mitigation as part of the defence abhorrent. There are tens of thousands of people with mental health problems and they don't need to look at kiddy porn and it's disrespectful to those people going through problems to have them associated with anything like this.
Last edited:
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Failure to comply would see him brought back before a "breach" court where the reasons for non-compliance would have to be given. The court then decides whether to allow the sentence to continue (with added sessions making it more onerous to reflect the breach), to revoke and resentence or to impose immediate custody.
It's right at the bottom end of the range which goes from Community penalty to 5 years imprisonment (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...m/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child/).
Looking at those guidelines and relying on the reporting of the case it would appear to be a Category A offence, so the Starting Point is 1 year custody and the range is 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody.
Aggravating factors include "Collection includes moving images" and, possibly "Active involvement in a network"
Mitigating factors include "No previous convictions", "Remorse" and his mental health.
Overall I'd say that the mental health report (they wouldn't just take his word for it) pushes it down towards 6 months imprisonment. The court then has to decide whether the sentence can be suspended in order to impose quite stringent requirements and in this case the court has decided that a Sex offender programme with 25 sessions is going to be a better outcome.
Personally I don't agree with the sentence, which would appear to be primarily rehabilitation; I would have been inclined to impose immediate custody with the purposes of the sentence being punishment and "pour encourager les autres".
nicko31
Well-known member
JSO protesters ?
Taybha
Whalewhine
To those posters saying Seems about right,regarding the sentence,I take it your just being sarcastic yeah ? If you honestly believe that it's probably the correct decision then I'm simply astounded that anyone could be ok with that joke of a sentence.
Think about it,
Think about it,
As a rehabilitation sentence as hinted upon does that actually work ?
He’ll always be a pedophile but it’s just he will not want to be caught again.
You can’t stop thinking can you ?
Outside of chemical castration which I wouldn’t agree with he’s just a wrong un.
He’ll always be a pedophile but it’s just he will not want to be caught again.
You can’t stop thinking can you ?
Outside of chemical castration which I wouldn’t agree with he’s just a wrong un.
It was funny when it was JSO, but now they are angry when it’s some violent racists
nicko31
Well-known member
What sentence did the individual that sent the text to Edwards get?
Also got a suspended sentence
nicko31
Well-known member
Well seems appropriate in that case Edwards didn't get more....
Durlston
"You plonker, Rodney!"
As I said, cut their balls off and flush them down the f*ck*ng toilet. 
Because of his public profile moving abroad would appear to be his best option to escape the public shame, but that would also put new temptations in his way as he'd be starting with a relatively clean slate. But then there would be the additional risk that if he got caught, depending on where he was, the punishment could be much more severe. Wasnt Glitter at risk of execution with one of his trials?
This. Absolutely ridiculous state of affairs.
Retweet something nasty - 2 years inside
Pay to watch children being raped - nothing, and keep your £200k paid whilst suspended pending investigation.
Disgraceful.
So his explanation seemed to be that he failed to gain entry into Oxford Uni and therefor felt inferior in his 1/2 million pound job at the BBC and had no option but to view kiddie porn as an escape from the depression that resulted from a situation that was not of his making .
Or did I hear wrongly from C4 news this evening?
Or did I hear wrongly from C4 news this evening?
No-one has been out away for 2 years for retweeting something nasty have they ? Do you have a source ?
Good question . . . . From what little I've read there's a whiff of set up/profiteering going on there. And where did he get the images from . . .
I've not been following this In detail . . . . And have no afinity/sympathy. HE's been really stupid, but is also unwell . . . I do wonder if the 'supplier' has played a part in making matters worse.
From what I have read its photo's. And yes they're wrong, he has said no to things, but they kept coming, but he's not cut the chord of communication. Which would have been the obvious thing to do . .
What's perceived as 'public' money ( definitely his salary the last 6m-year when he wasn't working!) should go to help those victimised in the photo's, or those who help and support victims who are no doubt under funded/supported . . . The BBC should make that call publicly and someone 'lean on him' to make sure it's honoured . . .
H.E.'s life and career are ruined . . . His family broken apart etc etc . . . I wouldn't be surprised if he tops himself. He's already been vilified here by people who, like the vast majority of us, know nothing . . .imagine what the gutter press and their ilk will be doing To fuel the idiocy.
An unwell man without doubt, but I don't think he's a 'peado' or a 'nonce' as several have suggested here already. He's not Gary Glitter, Andy from Windsor or Jimmy Saville. Just another 'married with kids gay bloke' caught in a very successful high profile career who couldn't break out of his closet cleanly . . .nothing new there.
No sympathy, but the punishment seems appropriate.
2 tin hats on tonight if the Mail/Sun readers are online
Yeah but he is unwell….