Huw Edwards...

Shouldn't matter if he's vulnerable inside or not do the crime do the time seems not so anymore..

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rioter-dies-in-prison-peter-lynch-southport-riots/

Bloke 62 jailed for 2 years according to reports didn't set fires, thrown things etc just chanting. Kills himself in jail. Seems even more strange that this has happened but Edwards walked free.

 

You can't take away someones pension, BBC or otherwise. That's his money, earned by him.

You could give him a massive fine, if the sentencing rules allow for that.

 

why are the two connected? Whats strange about it?

 

Strange how a 62 year old with health problems gets jailed for shouting things at a riot (not condoning going to those events deserved punishment) but in the end he ended up taking his own life in jail.
But a BBC presenter who got convicted of the worse kind of images against kids gets spared jail because of his age and health.

 

As was said in the other thread about this last weeks, Peter Lynch was present when a protest turned violent and did not leave. At best, he was supporting those who tried to burn down a hotel containing a number of people including members of staff from the local area. At worst, he was an active participant in what meets the legal definition of a terror attack. If they had been successful, they could have killed upwards of 240 guests and staff. They also broke in gardens of people living in the area and set fires there. He was part of that mob.

Huw Edwards downloaded some photos of children. This is a despicable crime, but being part of a mob who were trying to kill a large group of people is much, much worse.

 

But he was never charged or trialed for trying to kill a large group of people. And what edwards did was very serious and deserves a big sentance when you take into account the kids given life sentences abused to make those images. Suppose we will have to agree to disagree I think the justice system in this country needs a good look at.

 

Edwards was prosecuted for a relatively small number of images. The average defendant gets charged with hundreds, if not thousands.

His sentence was in line with the sentencing guidelines - and had to be with the high-profile nature of the offender.

 

Lynch was charged with violent disorder with the sentencing guidelines being pretty clear as to what the likely sentence would be. He had the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the charge. He chose not to do so and plead guilty.

 

I can't agree. Standing about when someone commits a crime is not a crime in itself, unless you're actively involved or encouraging people. The sentence he received suggested he wasn't, but it was highly disproportionate in terms of what he was sentanced for. Id go as far to say the sentence was politically motivated in so far as it was jacked up to serve as a warning to others.

YMMV.

 

Was it jacked up though or was it within the sentencing guidelines?

 

Exactly this. I don't see how sentencing someone within guidelines which existed before the offence was committed and were available for everyone (including Peter Lynch) to review is "politically motivated" or "jacked up".

 

He had over 40 images that he bought off a convicted peadophile some of the most serious category images. He should have been jailed here a article explaining why he wasn't https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...il-why-indecent-images-children-b2614076.html

One of the main reason been mental health.

 

He was seen on camera shouting scum to police which is violent disorder. Doubt he will have expected that sort of sentance. Does it warrant the sentence when we're seeing soft sentences for peados.

 

He would have expected that sort of sentence if he had read the sentencing guidelines for violent disorder before participating in violent disorder.

 

Seems he regretted what he did do, pleaded guilty and was punished quite harshly. What might the sentance have been had he pleaded innocent?

In my view waving a placard and shouting "scum" at police has surely happened before (and probably in events quite close to home for this forum) but 2 years 8 months, to me, seems ridiculous for a man with no prior convictions.

Those responsible for violent disorder and/or threatening to harm others get what's coming to them, but to me his now deadly mistake was to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I know people who have been done for violent disorder and got a caution. Some a fine. Blokes been made a example of.

 

He was part of a racist mob. His simple attendance made him complicit. That mob attempted to burn down a hotel with hundreds of people at risk.

Huw Edwards opened some pictures that were sent to him. As sick as that is, I don't see how that is anywhere as serious an offence as the first one.

 

End up in the wrong place at the wrong time? Yeah, I hate it when I pop out for a pint of milk and accidentally wind up taking part in a race riot.

The sentencing guidelines are clear that context matters. You shout scum at police on your own in the street it's obviously going to be different than as part of a crowd trying to burn down a hotel housing innocent people.

 

..... No minimum sentence.