BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.

[BigMoaner]

What on earth is that bollocks even doing in a court of law?

 

[BigMoaner]

He hasn't been caught noncing though, has he?

He's been caught with noncey photos, which definitely should be a crime, but it's not the same as noncing. There has to be a difference in law.

What he's been done for, is the implication that he gains sexual gratification from imagery of child abuse. That's as old as the hills.

Such imagery in Japan, for example, was only declared illegal a few years ago, and even then, they gave their weirdos a whole year's warning to get rid of their child abuse imagery before they'd be reported and nowadays, apparently, they just get a slap on the wrist and a fine.

What about dodgy anime?

Is someone who wanks over cartoons of kids, worse than one who wanks over photos of them?

The obvious argument is that nobody has actually been abused in cartoons, but the thought is still there, isn't it?

Is someone who views second-hand photo's of child abuse worse than someone who views cartoons, or has a wank over the swimwear section of the Freemans catalogue, or CBeebies?

Obviously, I'd like to incinerate all of their bollocks, but the leftie in me thinks this might be quite close to a thought crime.

He’s helping creating a market for child sex abuse. Just if i go and watch a cockerel fight i am helping create a market for cockerel fights.

 

[danny la rouge]

He hasn't been caught noncing though, has he?

Obviously, I'd like to incinerate all of their bollocks summarily, but the leftie in me thinks this might be quite close to a thought crime.

As has been said many times, they were real children really being abused, because of the market for that.

This isn’t victimless.

 

[bellaozzydog]

I’m predicting an arrogant rich old man “how would they catch me” return to his porn collecting and getting arrested and bumped into prison

 

[brogdale]

but the leftie in me thinks this might be quite close to a thought crime.

Edwards' actions suggest otherwise.

 

[tim]

I read that this was the average sentence for such a crime and that the court would gave been wary of making an example of him just because he was famous. I probably read that on the BBC, though.

Bill Wymann had a much pleasanter day than Edwards as he was a guest at the Chiswick Book Festival. Wyman, of course, has never been convicted of anything. Although the report from the Festival does remind us that: 'Bill Wyman is known chiefly for marrying 18-year-old Mandy Smith, (his second wife), who he “fell in love” with when she was 13.', they gloss over the fact that Wyman was 47 that he 'met' her

Meeting Bill Wyman at the Chiswick Book Festival - Chiswick Calendar Features

Image: Bill Wyman and Tony Palmer on stage at the Andrew Lloyd Webber theatre at the AtsEd; Photograph Roger Green Billy in the Wars and Bill Wyman’s Chelsea Just because […]

chiswickcalendar.co.uk

 

[weltweit]

Hmm, can't help thinking he was let off lightly.

Does that sentence send the right message to others?

The kids in his photos were abused.
And paying for the photos creating a demand for more of them.

 

[Cerv]

I read that this was the average sentence for such a crime and that the court would gave been wary of making an example of him just because he was famous. I probably read that on the BBC, though.

sounds plausible. the man on the other end of the WhatsApp, who supplied the abuse images and was convicted on more counts, was given twice the sentence at 12 months. also suspended.

 

[Spymaster]

As has been said many times, they were real children really being abused, because of the market for that.

This isn’t victimless.

Absolutely.

And that's a HUGE factor there when it comes to sentencing of people found in possession of such stuff. But possession of this filth has only been an offence here for about 10 years (or so). In some countries it's still not, or has only very recently been very loosely illegalised because they have industries based upon it (looking at you, Japan).

I don't believe that people who wank over cartoons of kids, wouldn't wank over photos of kids.

What are we trying to police here?

 

[Dystopiary]

As well as what others have said, some of what the images he was in possession of were "moving" - ie, not photos.

 

[Saul Goodman]

He hasn't been caught noncing though, has he?

He's been caught with noncey photos, which definitely should be a crime, but it's not the same as noncing. There has to be a difference in law.

I consider wanking over child sexual abuse pictures to be noncing. Maybe not as bad as the person abusing the child but noncing nonetheless.

You are right, though. There should be a difference in law. The nonces caught with the pictures should only receive a 5 - 10 year stretch. The actual abusers should get life.

 

[Spymaster]

The nonces caught with the pictures should only receive a 5 - 10 year stretch. The actual abusers should get life.

Fucking Liberals

 

[Wilf]

So, just as many TOTP episodes from the 70's are now no longer fit to broadcast, much of the regal shite that Edwards commentated on will be deleted?

Maybe this means the queen has been un-announced back to life!

 

[MickiQ]

I'm disappointed that he didn't get time, with sentencing wrong 'uns, there's 3 objectives a) punish them for their actions, b) protect society from them re-offending and c) deter others from doing the same.
I don't think this will do much for any of those. He hasn't lost everything, he's lost his career yes but he hasn't lost his home or all the dosh he earned whilst working for the BBC, not unless Mrs Edwards decides to take him to the cleaners and doesn't make 'I have made a mistake but I forgive him' noises. He probably isn't directly a threat to anyone though I suspect he might not repeat his crimes for a bit but I wouldn't be surprised if after such a light sentence, he forgets the embarassment and starts doing it again in a couple of years. Most importantly seeing someone so high profile getting off so lightly is not going to make other miscreants think "Fucking hell Edwards got 10 years, maybe this is a bad idea". Even worse it conveys the impression that wealth and fame earns you immunity from such crimes rather than justice been dispensed to all.

 

[Wilf]

I consider wanking over child sexual abuse pictures to be noncing. Maybe not as bad as the person abusing the child but noncing nonetheless.

You are right, though. There should be a difference in law. The nonces caught with the pictures should only receive a 5 - 10 year stretch. The actual abusers should get life.

Yes, if he'd been an observer in the room, he'd have got several years. The fact the abuse was 'produced' for the likes of him to consume isn't drastically different. He's an abuser of those children.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The court heard that a “restricted, puritanical but often hypocritical background of growing up in a particular cultural milieu of south Wales with a father who was highly regarded and lauded outside the family, but was perceived as behaving monstrously within the family, created both an enduring cognitive dissonance and low self-esteem”.

Fuck me, who's he got for a lawyer? Thomas Hardy?

What utterly shameful bullshit. Try growing up as a sexually abused child then come back and tell me about your fucking millieu.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Most importantly seeing someone so high profile getting off so lightly is not going to make other miscreants think "Fucking hell Edwards got 10 years, maybe this is a bad idea". Even worse it conveys the impression that wealth and fame earns you immunity from such crimes rather than justice been dispensed to all.

This is the main issue for me. Other nonces will not be deterred by the sentence. Had he been banged up for a few years other sick cunts might have desisted in the trading and storing of images.

On the latter point Twitter is already full of ‘two tier sentencing’ stuff from the usual suspects contesting the treatment of Edwards with those jailed for racist tweets for example. They ask how expressing a view is worse than buying images of kids being abused. They have got a point.

 

[trashpony]

Absolutely.

And that's a HUGE factor there when it comes to sentencing of people found in possession of such stuff. But possession of this filth has only been an offence here for about 10 years (or so). In some countries it's still not, or has only very recently been very loosely illegalised because they have industries based upon it (looking at you, Japan).

I don't believe that people who wank over cartoons of kids, wouldn't wank over photos of kids.

What are we trying to police here?

Men raping kids

 

[Spymaster]

I'm disappointed that he didn't get time, with sentencing wrong 'uns, there's 3 objectives a) punish them for their actions, b) protect society from them re-offending and c) deter others from doing the same.
I don't think this will do much for any of those. He hasn't lost everything, he's lost his career yes but he hasn't lost his home or all the dosh he earned whilst working for the BBC, not unless Mrs Edwards decides to take him to the cleaners and doesn't make 'I have made a mistake but I forgive him' noises. He probably isn't directly a threat to anyone though I suspect he might not repeat his crimes for a bit but I wouldn't be surprised if after such a light sentence, he forgets the embarassment and starts doing it again in a couple of years. Most importantly seeing someone so high profile getting off so lightly is not going to make other miscreants think "Fucking hell Edwards got 10 years, maybe this is a bad idea". Even worse it conveys the impression that wealth and fame earns you immunity from such crimes rather than justice been dispensed to all.

Sorry Mick, but this is inconsistent with the general board outlook here, surely?

Punishment, protection, and deterrence?

It's frequently argued here that the weight of sentencing is immaterial to deterrence, so we can do away with the latter immediately.

Punishment. The bloke is utterly fucked and his reputation stained for life. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself soon. What more do you want?

Protection. There's no evidence that he's an actual physical danger to anyone.

On those basis' he should've got a caution!

 

[MickiQ]

Sorry Mick, but this is inconsistent with the general board outlook here, surely?

Punishment, protection, and deterrence?

It's frequently argued here that the weight of sentencing is immaterial to deterrence, so we can do away with the latter immediately.

Punishment. The bloke is utterly fucked and his reputation stained for life. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself soon. What more do you want?

Protection. There's no evidence that he's an actual physical danger to anyone.

On those basis' he should've got a caution!

Who are you? And how did you get Spymaster's password?

 

[Spymaster]

Men raping kids

He hasn't raped anyone though.

That's like trying to prevent Bahnhof Strasse from shagging goats, by giving me 10 years for speeding.

 

[Wilf]

Protection. There's no evidence that he's an actual physical danger to anyone.

If he had paid money to commission the offence, he'd be classed as an obvious danger to real life children. The fact that he coughed up further on in the 'process' makes it different, but not fundamentally so.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

He hasn't been caught noncing though, has he?

He's been caught with noncey photos, which definitely should be a crime, but it's not the same as noncing. There has to be a difference in law.

What he's been done for, is the implication that he gains sexual gratification from imagery of child abuse. That's as old as the hills.

Such imagery in Japan, for example, was only declared illegal a few years ago, and even then, they gave their weirdos a whole year's warning to get rid of their child abuse imagery before they'd be reported and nowadays, apparently, they just get a slap on the wrist and a fine.

What about dodgy anime?

Is someone who wanks over cartoons of kids, worse than one who wanks over photos of them?

The obvious argument is that nobody has actually been abused in cartoons, but the thought is still there, isn't it?

Is someone who views second-hand photo's of child abuse worse than someone who views cartoons, or has a wank over the swimwear section of the Freemans catalogue, or CBeebies?

Obviously, I'd like to incinerate all of their bollocks summarily, but the leftie in me thinks this might be quite close to a thought crime.

There's a clear difference: where there are actual photos/videos of crimes - as opposed to cartoons/animations - then the perpetrator is an accessory to that crime.

There are arguably several crimes that make noncey photos/films different to cartoons/animations:

The abuse itself.
The filming/photographing of the abuse.
The sharing of the images/footage.
And the viewing of the images/footage by others.

A cartoon character won't feel anything about some nonce getting off on looking/watching.

But victims of such abuse certainly can and do suffer additional distress and harm at the thought of countless other unknown people accessing and looking at the images/watching the footage of their being abused (and getting off on it).

These sort of 'secondary crimes' over and above the original acts aren't as harmless as you're making out.

 

[danny la rouge]

Protection. There's no evidence that he's an actual physical danger to anyone.

Yet again, yes he is. Children were raped for his pleasure.

 

[Spymaster]

There's a clear difference: where there are actual photos/videos of crimes - as opposed to cartoons/animations - then the perpetrator is an accessory to that crime.

There are arguably several crimes that make noncey photos/films different to cartoons/animations:

The abuse itself.
The filming/photographing of the abuse.
The sharing of the images/footage.
And the viewing of the images/footage by others.

A cartoon character won't feel anything about some nonce getting off on looking/watching.

But victims of such abuse certainly can and do suffer additional distress and harm at the thought of countless other unknown people accessing and looking at the images/watching the footage of their being abused (and getting off on it).

These sort of 'secondary crimes' over and above the original acts aren't as harmless as you're making out.

I'm not "making out" that what you suggest are secondary crimes are harmless. I'm saying that some behaviours that are currently accepted, are as harmful.

 

[Wilf]

He hasn't raped anyone though.

That's like trying to prevent Bahnhof Strasse from shagging goats, by giving me 10 years for speeding.

The Extinction Rebellion feller got 5 years even though he didn't participate. Iiirc, you approved. He called for it to happen beforehand, Edwards created demand for it afterwards. Both responsible for the event. I know which one I'd have given 5 years to.

 

[Spymaster]

Yet again, yes he is. Children were raped for his pleasure.

That's why he should be incinerated.

But that's punishment.

Not prevention.

 

[BigMoaner]

Sorry Mick, but this is inconsistent with the general board outlook here, surely?

Punishment, protection, and deterrence?

It's frequently argued here that the weight of sentencing is immaterial to deterrence, so we can do away with the latter immediately.

Punishment. The bloke is utterly fucked and his reputation stained for life. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself soon. What more do you want?

Protection. There's no evidence that he's an actual physical danger to anyone.

On those basis' he should've got a caution!

I'm disappointed that he didn't get time, with sentencing wrong 'uns, there's 3 objectives a) punish them for their actions, b) protect society from them re-offending and c) deter others from doing the same.
I

4. Create a sense of justice for victims. In my view the most important of the four.

 

[Spymaster]

The Extinction Rebellion feller got 5 years even though he didn't participate. Iiirc, you approved. He called for it to happen beforehand, Edwards created demand for it afterwards. Both responsible for the event. I know which one I'd have given 5 years to.

Why do you lot keep banging-on about those ER dickheads like there was any inconsistency in my thinking?

They were (possibly but possibly not) over-sentenced but I don't care.

Edwards is destroyed. I'm pleased.

 

[BigMoaner]

Fuck me, who's he got for a lawyer? Thomas Hardy?

What utterly shameful bullshit. Try growing up as a sexually abused child then come back and tell me about your fucking millieu.

I know, unreal.