The Secret Barrister explained it was within sentencing guidelines for the offences involved, considering not just crimes but also factors like his guilty plea, mental health problems and rehabilitation prospects. If this is a lenient sentence, the problem is the law, not the judge.
He's not going scot-free though, he has to undergo rehabilitation with the probation service and is on the sex offenders register for 7 years, neither of these can be avoided by him.
Given the nature of the offences, what would the benefit be to society of locking him up?
Suspended sentences can have various requirements imposed by the court such as undertaking a treatment programme. As I understand it he was sent images he did not ask for and requested that no further were sent to him. Financially he has also lost out enormously.
Probably none - I get that. It is probably to be truthful with you, more of an emotional response from me. Perhaps community service would be a good punishment. I am conflicted to be very truthful.
I don't know if I agree with that. Prison doesn't really have that much of a deterrent effect where child pornography is concerned, if anything the threat of going to jail just gives people more incentive to hide their actions and discourages people from seeking psychological help.
Or it will mean that people don't have to hide their actions as much and can thus find like-minded people who know the worst likely penalty is a suspended sentence.
Not to him admittedly, but the example might make a difference to someone without a lucractive career to lose.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that he actively sought out imagery of children.
That aspect is a bit murky; according to the sentencing remarks he paid the sender, but it wasn't made out that he definitely paid them for the images (which may sound like a pedantic point but it was a critical one in his sentencing). However, insofar as he received images and requested more, I would say that was seeking out the images. If it were easier to obtain them I would suggest he would have obtained more.
Absolutely, and I wholly support this. However, this does not replace punishment for a crime that has caused actual harm. I know punishment is the least popular part of our justice system, and I have no wish to punish people for the sake of it, but the reason it exists is for deterrence.
YouGov is just a machine to manufacture consent and is probably supported by the government in its activities. Worse than hogwash. May as well just go on some internet forums to find more informed, higher-stakes chat than whatever bored, self-selecting people are filling in online surveys.
Is it a soft sentence, really? It's suspended for two years so the threat of prison is very much still there if he offends again.
This is about what I expected to be honest - I said to my other half when he first pleaded guilty that I didn't reckon (based on what was being reported - naturally the courts have a greater depth of evidence) he would get an immediate custodial sentence
To be fair, the issue is why someone thought that was a question that needed to be asked in the first place!
It's incredibly easy to find child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on the internet if you are so disposed. Telegram is full of it and so, these days, is Twitter/X, even before we consider 'dark web' tools such as Tor.
And there was me thinking Huw would be back next week reading the Bedtime Story on CBeebies
I suspect you've not read the following article which covers the matter of sentencing; it's completely in line with the guidelines:
www.bbc.co.uk
No doubt in part because doing so would incriminate himself.
I already admitted my response was an emotional one to najaB - see post # 125I suspect you've not read the following article which covers the matter of sentencing; it's completely in line with the guidelines:
(it really needs a full read, but a few excepts are quoted below)Four key takeaways from Huw Edwards' sentencing
Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been given a suspended prison term for making indecent images of children. Here are four things we learned from his court appearance.
And that’s partly the trouble with the existing law. Downloading child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has been upgraded from possession to making, with higher possible sentences and fewer defences, and so if people do receive CSAM they won’t report it.
There's an entire section dedicated to tobacco at the Norwegian Folkemuseum (https://norskfolkemuseum.no/en-tobakkshistorie) it deals with the issue by facing it head-on as a facet of history and explaining how cultural norms have changed with the growing evidence of harm.
And, of course, if you suggest that perhaps the law needs looking at to get out of the current hole it's found itself in you'll quickly be accused of trying to protect paedophiles...
A simple change that would avoid that claim would be blame-free reporting. If someone finds/is sent CSAM they should be able to report it without further questions being asked about their own conduct. The only time I've come across questionable content* it was on a mainstream website that had a 'Report' button. I clicked the button, chose the reason from a list, the material disappeared within a couple of hours and no questions were asked, though I suspect the uploader had to explain themselves.
The best way of presenting any material in museums is to present it with context. Explain that Jimmy Savile was an influential and popular celebrity and that, after his death, it became apparent he was someone who used that power and fame to exploit people.
The current caselaw is an absolute mess.
I think it is possible if you accidentally come across something, you can report to the police Child Exploitation and Online Protection service (CEOP) or the Internet Watch Foundation. How anonymous it is I don't know, the IWF say it is but nothing on the internet is truly anonymous.
A suspended sentence is far from the "worst likely penalty", it's actually 10 years in prison.
Agreed, totally and utterly. Well said.
What a fantastic comment. Agreed 100%
