Huw Edwards Sentence. Who got it wrong; me or the judge?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Has Huw Edwards been let off lightly? Where's the punishment element?
I'd really like to hear all your opinions on this. So please let me know in the comments.
Judge's sentencing remarks so you can judge for yourself: www.judiciary....
#artoflaw
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
ua-cam.com/users/bl...
no reasonable person would find this acceptable
The very fact that he raised the injustice of not being accepted to Oxford University and having to attend Cardiff instead is disgustingly privileged and evident in the sentencing.
He said that? What a snob.
That has got to be the most upper class thing someone has argued in mitigation.
he doesn't even need to go to oxford to read the autocue
Maybe the judge thought not being let in to Oxbridge was punishment enough. 😃
@@beaulieuc8910 lol.. like it 😂
The crime isn't the picture itself it's the damage (lifelong) to the child.
And funding it. That's whats' really really evil about this.
This magistrate, how many has he sent to jail because they didn't pay the BBC license fee, and fund this peverted individual?
I think we should be told.
He did ask for no underage or illegal images to be sent.
@@phill6859He also sent a text to say the images were fantastic - one of which was a seven year old child being penetrated. He certainly didn’t report it to the police!
@@adenwellsmith6908l have wondered for a long time why such appalling crimes seem to be so leniently dealt with. The only reason that makes any sense to me is that those sitting in judgement in such cases probably have the same leanings as those accused
Really?@@phill6859
I am fed up with the victims carrying the life trauma and the focus often on the well-being of the perpetrator. This is disgusting. CSE/abuse wrecks lives and sentencing needs to reflect this. The support services locally here have been cut, and they were never enough before!
We've known how to stop trauma embedding in for thirty years (Peter Levine, Waking the Tiger). If that opportunity is missed, there's about two dozen therapies which take different approaches to drain the reflex reaction - and Ruth Lannius' team demonstrated in 2020 that that's not cognitively controllable. So all of BBB's sarcasm in response to serious trauma problems is victim-shaming. Yes, there's a bunch of wise-guys shamming it, but in that, he's guilty of abusing the presumption of innocence.
Back in the 70s, we formed GAD to represent ourselves. The Equality Act created an offence of prejudicial behaviour against both obvious and hidden disabilities, and this is one. You have to survive with it for a year, though. And it's not in the remit of a Judge or Magistrate to tell you anything about your reaction. We can drain the trauma reflex now, but not the trigger: it's also possible to replace the fight-or-flight Innate Alarm System it invokes with reassurance, using Reiki after the pre-programmed response is drained from the amygdala.
100% agree, the convicted criminals claim mental health but I’m sure Hue wasn’t sectioned for his incapacity
He didn't even get a slap on the wrist !
His career has been ended; he has been vilified by every media outlet, including the BBC; he has a serious criminal record; he is on the SO register; he is publicly shamed... how is that a light sentence?
So how many people has this magistrate sent to jail because they didn't pay the BBC license fee, and fund this peverted individual?
I think we should be told.
Sent to jail for not paying TV licence? 😂 That actually happens? LMAO I havent paid it my entire life, am I one mistake away from life in prison? 😂
@@klausschwab9828 you should be
He wont have sent anyone to prison for not paying the licence fee the punishment is a fine it's the non payment of the fine you get sent to prison for
@@johnatkinson7126 Without a BBC licence fee the people ending up in jail (usually women), wouldn't end up in court in the first place. So yes, it's for not paying the TV tax.
@@JohntheGrumpy Not paying for propaganda mate. Its an unjust law.
If you are paying for these images, you are complicit in their production.
Children have suffered because of his actions.
The punishment does not fit the crime.
Do we know that he paid for them? All I've seen in news articles, is that he recieved them via online chat groups.
@@MrBrockHeinz Totally irrelevant whether he paid for them or not.
@@MrBrockHeinz Judge said he paid for them. Funded PDF abuse.
Absolutely. There is no such thing as a 'victimless crime'.
@@alantheinquirer7658 In this case its an evil crime.
The laws of this country make me sick.
It's not only the laws. It is primarily, in my view, the bent judges making political decisions in sentencing and a rules for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude for a supposed 'elite' or protected class.
@@jamespurchase4035 but you would be happy with the judge punishing harsher given pressure from the gov. Which is political pressure.
@@keech100 The judiciary have already proven they're happy to be pressured from the government. It has happened 100s of times already over the last month. Why go back to being independent when child abusers are involved?
@@keech100did he say that?
Mind boggling for a judge to say that Edwards didn't know he'd done it. As if he unwittingly received stolen goods, which by the way will have harsher sentences in many cases. These horrendous things are not readily available that you accidentally go looking to pay someone tens of thousands pounds to purchase illegally. Not even a one off. Absolute nonsense.
History Debunked (Simon Webb) said something very similar suggesting that if anybody saw the images that Hew was paying for you "WOULD" remember it.
I think it was the psychiatrists that said that and judge was just quoting them. As I understand it Edwards has been an in-patient in a mental health facility until recently. I was surprised by the suspended sentence though. I think he was prepared for a custodial sentence. He turned up for sentencing with a packed suitcase, apparently.
one might want to check the judge's mobile
I presume he means that the illegal images were in a batch of other explicit images. Edwards apparently told the supplier that he didn't want those types of images, but by that time, he'd already received them. Obviously, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
If you're going to break the Law, it's your responsibility to know which Laws you're breaking. We're supposed to believe the Edwards trusted someone who he knew had criminal images of children to weed out the illegal ones before sending them to him?
The punishment does not fit the crime
What punishment? He walked away laughing.
The judge got it wrong: he should have got a suspended sentence, restrictions on internet / app usage (randomly monitored) and forced to get reeducated and make a contrite TV show admitting his evil as well as make a large financial contribution towards a charity that helps abused children. But, no, he got bugger all, he’s kept his money and he can intimidate 17-year-olds and download whatever the f**k he wants.
Judge got it right... Protect our own.. 😮
At one point in history, we had a much better solution to these issues.
150 years ago his posh mates would have left him with a loaded pistol and he'd have been expected to do 'the decent thing'.
But then his crime would have been brushed under an already bulging carpet 150 years ago
With no penalty, it looks like he "got away with it" to me.
Yeah, and he's only on the sex offenders register for 7 years, why not for life? Thats more evidence of being privileged.
A suspended sentence is not 'no penalty'. It can have serious ramifications on a number of issues, from owning firearms to working with children and vulnerable people to getting jobs in the future. Yes, it's not physically banged up, but it's still a punishment with real world implications.
@DaibhidhBhoAlba
I have a feeling none of that will resume in any material change to Huw.
@@DaibhidhBhoAlba That is absolute rubbish, what he did contributes to the continuance of this perversion, he should be in prison that is the deterrent to stop this happening.
@@DaibhidhBhoAlba It can have repercussions for people without a £300,000 a year BBC pension and bank accounts filled with £millions. Retired Edwards it will have no repercussions for whatsoever. So no, it won't affect him at all. He got away with a being a serial paedophile.
he finds kids attractive, that won't go away at all, it is his fantasy and sexual attraction
100% agree he should have got some community service in lieu of prison sentence being suspended.
It's often psychological ongoing testing, not always community service.
Psych analysis lasts 2 weeks. Less if you say you're going to leave the UK.
the community service should have been completed in prison sewing mail bags etc.
The police only charged him with 3 counts of owning those pictures when he had dozens if they'd charged him with the lot who knows what he'd have got
Maybe not the best idea. When Stephen Merchant did his look how it panned out.
Omg!..this was the MOST completely comprehensively explained analysis of the sentencing I've heard..I think people forget that REAL children suffered,and the mitigation put forward for the perpetrator was really pathetic..thanks for your knowledge, experience and compassionate take
Working Class=Jailtime Establishment=Suspended sentence. The game is rigged. Who`d of thought. Proud of the UK ?
I appreciate the optimism that makes you think working class nonces get jail time.
Check out what the lad who sent the images.
From one of the most deprived towns in Europe. Not Wales, not UK but the whole of Europe.
Sorry your remark is wrong.
PS I live in South Wales, between where Huw was raised and where the sender lives. I know both areas.
Edward also had the "correct" publicly broadcast social and political views.
Nigel Farage would have got life for the EXACT same set of circumstances
No one needs to look down on the working class they do it for them.
I was not a happy woman yesterday when reading about Edwards' ill mental health consideration.
As someone who is severely affected by ill mental health (all diagnosed by my psychiatrist), it enrages me when it's taken into consideration as a factor. To me, it's nothing more than an EXCUSE! Having a mental health condition does not stop you from knowing right from wrong. It feels so disingenuous to me, as if being ill makes you commit a crime?
I work so hard every day (for me, it's not just about taking my meds) to be able to function & this pervert uses illness to defend his actions.
He belongs in prison. When a chap is jailed for 2 years for putting up stickers that the Justice himself said weren't illegal, when Facebook posts earn you months in prison, & Edward's crimes result in him being free to carry on life as if though nothing happend - then you know we as a nation have problems. It's ridiculous.
PS. I understand there are indeed times when a person can not legally be held responsible for their sctions. However, these instances are thankfully rare & the person's mental health issues are extremely severe.
Well said.
Edwards should have been sectioned and sent to Broadmoor.
Yes. The bar for diminished responsibility should be pretty damn high.
Edwards functioned reliably in a professional occupation, in the public eye for many years. I refuse to believe he was so unstable that he was unaware that what he was doing at home was inappropriate and/or he had no control over his actions. If he really is that delusional then I would suggest he requires enforced psychiatric assessment for the safety of the public, and his own I suppose.
His mental health wouldn't have made an impact on the punishment.
You raise a very important point. We're all very aware that the police & courts have recently dealt very severely with people for saying the wrong things & sharing videos of social unrest online. Now an establishment figure commits a crime like this and the court seemingly lets him off with a slapped wrist!
Surely this damages the reputation of the law & the question arises: do judges & politicians care? Or are they such entitled snobs that they think they're above public scrutiny?
It makes me angry that a mother who suffered domestic abuse and coercive control causing PTSD can be punished by having her children taken into care but Edwards seems to use mental health as an excuse and walks away with a slap on his wrist.
As a user of these images he is an abuser. He should certainly undertake community service in the absence of custody. Something that would ensure he confronts the impact of what he did.The judges empathy with an affluent perp who has lost status is clear.
community service is fun, not a punishment, lots of us love volunteering
Al, the Judge got it wrong. I have a few points to make:-
1. Edwards is a pdfile (deliberately misspelt for the algorithm). He may have only looked at pictures (and that is abhorrent in itself), but he won't stop there. All the research and evidence demonstrates that, eventually, "looking" won't be enough to satisfy his desires and needs. Edwards is a time bomb waiting to go off.
2. On what basis did the Judge decide that there was a realistic expectation of rehabilitation? Edwards is a narcissist and a pdfile and experts agree that neither narcissists nor pdfiles can be changed.
3. Your comments on the Sentencing Council are interesting. I didn't know the public could have a say and I'm sure most people don't know that. However, don't you think people like yourself and BlackBeltBarrister (people who are experts in the law) should be the ones to make representations to the Council.
4. This sentence is further evidence, imo, that there is a two tier policing and judicial system in this country now. If Edwards had been Joe Bloggs on a council estate somewhere he'd have gone to prison, no doubt about it.
I doubt this will be the last time we hear about Edwards' crimes. In years to come more will be revealed and all we'll hear is "there are lessons to be learned".
Courts are businesses, barristers protect each other and the Barr - Corrupt
Do your research - full of fraud and they have the audacity to judge us the public. The police use Gross Misconduct of Public Office all the time and they get away with it.
Sit in a law class - Full of narcissism.
I found BBBs comment that the punishments for the rioting was harsh to send a message that it's not acceptable. The implications being that the almost no punishment to Huw is sending the message that it IS acceptable. I'm guessing it's not just the BBC thats full of, shall we say, dodgy characters.
2. The Lucy Faithful Foundation who's whole raison d'etre is re-habilitation would seem to disagree.
@@jamesantill5065 Ha! Ha!Ha! Tell that to all the victims, starting with James Bulger, whose assailants have gone on to re- offend.
As an retired magistrate I look back over my time on the bench; after a hearing I would not have accepted the case and sent it to the crown court.
And during your time on the bench did you make your decisions in this way? Without actually listening to any of the evidence at the hearing?
@@BarryJacksonBurpo but you'd have been given prime instructions by your Freemason lodge not to send it to the crown court.
How long will your magistrate for?
Maybe this will explain a few things for you.
@@michael1 On an either-way case (as this one appears to have been) the prosecution and defence would outline their case in a court room in front of the magistrates and both would suggest whether the case would be sutable for summary trial. The defdent could opt for crown court trial or the magistrates, after listening to the outline of the case, accept or decline jusristiction.
@@b11nladen Your niave comment is not worth any in depth response. I was a magistrate for nearly 30 years
@@BarryJacksonBurpo Yes, but you appeared to make up your mind without any of that process. Is that what you did when you weren't retired?
Thanks for the explanation. It unfortunately doesn’t make me feel like justice is done. How can a man waving a flag and shouting at police get time .
But mr Edwards appears to get nothing.
Fun Fact: There is no minimum mandatory sentence for r@pe and in Scotland a man was recently given a NON-CUSTODIAL sentence after being found guilty of r@ping a woman.
And women who r@pe in Scotland can't even be charged with r@pe, let alone be convicted of it.
Yes this happens several times a year. I think the longest common sentence is 4 years which doesn't seem anywhere near enough yet that's seen as a great outcome by the police. I think we should think 10 to 15 is the standard, with maybe 5 as the minimum if there is mitigating circumstances such as no consent given but victim didn't say no and no violence, and obviously victim would have to be an adult and not vulnerable. And then 5 years might be suitable
@@jackoh991 Yes. A just to be clear, the non-custodial case I was referring was not a he said/she said or confusion of consent. He dragged the victim who just happened to be walking in the wrong place at the wrong time into nearby bushes and did what he did.
@@marcwilliams9824disgusting and do disheartening. WTF goes thru these judges minds? How can you violate someone in this way a d not be sent to jail?
Anyone with children or grandchildren would find thought of what Edwards was viewing utterly utterly horrific.
How can the judge be so farr removed from reality.
My concern is can someone with such unhealthy predilections ever be truly re-habilitated? The sentencing guidelines need to take this into consideration and maybe face up to the fact that some people can never be returned to society. Second, I think people need to check the sentencing history of this judge. Judges can become old and out of touch with the real world.
I've a FOI going in. He runs a team of 300 magistrates. How many have been sent to jail for refusing to pay the license fee and fund this PDF?
The ordinary person would have gone down!
Not paying the license fee for example.
If you shout at a police dog
Huw Edwards didn't make any Facebook posts, so I'm not surprised at all at the sentence.
He’s probably thinking “thank god I said nothing on Facebook or I would have been sent to the slammer”,does this sentence suggest that our two-tier ‘justice’ system views Facebook posts and rioting as more serious than child sex abuse
@@JessicaJones2001-o7tApparently hurty words cause much more psychlogical harm, at least that's the case based on the punishments handed out.
A slap on the wrist compared to those that refuse to fund the BBC. They get jailed becuase they didn't fund this pervert.
Just sickened, my sister hun g herself as did my friends brother after being abused as young children. Too many in the Justice system.
He worked for the BBC.
That’s sufficient to warrant capital punishment.
I completely agree with what you said about mental health, it’s not an excuse, and I don’t think that should be considered a mitigating circumstance for committing a crime.
For him to get off scot free is an injustice
The problem was that the guy who provided Edwards with these images also only got a 12 month suspended sentence so any sentence that Edwards would have received wouldn't have been any higher
The judge said that he reduced the sentence by 3 months as Edwards pleaded guilty and hence meant that a jury trial at Crown Court wasn't required, hence savings in public funds
Saving public funds, ah yeah that's a good one.
I think for these offences should have a custodial sentence as a starting point. Many thanks for the explanation.
It does. The starting point for his offences was 12 months inside.
Why can higher sentences for protestors be used as a deterrence, yet paedophile sentencing cannot be used in these high profile cases? Seems like this is giving the green light
Higher sentences for people who didn't fund it. I've an FOI going in for how many people this judge's team have jailed for BBC license fee.
the club always look after their own, if you ain't in the club, you get clobbered.
In the case of the protestors, there are a couple of factors that mean higher sentences for individuals might have a general chilling effect. There are new harsher laws about protests and protesters are generally very noticeable.
It doesn't seem at all likely that anyone will decide whether or not to secretly access cp based on Huw Edward's sentence.
@@sable1334 I think it does. This judgement tells potential offenders that they can go ahead without much threat of a custodial sentence or in-fact without much risk of losing any of their freedoms
A few years ago someone I used to work with was convicted for a similar crime and spent several months in prison. It does seem that the sentences for these crimes are getting lighter as time goes by.
Saville did lots of charity work. Would he have got a suspended sentence?? Of course!!
Ask Ask two tier Stammer, he is supposed to have said there is not enough evidence, read into that what ever you can.
It's ridiculous. Offenders hide behind a veneer of decency. It's not charitable to them, it's a disguise which enables them to abuse.
Compare Edward's sentence against the prison terms handed out to JSO protesters who caused some inconvenience but never hurt anyone.
He away free.
I heard that the judge took into consideration that having a strict religious father and not getting into an oxbridge university made him feel sad (?!)
He's 63 and still blaming his father? What a snow job.
I am grateful again Mr. Robertshaw. The video was much more than vaguely useful and immensely entertaining. A strange bloke tried to abduct me when I was 7, 60 years ago. I still recall what he looked like and feel fear, like now, when I recall the incident. Victims should surely have massive empathy extended to them in legal decisions.
The sentencing practically decriminalised the viewing of such images. It is disgusting that he walked free. And at a time when child trafficking and abuse is a growing global problem.
They could stop all this tomorrow by banning pornography . It's in place for a reason.
If only Huw Edwards had shouted at a police dog..
I think it was a bad judgement and in no way sends a strong messsge to other potentialbor existing abusers. Big opportunity missed; especially when recent 'rioters' who chucked the odd brick were banged up so quickly.
Without question he should have been sent to Prison.
It's not supposed to be a big opportunity to send a strong message, though. It's supposed to sentence him for his offending. The fact that he's a celebrity and there is a lot of publicity around the case is not an argument for a more severe sentence.
@@thomasdalton1508 He has just spent time explaining about the notion of deterrent.
Do you actually think The Judgement was fair ?
@@agoogleuserblootet5111 Yes, it should serve as a deterrent, but not any more so than any other sentence. The judge shouldn't be considering that this is a "big opportunity" because the defendant is famous and, therefore, give a more severe sentence.
I think a suspended sentence is appropriate. There should probably have been a punitive element, though. The sentencing guidelines require one unless there are exceptional circumstances. The judge didn't specify anything exceptional and I don't see anything.
@@thomasdalton1508 I wasn't expecting The Judge to see this as a big opportunity, because Edwards is famous.......but rather because this is a growing evil problem in our Society.
This sentence is an affront to the innocent children and others.
@@agoogleuserblootet5111 Is it a growing problem? I haven't seen any statistics on that. Even if it is, how does that make this case a big opportunity?
Why is he not put on a Cexual offenders list?
He is: on the register for the next 7 years.
Thanks for the clear legal insights and for not using cryptic / clickbait titles & descriptions. These videos are top notch.
agreed
It's really no punishment at all, and it's not a deterrent.
Yep. Quite the opposite - it's a very deliberate signal to all the pdfs that the Establishment condones their behaviour.
The Sentencing Guidelines got it wrong. Alas, I predicted it correctly with just the suspended sentence.
Absolutely disgusting, only 6 months and SUSPENDED 😮
He did not wake up and decide to abuse children, he has been an abuser of children all his adult life.
He has no 'good character', his embarrassment and career damage is nothing compared to the prison has has forced his victims to live in for the rest of their lives unless they get very good help - which they likely won't.
All sex offences should have mandatory incarceration punishments - as a victim of child abuse I find his lack of punishment disgraceful.
Mental health issues can influence critical thinking, you may act emotionally rather than rationally, that may help to explain your behaviour, but it does not excuse it - Huw Edwards using mental health as an 'excuse' is rather insulting to his victims who he has now damaged for their whole life.
So, basically we have offered an early Christmas gift to any other person(s) who engage in this vile behaviour and who might end up in court.
In my personal opinion, I believe the leniency of the sentence was because Huw Edwards is part of the establishment - a well-regarded TV presenter on the national broadcaster, with many influential connections. I cannot believe that didn't have any impact on the decision. It's very very seldom that they hang out their own to dry.
It's because he's rich and famous. Two tiered sentencing rich vs poor.
And manipulative.
@@Blacksquareable ... I wonder which Masonic Lodge he's a member of.
I feel really sorry for Saucy Huw. If I had to go to Cardiff Universirt I'd also go nuts
Why should a suspended sentece be limited to 2 years. Basically sayimg behave yourself for 2 years then do what you like
The possession of material showing the **pe of a 6-9 year old should automatically require a prison term. If there'e a deterrent element in being severe upon rioters why shouldn't there be a deterrent element in the punishment meted out to transgressors?
Great point👍
Why only that age? Do other children not matter?
@@berneysharp3940 No. Very strange take, I must say. I mentioned the age to emphasise the extreme youth of the victim in this particular case.
He was in possession of “category A images” (the most serious)! - a custodial sentence would also discourage other people for doing the same crimes - which I thought was the argument for going after the recent “rioters” and handing out severe sentences when in isolation the same crimes would have resulted in mild sentences. Two tier?
Thanks, very helpful. I'm an Occupational Physician. I often tell employers that while their employee has a mental health or neurodiverse condition, so do many people, and the condition does not excuse their alleged behaviour.
I thought he was sentenced to some rehabilitation, facing his crimes with a shrink/councillor isn't optional and is probably more useful than painting out graffiti. I do think he should have been banned from access to the internet for the 2 years of his suspended sentence as well. No one is going to go and view child porn because he didn't go to jail. Not 100% convinced there is that much difference between community service and a suspended sentence + compulsory rehab.
From the sentencing Edwards must complete a 40-day Sex Offender Treatment Programme and 25 rehabilitation sessions aimed at helping him to fix his mental health and use of alcohol.
I don't feel sorry for him but adding jail time to this benefits no one , his life will not be his own for a long time if ever
Thank you. Safety of children is paramount. What message does this sentence send out? Absolutely appalling.
Make no mistake, he's got off with it, he's 63, massive pension, lovely house and can retire today without financial hardship, also his good character isn't clear, he obviously hasn't been caught before,it's a disgrace our judiciary and I've not to say what I think of the judge.
There is (sort of) precedent for a judge 'going light' on sentencing because of self-inflicted harm. A few years ago a doctor was found guilty but received a very light sentence because the judge presumably and quite understandably thought the General Medical Council would strike him off for life. As it happened they didn't and that made the news.
I do agree that the sentence seemed a bit lenient though; makes me wonder if the CPS will appeal?
As a mentally ill person, I greatly appreciated everything you said about mental health issues. I think we can recognise mental ill health can making someone's life harder, and also hold them fully responsible for their actions. If I have impulse control issues, it's up to me to find a way to manage that, not a carte blanche to go around impulsively doing vandalism.
I think the judge at least erred in not explaining the lack of a punitive element. The guidelines state that there must be a punitive element unless exceptional circumstances exist. If the judge felt exceptional circumstances exist then he should have explicitly said so and explained what they are.
I suspect the main reason for the lack of an unpaid work requirement (community service) is that he's ordered a total of 65 days to be spent on rehabilitation. That's quite a lot. I think the 25 days of rehabilitation activity to be determined by probation is instead of community service - the judge probably felt the time was better spent on something rehabilitative than picking up litter and cleaning graffiti (or whatever they have them do these days), especially given his age.
Not only did he not go away, he also got a £40k pay rise in the interim. I do hope his pension isn't based on this final figure or it will cost us hundreds of thousands.
Recently people have been getting 3 year sentences for posting on Facebook. Apparently the tough punishment was to send a strong message and stop others doing the same. What does that tell you about this sentence
The Judges saying they see the same children. 😮
Sickening.
I thought I was going to be sick when he said that. Those poor children, their childhood documented through s3xual abu3e images as they grow up is disgusting. Poor things
It's once again a sign of the privileged class looking after their own. To suggest that Edwards didn't know what he was doing was pathetic. People who get involved in these crimes are equally as guilty as those perpetrators of the physical and mental abuse of the children. The judge got it very wrong
Exactly right
In other words, it was political pressure.
The Judge.
It seems this country has lost its moral compass.....I wonder who is calling the shots...
Controligarchs by Seamus Bruner. Read it. Be informed.
@@SierraNovemberKilo I get a good idea where its coming from ....
The evidence of most comment sections alone suggests your inference is wrong.
Really appreciate your analysis and insights.
This sends a message to those involved in these crimes that they can pretty much get away with it.
It does seem Scott Free to me. Yes, he's lost lots, but he hasn't paid anything to society.
Sentencing needs a major review, the fact it's so light is to stop people overloading the system. Prison doesn't deter people, there has to be another way. This particular crime should be dealt with way way harder, this sends out a dreadful message that first time offenders will get away with it, so those offenders may have committed many many crimes before being caught for one. there should be no mitigation, prison with rehabilitation.
100 % of the public thinks he should have gone to prison. What does that say to all the other paedophiles. We know it's fine to carry on with our behaviour because we're not going to prison.
I agree with you as I have mental health problems, I sure if I had done this I would be sent to prison over it, and don’t take any notice of my mental health issues. My mental health issues had got so bad that I asked for help for it, which I has done.
The judge got it so very wrong
This country's justice system is finished and not fit for purpose.
A two tier policing and now a two tier justice system.
Strange how it's always the wealthy cunrs that get leniency. Almost like corruption.
This was a lost opportunity to send a message that there's zero tolerance for these offences which fuel an illicit industry which creates thousands, perhaps, globally, millions of innocent victims & destroys lives. There are NO public policy grounds for a non-custodian sentence given the weakness of the mitigating factors.
The thought of Edwards doing school visits or painting a children's play area probably led the court to its ultimate decision.
I had a car accident, tried under the new "serious injury/careless driving" law, and have a 6 month tagged curfew, due to my health, and 12 month driving ban. Huw Edwards, along with his "contact", get away with vile crimes involving children. So is poor driving a worse crime than child exploitation in the eyes of the law?
It's a neat trick, notch it up to custodial to get rid of the lesser penalties then suspend the sentence so he goes home to his big house and bank account.
He doesn't go inside if he offends by the way, he does if he gets caught, not the same thing.
Even better, apparently by keeping it in the magistrates it can't be appealed as unduly lenient.
Who let these children access this filth, they are also complicit
He has not been punished. The sentence seems wrong to me.
Rich people being able to afford expensive rehab, expensive lawyers etc etc certainly goes a long way
the way he looked at the cameras on the way to court typical pea dough
I agree totally with Mr Robertshaw. Mr Edwards got away extremely lightly, unlike the poor minors involved in the media he received.
Someone needs to check the judges browser cache
It's just one big club
I think in a pole of 1,000,000 UK citizens you would find that the sentencing here, as with many other crimes and sentences we hear reported, 100% of the people would find the outcome of this absolutely unacceptable. People are going to prison for stating on FaceBook that they don't agree with many things the Government are doing.
“Social balance sheet “ aka the jimmy saville get out of jail free card
Suspended sentences under licence usually have conditions applied. In this conviction the risk to society is his access to a smart phone or the internet. Life ban?
Why does not all suspended sentences get community service? Why are they always only suspended for 2 years….
The judge has ALL the information, you dont.
You could have saved all this waffling by simply stating that this is another prime example of our two-tier 'justice' system.
Crimes such as these should receive the harshest sentences because the victims are among the most vulnerable in society. Joke sentences such as this one sends the message that we, as a society do not value the safety on children. The legal system is enabling P files. It’s disgusting and makes me sick.
Good man! Speaking from the heart and the brain. The judge got it wrong, very wrong. Thanks for the honest opinion and for not toadying to the judge.
Some very disturbing comments here. Gradually the unappointed, unaccountable "court of public opinion" seems to be trying to usurp the prerogative of the legal system.
I have to agree. Do we really want mob "justice"?
Good video Al...
BTW, I know Tresilian - my parents in-law used to live there!!
I do like the Wheel Inn.
@@artmedialaw I've eaten there a few times - many years ago! They're now in Landkey Devon. I like trying to spot where you are!
Agree completely with your thoughts on his ‘excuses’
he will be free to have early retirement, parties with his church friends, christmas with family and grandkids if he has them. he may even buy a house overseas to get away from people, may even change his name informally. a job is just a job, who cares if he has lot that many people retire early. yes he got away with it until he has a traffic offence drunk driving, speeding etc, he likes alcohol