I think the argument is that huw edwards has lost enough already. OK, so we'll pretend for a minute that's a sufficient punishment. Let us now look at the Arabs- they'd have chopped off body parts for this... The question is, which area is safer for young children- the West or Arabic Countries?
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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?
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
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
@@rogerphelps9939 Not when he lets his mates off. Very very difficult to get a review of a low sentence. But now he can get back to fining people who don't fund the BBC and its CSAs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 (?!)
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.
Happened to me twice when I was 5 and 7 luckily both times my parents saved me but i remember both times and i think about what could have happened this judge is a total fool
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
Savile would have gone down because he was physically abusing children. There is a big difference between looking at pictures, keeping the pictures to look at over and over again, and actually committing the abuse in person.
Yes and the palace PR team should have been bought to court, also he was at the palace quite often. Taken his medals off him is nothing to what he did and most probably they knew or were a part of it, was PA involved with him.? Makes one wonder. We all know he is one.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
@@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 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
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
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
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?
Could you do a video covering the fact that the case was kept at the magistrates, what powers did the magistrates exercise to keep it rather than refer to Crown Court. It appears to me that when they made the decision to keep it they had made their mind up about the "punishment"
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.
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 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?
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.
Very interesting as always, thank you. The thing that I find interesting is the notion concerning the questioning of judges and barrister. It seems they can be questioned if what, you are senior, experienced, it suits you politically, for you gain more social media views or just that you disagree 🤔 The notion that they shouldn't be challenged, is a nonsense. God forbid that we live in a country where you must accept that those in authority are always right 😮 As my fridge postcard says "Freedom must always be freedom for those that think differently" and I would add voice those thoughts (freely but respectfully, by and large).
Always a good day in court when the judge writes up the case for the defence then argues it to himself and finds for his own case a favourable outcome " Amazing "
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.
Thankyou for your clear professional analysis of this dreadful case, involving the most severe category of images, I believe. These wretched victims will carry this injurious trauma for life, likely never to recover. Therefore, couldn't the perpetrator have been fined a very substantial amount, to be utilised directly & wholly for victims of child abuse, to child abuse support agencies/organisations?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You summed it up at the end saying "sordid subject". The average person would expect a custodial sentence to be issued, but neither Edwards or the person who supplied him with the images got such. So where is the deterrent to break the chain of these sordid actions, and deter people from doing this?
Brilliant video - if the crime is reprehensible and punitive measures should result, personally I think it is, then the lack of those is worrying, brings the system into disrepute. (again 🤦🏻♂️). I think that those much higher in the judicial system should require the judge to change the sentence (if such thing is possible, I seem to think it might be? ). I think after years of public education and conscious raising from things like Childline, that there is going to be a public outcry, and I can't say I blame them, this situation is 'not ok'.
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.
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.
I think the real problem is that the general public sentiment thinks of penalty sentencing in extreme terms. There is a propensity to think that certain conduct is wrong and therefore perpetrators must be deprived of all liberty and rights - life imprisonment for murder - and for this to balanced not by a naunced thinking of what penalty aligns to criminal activity but rather whether the extreme is appropriate. We see this in public clamors against low thresholds bail where the sentiment of locking up the offender overrides the publics appreciation of the presumption of innocence. In the case of sentencing guidelines it can mean getting to a point at which the guidelines don't conceptualize naunce to tie the harm of a given offence to a penalty but rather to simply factor whether the public is satisfied that the offender is punished. In this case I believe a suspended custodial sentence - longer than 6 months though - matched with considerable non-custodial community service sentencing is considerably more appropriate. But I don't think a sentiment of "he must rot in jail" has helped things at all.
Filming sentencing was the best idea because it can clear up certain misconceptions about judgements. If you disagree with the judgement after watching at least it is informed.
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.
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.
@@davidhoward4715lol so not being happy that not punishing a rich powerful child sex offender by using a custodial scentence is ' mob rule ' ? So not an injustice to the victims ? Ok got you
I'm not particularly knowledgeable in relation to law and punishment for those who transgress. I've noticed though that Magistrates and Judges will often use as part justification for punishment mattered out is "community expectations". There have been a number of cases in the UK, I think this one too where community expectations hasn't been mentioned or at least I haven't heard of it nor have I read of it being mentioned. I have to say that the community appears to be very aggrieved at least, it appears so from what I have seen on tele, print media and new media.
So, in this judge’s next case… Bank robber: I didn’t realise what I was doing - all of a sudden I had all this cash. Judge: Ok, suspended sentence. Next!
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.
This is the only sane explanation I've heard. Given that this was far more than viewing, I'm also surprised didn't get a heavy duty community sentence as well.
I don’t think either of you got it wrong. The sentencing guidelines define a broad spectrum of outcomes that’s subject to a number of complex considerations. It’s not a TH-cam algorithm where you crank a handle and the answer pops out. The issue is with the sentencing guidelines, but if you remove discretion from the judges role you’ll not get the nuanced outcome that fits an appropriate punishment to the crime. I don’t think you make any arguments other than you’d have come to a different outcome than the judge in this case. Thank you for talking us through the process. I’m with you and think he got off lightly, but no one said a judges job was easy did they?
The law may have been followed, but it is nothing like justice which is what the law should be aiming at. I am surprised to find many online lawyers saying that the sentence is not unusual for a case like this. We clearly need a rebalancing of sentencing if that is true. Astonishing.
no reasonable person would find this acceptable
I think the argument is that huw edwards has lost enough already. OK, so we'll pretend for a minute that's a sufficient punishment. Let us now look at the Arabs- they'd have chopped off body parts for this... The question is, which area is safer for young children- the West or Arabic Countries?
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
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.
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?
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
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?
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 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?
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.
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?
If only Huw Edwards had shouted at a police dog..
The punishment does not fit the crime
What punishment? He walked away laughing.
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
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.
The ordinary person would have gone down!
Not paying the license fee for example.
If you shout at a police dog
Wrong. The judge has to abide by strict guidelines. If he ignores them it is grounds for an appeal.
@@rogerphelps9939 Not when he lets his mates off. Very very difficult to get a review of a low sentence.
But now he can get back to fining people who don't fund the BBC and its CSAs.
@@rogerphelps9939 I stand corrected... alledgedly only 1 in 5 pedos go down ... shocking!
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.
Just sickened, my sister hun g herself as did my friends brother after being abused as young children. Too many in the Justice system.
That's devastating. I'm so sorry for your loss.
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.
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.
100% agree he should have got some community service in lieu of prison sentence being suspended.
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.
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.
he finds kids attractive, that won't go away at all, it is his fantasy and sexual attraction
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.
There are many people who have had tough lives, and disappointments, they don't become nonces.
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 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.
Happened to me twice when I was 5 and 7 luckily both times my parents saved me but i remember both times and i think about what could have happened this judge is a total fool
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. He actually committed physical sexual acts. He was not just a voyeur so the sentence would have been harsh.
Savile would have gone down because he was physically abusing children.
There is a big difference between looking at pictures, keeping the pictures to look at over and over again, and actually committing the abuse in person.
Yes and the palace PR team should have been bought to court, also he was at the palace quite often. Taken his medals off him is nothing to what he did and most probably they knew or were a part of it, was PA involved with him.? Makes one wonder. We all know he is one.
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.. 😮
They could stop all this tomorrow by banning pornography . It's in place for a reason.
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
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.
Thanks for the clear legal insights and for not using cryptic / clickbait titles & descriptions. These videos are top notch.
agreed
Thank you. Safety of children is paramount. What message does this sentence send out? Absolutely appalling.
Really appreciate your analysis and insights.
Being a Freemason has a lot of advantages?????
Shh there is already a few on here claiming being unhappy with Ewww is mob rule gone mad 😂
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 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?
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.
A two tier policing and now a two tier justice system.
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
@@adenwellsmith6908Knock it off. Presumably you are a freeloader sponging off the rest of us.
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
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?
Could you do a video covering the fact that the case was kept at the magistrates, what powers did the magistrates exercise to keep it rather than refer to Crown Court. It appears to me that when they made the decision to keep it they had made their mind up about the "punishment"
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.
Someone needs to check the judges browser cache
It's just one big club
Absolutely disgusting, only 6 months and SUSPENDED 😮
This sends a message to those involved in these crimes that they can pretty much get away with it.
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
In other words, it was political pressure.
Agree completely with your thoughts on his ‘excuses’
Why is he not put on a Cexual offenders list?
He is: on the register for the next 7 years.
The Sentencing Guidelines got it wrong. Alas, I predicted it correctly with just the suspended sentence.
That is just your opinion.
Good points well made. Thank you.
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.
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.
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
Very interesting as always, thank you.
The thing that I find interesting is the notion concerning the questioning of judges and barrister.
It seems they can be questioned if what, you are senior, experienced, it suits you politically, for you gain more social media views or just that you disagree 🤔
The notion that they shouldn't be challenged, is a nonsense. God forbid that we live in a country where you must accept that those in authority are always right 😮
As my fridge postcard says "Freedom must always be freedom for those that think differently" and I would add voice those thoughts (freely but respectfully, by and large).
He worked for the BBC.
That’s sufficient to warrant capital punishment.
Why should a suspended sentece be limited to 2 years. Basically sayimg behave yourself for 2 years then do what you like
Always a good day in court when the judge writes up the case for the defence then argues it to himself and finds for his own case a favourable outcome " Amazing "
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.
Thankyou for your clear professional analysis of this dreadful case, involving the most severe category of images, I believe. These wretched victims will carry this injurious trauma for life, likely never to recover. Therefore, couldn't the perpetrator have been fined a very substantial amount, to be utilised directly & wholly for victims of child abuse, to child abuse support agencies/organisations?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
I am sure his sentencing history is under regular scrutiny. He followed the rules in this case.
I struggle to not view this as leniency on account of his celebrity status.
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!
Great conversation.
NZ.
Why does not all suspended sentences get community service? Why are they always only suspended for 2 years….
You summed it up at the end saying "sordid subject". The average person would expect a custodial sentence to be issued, but neither Edwards or the person who supplied him with the images got such. So where is the deterrent to break the chain of these sordid actions, and deter people from doing this?
Brilliant video - if the crime is reprehensible and punitive measures should result, personally I think it is, then the lack of those is worrying, brings the system into disrepute. (again 🤦🏻♂️). I think that those much higher in the judicial system should require the judge to change the sentence (if such thing is possible, I seem to think it might be? ). I think after years of public education and conscious raising from things like Childline, that there is going to be a public outcry, and I can't say I blame them, this situation is 'not ok'.
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.
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.
The Judge.
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.
I think the real problem is that the general public sentiment thinks of penalty sentencing in extreme terms. There is a propensity to think that certain conduct is wrong and therefore perpetrators must be deprived of all liberty and rights - life imprisonment for murder - and for this to balanced not by a naunced thinking of what penalty aligns to criminal activity but rather whether the extreme is appropriate. We see this in public clamors against low thresholds bail where the sentiment of locking up the offender overrides the publics appreciation of the presumption of innocence.
In the case of sentencing guidelines it can mean getting to a point at which the guidelines don't conceptualize naunce to tie the harm of a given offence to a penalty but rather to simply factor whether the public is satisfied that the offender is punished.
In this case I believe a suspended custodial sentence - longer than 6 months though - matched with considerable non-custodial community service sentencing is considerably more appropriate. But I don't think a sentiment of "he must rot in jail" has helped things at all.
Really clear and helpful video
Well put
Apparently yesterday we were told the Attorney General couldn’t challenge the sentence.
Filming sentencing was the best idea because it can clear up certain misconceptions about judgements. If you disagree with the judgement after watching at least it is informed.
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.
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"?
@@davidhoward4715lol so not being happy that not punishing a rich powerful child sex offender by using a custodial scentence is ' mob rule ' ? So not an injustice to the victims ? Ok got you
“Social balance sheet “ aka the jimmy saville get out of jail free card
I'm not particularly knowledgeable in relation to law and punishment for those who transgress. I've noticed though that Magistrates and Judges will often use as part justification for punishment mattered out is "community expectations". There have been a number of cases in the UK, I think this one too where community expectations hasn't been mentioned or at least I haven't heard of it nor have I read of it being mentioned. I have to say that the community appears to be very aggrieved at least, it appears so from what I have seen on tele, print media and new media.
So, in this judge’s next case…
Bank robber: I didn’t realise what I was doing - all of a sudden I had all this cash.
Judge: Ok, suspended sentence. Next!
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.
This is the only sane explanation I've heard. Given that this was far more than viewing, I'm also surprised didn't get a heavy duty community sentence as well.
Shocking. Anyone else would be in prison .
I don’t think either of you got it wrong. The sentencing guidelines define a broad spectrum of outcomes that’s subject to a number of complex considerations. It’s not a TH-cam algorithm where you crank a handle and the answer pops out.
The issue is with the sentencing guidelines, but if you remove discretion from the judges role you’ll not get the nuanced outcome that fits an appropriate punishment to the crime. I don’t think you make any arguments other than you’d have come to a different outcome than the judge in this case.
Thank you for talking us through the process. I’m with you and think he got off lightly, but no one said a judges job was easy did they?
The law may have been followed, but it is nothing like justice which is what the law should be aiming at. I am surprised to find many online lawyers saying that the sentence is not unusual for a case like this. We clearly need a rebalancing of sentencing if that is true. Astonishing.
Funny handshakes?
This is a long video about the ol' boys club.....without saying the words 👏👏👏