Huw Edwards given suspended sentence over indecent images of children

[NowNow]

Just now, proton said:

 

But he had them and did not delete them

 

He did delete them AFAIK.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

 

I haven't imagined anything. I ASKED.... Have you EVER used the services of a prostitute?

 

Am I and your imaginings about me the topic of discussion?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, NowNow said:

Anyway, time to move on. I've made my point of exposing the histrionics and hyperbole on this thread.

I'm not hoping to change their minds 😊 🕊️

You’ve certainly made your point.

[NowNow]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Am I and your imaginings about me the topic of discussion?

 

Asked and answered. Thank you 😊

Time to be moving on. Check your moral compass to see if it's still working.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Asked and answered. Thank you 😊

Time to be moving on. Check your moral compass to see if it's still working.

It’s definitely not pointing in favor of convicted nonces.

[daveAustin]

A lot of fluff on this subject. At the end of the day--and aside from chasing after a 17y old boy and admonishing him in the most heinous way as if he were a kid himself--a grown man and supposed pillar of the community has paid for images of little kiddies being abused (to which he replied they were 'amazing'), a crime that has seen others sent down. He probably wasn't because of who he is, had top lawyers and won over an admiring courtroom. That his existing life may be in tatters is immaterial, he will receive a MASSIVE pension from a service that is paid for by the public--mostly the kind of people that wouldn't be treated in so leniently a fashion--and can go on to retire better life than 99% of the populace. The system and powers that be have not done themselves any favours by not applying the law fully here. As if things couldn't be more divisive in the UK right now. Utter shambles.

[NowNow]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s definitely not pointing in favor of convicted nonces.

 

What is a 'nonce', name caller?

 

[brewsterbudgen]

9 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

What is a 'nonce', name caller?

 

 

nonce

/näns/

adjective

(of a word or expression) coined for or used on one occasion.

"a nonce usage"

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The argument made by me and others in this discussion is that the demand for this pornography drives the abuse in its production.

 

Vert clearly if there was no demand there would be no production and abuse ascociated with the production.

 

 

 

Oh I see, apologies, that is different. I thought you were saying child porn causes pedophilia, you got it the right way round, pedophilia causes  child porn.

 

I agree with that.

[NowNow]

29 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

A lot of fluff on this subject. At the end of the day--and aside from chasing after a 17y old boy and admonishing him in the most heinous way as if he were a kid himself--a grown man and supposed pillar of the community has paid for images of little kiddies being abused (to which he replied they were 'amazing'), a crime that has seen others sent down. He probably wasn't because of who he is, had top lawyers and won over an admiring courtroom. That his existing life may be in tatters is immaterial, he will receive a MASSIVE pension from a service that is paid for by the public--mostly the kind of people that wouldn't be treated in so leniently a fashion--and can go on to retire better life than 99% of the populace. The system and powers that be have not done themselves any favours by not applying the law fully here. As if things couldn't be more divisive in the UK right now. Utter shambles.

 

A lot ado about nothing. Just a few drama queens getting themselves all wound up in other people's lives.

Did he molest anyone's children? No. This is all about his THOUGHTS and FEELINGS. 

Then you get all these weirdoes introducing their own disgusting thoughts and ugly anger into the mix.

He gets sexual kicks from watching teenage boys at it. That's embarrassing enough that everyone knows.

But those sick minds want blood.....because they have sick minds. 

I say better he looked at depictions and satisfied himself, than corrupting a young person. He's not a paedophile neither did he touch any young person.

I don't don't care about his salary. What on earth does that have to do with anything? That just smacks of ugly envy.

Not defending him, just simply discussing the case as presented. It could be anyone.

 

 

We all do things that can be claimed lead to something else. 

 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

A lot ado about nothing. Just a few drama queens getting themselves all wound up in other people's lives.

Did he molest anyone's children? No. This is all about his THOUGHTS and FEELINGS. 

Then you get all these weirdoes introducing their own disgusting thoughts and ugly anger into the mix.

He gets sexual kicks from watching teenage boys at it. That's embarrassing enough that everyone knows.

But those sick minds want blood.....because they have sick minds. 

I say better he looked at depictions and satisfied himself, than corrupting a young person. He's not a paedophile neither did he touch any young person.

I don't don't care about his salary. What on earth does that have to do with anything? That just smacks of ugly envy.

Not defending him, just simply discussing the case as presented. It could be anyone.

 

 

We all do things that can be claimed lead to something else. 

 

 

Well said.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Oh I see, apologies, that is different. I thought you were saying child porn causes pedophilia, you got it the right way round, pedophilia causes  child porn.

 

I agree with that.

 

But we aren't discussing paedophilia. That's the point. A few tried to paint it as such, but the evidence shows that he asked for 14-16 year olds. 

The fact that the ages varied comes down to the sender and the inability to verify ages. Possibly the teenager that supplied the material pulled them off the dark web.

So Huw is/was an idiot, but there is no evidence that he'd done anything like that before. So all of the baying for his blood seems a bit overblown.

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

A lot ado about nothing. Just a few drama queens getting themselves all wound up in other people's lives.

Did he molest anyone's children? No. This is all about his THOUGHTS and FEELINGS. 

Then you get all these weirdoes introducing their own disgusting thoughts and ugly anger into the mix.

He gets sexual kicks from watching teenage boys at it. That's embarrassing enough that everyone knows.

But those sick minds want blood.....because they have sick minds. 

I say better he looked at depictions and satisfied himself, than corrupting a young person. He's not a paedophile neither did he touch any young person.

I don't don't care about his salary. What on earth does that have to do with anything? That just smacks of ugly envy.

Not defending him, just simply discussing the case as presented. It could be anyone.

 

 

We all do things that can be claimed lead to something else. 

 

 

   You seem to be in favour of child pornography and it being legal .....................and you are calling other people "sick"

   Just saying 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

A lot ado about nothing. Just a few drama queens getting themselves all wound up in other people's lives.

Did he molest anyone's children? No. This is all about his THOUGHTS and FEELINGS. 

Then you get all these weirdoes introducing their own disgusting thoughts and ugly anger into the mix.

He gets sexual kicks from watching teenage boys at it. That's embarrassing enough that everyone knows.

But those sick minds want blood.....because they have sick minds. 

I say better he looked at depictions and satisfied himself, than corrupting a young person. He's not a paedophile neither did he touch any young person.

I don't don't care about his salary. What on earth does that have to do with anything? That just smacks of ugly envy.

Not defending him, just simply discussing the case as presented. It could be anyone.

 

 

We all do things that can be claimed lead to something else. 

 

There you go again.

 

You present an alternative reality to the actual crimes charged and convicted.

 

This isn’t about Edwards’ thoughts and feelings, it’s about the crimes he actually committed and was convicted for.

 

 

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   You seem to be in favour of child pornography and it being legal .....................and you are calling other people "sick"

   Just saying 

 

I say better satisfied by depiction than actually molesting children. 14 to 16 are sexually active anyway.

It's your sick mind suggesting that I'm in favour.

Have you ever used the services of a prostitute? I'm not in favour of prostitution, but better that the desperate and thirsty have an outlet.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, NowNow said:

We all do things that can be claimed lead to something else. 

 

Ah!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

14 to 16 are sexually active anyway.

Read the CPS Report of Edwards’ conviction.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go again.

 

You present an alternative reality to the actual crimes charged and convicted.

 

This isn’t about Edwards’ thoughts and feelings, it’s about the crimes he actually committed and was convicted for.

 

 

 

Either way, he's been sentenced and you cannot get over it 😊 Doesn't bother me. You can continue shaking yours fists at the clouds.

[NowNow]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Read the CPS Report of Edwards’ conviction.

 

Read it when you posted it in the first place. He received a light sentence because that is what was RECOMMENDED.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

 

Either way, he's been sentenced and you cannot get over it 😊 Doesn't bother me. You can continue shaking yours fists at the clouds.

The thing you’ve been serially posting on doesn’t bother you?!

 

OK

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

But we aren't discussing paedophilia. That's the point. A few tried to paint it as such, but the evidence shows that he asked for 14-16 year olds. 

The fact that the ages varied comes down to the sender and the inability to verify ages. Possibly the teenager that supplied the material pulled them off the dark web.

So Huw is/was an idiot, but there is no evidence that he'd done anything like that before. So all of the baying for his blood seems a bit overblown.

 

We were, but I think you are on the right track that there is no evidence the perp here is a paedophile, there is a world of difference between committing paedophilia and looking at pics of 14 to 16 year olds..

 

In any event the lenient sentence reflects this.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, NowNow said:

 

Read it when you posted it in the first place. He received a light sentence because that is what was RECOMMENDED.

It wasn’t just about the 14 to 16 year olds you keep refer g to was it?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

We were, but I think you are on the right track that there is no evidence the perp here is a paedophile, there is a world of difference between committing paedophilia and looking at pics of 14 to 16 year olds..

 

In any event the lenient sentence reflects this.

He wasn’t just looking at pics of 15 to 16 year olds.

[NowNow]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go again.

 

You present an alternative reality to the actual crimes charged and convicted.

 

This isn’t about Edwards’ thoughts and feelings, it’s about the crimes he actually committed and was convicted for.

 

 

 

Maybe one day when you say the wrong thing or mention the wrong person and about to be prosecuted, we'll all just stand back and repeat, but you broke the law and condemn you without further ado. 😊

[NowNow]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The thing you’ve been serially posting on doesn’t bother you?!

 

OK

 

No. It's your ridiculous behaviour that tickled me. What he did has been documented and he has been punished for it.

It's your behaviour that seems nuts 😊

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, NowNow said:

 

Maybe one day when you say the wrong thing or mention the wrong person and about to be prosecuted, we'll all just stand back and repeat, but you broke the law and condemn you without further ado. 😊

Oh it’s the ‘first they came for the guy in possession of child porn’ argument.

 

 

I think it will be a while before they get to me and my photos of classic road bikes.

 

 

 

 

[NowNow]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He wasn’t just looking at pics of 15 to 16 year olds.

 

How could he verify the ages within the media supplied to him? He asked for 14 to 16 it seems.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He wasn’t just looking at pics of 15 to 16 year olds.

 

Yah some of the pics were of younger kids, but the law deeming that he "made" these pictures because he downloaded them is obviously a nonsense.

 

He downloaded something he should not have, but the sentence here is sufficient for effectively dowloading something prohibited.

 

That is all that happened.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh it’s the ‘first they came for the guy in possession of child porn’ argument.

 

 

I think it will be a while before they get to me and my photos of classic road bikes.

 

 

 

 

Pervert.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, NowNow said:

Pervert.

Perhaps we have different tastes.

 

I suspect we do.

 

 

Edited September 25 by Chomper Higgot