Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Check the Saville report findings. Systemic failures. 

Does the Huw Edwards case get a mention in the Saville Report is that you doing a bit of time travel?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Back it up?

 

Your posts are open for everyone to read. 

Then you should have no problem at all producing a post by me in which I ‘shill for Huw’.

 

Give it your best go.

[NowNow]

9 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Could you provide a link to that claim ?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/police-officer-robyn-williams-sentenced-unpaid-work-possessing-child-abuse-video

[Nick Carter icp]

9 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/26/police-officer-robyn-williams-sentenced-unpaid-work-possessing-child-abuse-video

 

   She resigned from her job after her sister had sent her the video and then she had all charges against her dropped

 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq3xw37jdqo

[connda]

Back to two-tiered justice.
One tier for commoners, in other words, prison.
Another tier for "special people," in other words parole or special prisons - like hospital penthouse suites.  Dude's a "special person" with connections sooooo, parole and a hand-slap.

[Nick Carter icp]

5 minutes ago, NowNow said:

Back to the topic. Someone simply sending you a pic/video. You might not know what it contains before it was sent.

 

   The jury didn't believe that she didn't know what was on the video , also she didn't report the video to the authorities .

   Had she immediately  informed the authorities about the video, then I doubt whether they would have taken any action against her 

[NowNow]

47 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The jury didn't believe that she didn't know what was on the video , also she didn't report the video to the authorities .

   Had she immediately  informed the authorities about the video, then I doubt whether they would have taken any action against her 

 

I wrote.....BEFORE it was sent. If you are to say that once it is on your device, you have become a sex offender.

Perhaps alerting the authorities would have implicated her sister, who allegedly sent it to her, about which follow up on.

The point being that she was labelled a sex offender.

 

On the surface of it, that seems harsh.

Edited Monday at 04:21 PM by NowNow

[ElwoodP]

Bickering post between 3 members leading to accusations removed.

Please be civil and polite at all times.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   There were some photos and videos of category A , the worst possible images and videos .

   They were not "naughty" , they were hardcore podophile material , Huw had numerous illegal images and video sent to him over a number of months /years.

   He also paid big money for them  

 

Hebephilia: A sexual preference for pubescent (i.e. early adolescent) individuals, typically aged 11-14

 

Ephebophilia: A sexual preference for late-stage adolescent individuals, typically aged 15 and 16

 

 

Calm down @Nick Carter icp

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Hebephilia: A sexual preference for pubescent (i.e. early adolescent) individuals, typically aged 11-14

 

Ephebophilia: A sexual preference for late-stage adolescent individuals, typically aged 15 and 16

 

 

Calm down @Nick Carter icp

 

 

 

   He also had photos of a   7- 9 year old  , which I do believe comes under the category of paedophile 

[NowNow]

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   He also had photos of a   7- 9 year old  , which I do believe comes under the category of paedophile 

 

Two, after which he asked to not be sent anymore of one so young. A paedophile would want only of ones that young.

So you are wrong, on the facts of the matter.

[Nick Carter icp]

9 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Two, after which he asked to not be sent anymore of one so young. A paedophile would want only of ones that young.

So you are wrong, on the facts of the matter.

 

   Read my post again 

I said that he had paedophile photos send to him and were stored on his computer , I didn't say that he was a paedophile  

[NowNow]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Read my post again 

I said that he had paedophile photos send to him and were stored on his computer , I didn't say that he was a paedophile  

 

So? Someone sent them to him. He didn't specifically ask for any of that age. 

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

So? Someone sent them to him. He didn't specifically ask for any of that age. 

 

You are speaking mistruths again.

 

He was asked if he wanted "young, naughty" pics and he replied "Go on".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

 

 

And then this.

 

[NowNow]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You are speaking mistruths again.

 

He was asked if he wanted "young, naughty" pics and he replied "Go on".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

 

 

And then this.

 

 

More of your dishonesty @JonnyF

You were referring to the ages of 7 to 9. You have no evidence that he asked for any images of one so young. In fact, we have evidence that he replied that he didn't want anymore of anyone that age.

But yet all of your previous statements made reference to images of a 7 to 9 year. Dishonest and disingenuous.

14 to 16 years old not quite so catchy for you, is it?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

 

More of your dishonesty @JonnyF

You were referring to the ages of 7 to 9. You have no evidence that he asked for any images of one so young. In fact, we have evidence that he replied that he didn't want anymore of anyone that age.

 

More dishonesty. I said there was more than 1 picture of 7 to 9 year olds. He also said he approved the sending of "young", "naughty" pictures. 

 

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

But yet all of your previous statements made reference to images of a 7 to 9 year. Dishonest and disingenuous.

 

Not at all. I said they included pictures of 7-9 year olds. He did receive more than one picture of 7 to 9 year olds. I never claimed they were all that age. Some were 11-13, some 13-15. Many in category A. Truly revolting stuff. 

 

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

14 to 16 years old not quite so catchy for you, is it?

 

Speak for yourself.

 

But actually most of them were 13 to 15 (not sure why you keep dishonestly increasing their age to try to make the crime seem less serious). The man is 63 years old, and was married with 5 kids. Stop downplaying his disgusting crimes. People who pay for these images create the market for the rape of children. 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

More of your dishonesty @JonnyF

You were referring to the ages of 7 to 9. You have no evidence that he asked for any images of one so young. In fact, we have evidence that he replied that he didn't want anymore of anyone that age.

But yet all of your previous statements made reference to images of a 7 to 9 year. Dishonest and disingenuous.

14 to 16 years old not quite so catchy for you, is it?

I unequivocally support the right of Edwards, or indeed anyone no matter what their crime, to be afforded a qualified, competent and unbiased legal support during their investigation, arrest and trial.

 

Why anyone would defend Edwards after his conviction is a mystery.

 

If you can’t find a more deserving hill to die on, at least try to find one that isn’t at this end of the scale of perversion.

 

I personally would like to see his sentence reviewed and raised to some serious time in prison.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Chomper Higgot

[NowNow]

On 9/17/2024 at 2:23 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I take the view there are 4 purposes behind prison, your three and setting a deterrent.

 

Edwards was not a passive recipient of these images, refer BK Brian’s post above, he was actively engaged in obtaining them.

 

Behind child pornography are layers of abuse, it is a crime with real  victims who are vulnerable children.

Its a ‘business’ driven by demand, and Edwards has clearly been part of that demand driving the abuse.

 

I take particular objection to ‘he’s lost his reputation and his career’ being considered in sentencing or what is an appropriate punishment.

 

He had no right to that reputation or that career, he engaging in filth behind a cloak of decency, he was never decent.

 

Moreover, it’s an argument often used (in the UK) when considering the sentencing of criminals who have ‘successful lives’ an argument not available to those who are not privileged with wealth and social capital.

 

Now I think you and I might find a great deal of agreement on the failings of the penal system, there is a lot wrong with prisons and rehabilitation, but this isn’t about what is wrong with prison, it’s about a privileged, wealthy, connected man being treated very leniently by the courts.

 

He’s a pervert, he belongs behind bars.

 

 

 

 

 

TBH, I think that you are being overly dramatic. I suggest this, as none of us has actually viewed the material and 14 to 16 years old is not THAT young.

Many people have weird fetishes. Thank goodness we don't have dominatrix lashing people randomly in the street or girls making videos for cuckolds, posting them on You Tube for them to end up here, triggering all kinds of mayhem.

Indeed I agree that if there was no demand for such material, that perhaps less would be created, but you cannot place the whole industry on one man's shoulders. He found he has an attraction to 14 to 16 year boys and found release in watching videos. Hardly the crime of the century. Not sure as to why all the hand wringing and angst.

 

[NowNow]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I unequivocally support the right of Edwards, or indeed anyone no matter what their crime, to be afforded a qualified, competent and unbiased legal support during their investigation, arrest and trial.

 

Why anyone would defend Edwards after his conviction is a mystery.

 

If you can’t find a more deserving hill to die on, at least try to find one that isn’t at this end of the scale of perversion.

 

I personally would like to see his sentence reviewed and raised to some serious time in prison.

 

 

 

 

Might I suggest that you are being a bit of a drama queen?

So bent out of shape because he is well paid and in the public eye. IMO it's much ado about nothing.

Scale of perversion? Are you completely mad? 14 to 16 year old boys/14 to 16 year old girls are sexually attractive to very many humans. But responsible adults would not carry out such acts. But watching videos privately....relatively harmless. Get off your high horse, lest you hurt yourself.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

TBH, I think that you are being overly dramatic. I suggest this, as none of us has actually viewed the material and 14 to 16 years old is not THAT young.

Many people have weird fetishes. Thank goodness we don't have dominatrix lashing people randomly in the street or girls making videos for cuckolds, posting them on You Tube for them to end up here, triggering all kinds of mayhem.

Indeed I agree that if there was no demand for such material, that perhaps less would be created, but you cannot place the whole industry on one man's shoulders. He found he has an attraction to 14 to 16 year boys and found release in watching videos. Hardly the crime of the century. Not sure as to why all the hand wringing and angst.

 

I, in agreement with his Jury, put all of Edwards’ criminal behavior on his shoulders.

 

I am disappointed the judge chose to be lenient in his sentencing decision, the basis of my thoughts on his sentence are explained in my post you responded to.

 

Child pornography and the crimes behind it are not trivial matters, explaining, in reasoned detail my thoughts on Edwards’ crime and light sentence is far from drama.

 

 

 

 

[NowNow]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

More dishonesty. I said there was more than 1 picture of 7 to 9 year olds. He also said he approved the sending of "young", "naughty" pictures. 

 

 

Not at all. I said they included pictures of 7-9 year olds. He did receive more than one picture of 7 to 9 year olds. I never claimed they were all that age. Some were 11-13, some 13-15. Many in category A. Truly revolting stuff. 

 

 

Speak for yourself.

 

But actually most of them were 13 to 15 (not sure why you keep dishonestly increasing their age to try to make the crime seem less serious). The man is 63 years old, and was married with 5 kids. Stop downplaying his disgusting crimes. People who pay for these images create the market for the rape of children. 

 

 

I didn't increase their ages @JonnyF, I quoted YOUR source

 

 

 

Your own source claims that he asked for material of people between 14 and 16 years old. So if there was any variation from those ages, that would be down to the sender, wouldn't it?

Unlike yourself, I have no dog in the fight. I just look at the evidence. Seems the police and judge agree with me.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Might I suggest that you are being a bit of a drama queen?

I think you just did.

 

What I am not is an excuser or obfuscater for the crimes of a convicted nonse.

 

 

[NowNow]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I, in agreement with his Jury, put all of Edwards’ criminal behavior on his shoulders.

 

I am disappointed the judge chose to be lenient in his sentencing decision, the basis of my thoughts on his sentence are explained in my post you responded to.

 

Child pornography and the crimes behind it are not trivial matters, explaining, in reasoned detail my thoughts on Edwards’ crime and light sentence is far from drama.

 

 

 

 

 

Nope. Police and judge agree with my point of view. That he isn't a risk to society. What next? Thought crimes? 

 

[NowNow]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you just did.

 

What I am not is an excuser or obfuscater for the crimes of a convicted nonse.

 

 

 

Yes, you are behaving hysterically. I'm simple outlining the facts as we know them. Whereas you have become 'emotionally' involved.

If the images were of 7 to 9 year olds and he specifically asked for them, I wouldn't be posting here. 14 to 16...meh.

 

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

 

I didn't increase their ages @JonnyF, I quoted YOUR source

 

 

 

Your own source claims that he asked for material of people between 14 and 16 years old. So if there was any variation from those ages, that would be down to the sender, wouldn't it?

Unlike yourself, I have no dog in the fight. I just look at the evidence. Seems the police and judge agree with me.

 

The ages are estimates so reports sometimes differ, not that it really matters. Most of the Cat A images were estimated at 13-15. Truly disgusting, and not something I would want to be seen excusing or downplaying. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, NowNow said:

If the images were of 7 to 9 year olds and he specifically asked for them, I wouldn't be posting here. 14 to 16...meh.

 

Are you even serious?

 

Category A pictures of 14-16 (acutally 13-15) and you say Meh.

 

Do you even know what category A is?

 

 

So essentially rape of a child. And your response is "Meh".

 

Truly revolting. 

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

The ages are estimates so reports sometimes differ, not that it really matters. Most of the Cat A images were estimated at 13-15. Truly disgusting, and not something I would want to be seen excusing or downplaying. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

 

 

So now you find a different source 😊 But weren't you banging on about 7 to 9 year olds earlier? Only to find that he actually requested 14 to 16 year olds. He wasn't in control of the exact ages actually sent to him.

Stop constantly moving the goalposts @JonnyF 😊

[NowNow]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Are you even serious?

 

Category A pictures of 14-16 (acutally 13-15) and you say Meh.

 

Do you even know what category A is?

 

 

So essentially rape of a child. And your response is "Meh".

 

Truly revolting. 

 

Yes, I say 'meh' to 14 to 16 year olds. Most kids are having sex by that age.

[JonnyF]

Just now, NowNow said:

 

Yes, I say 'meh' to 14 to 16 year olds. Most kids are having sex by that age.

 

Sounds like you should change your username to NowThenNowThen. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Yes, you are behaving hysterically. I'm simple outlining the facts as we know them. Whereas you have become 'emotionally' involved.

If the images were of 7 to 9 year olds and he specifically asked for them, I wouldn't be posting here. 14 to 16...meh.

 

 

Like I said excusing and obfuscating.