Huw Edwards...

Here's the actual sentencing guidelines

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/violent-disorder-2/

 

Yes in my opinion it does as the two are not connected at all.
Should sentences be higher for paedos? Absolutely.
Should the current sentencing being lenient for paedos mean that people convicted of unrelated offences get away lightly? Not at all.

Otherwise we're into the realms of people arguing that they shouldn't get a speeding ticket when there are people committing burglary (which ive heard many times)

 

Wow didn't have you down as a peadophile sympathiser, he had some of the worst category images you do realise when those images are made and kids are abused it has a impact on them.

 

I've been in demonstrations (G8 Scotland) that turned violent and plenty of people were caught up in it who were not part of the violence, nor had any intention of being part of it. They were arrested and charged. So I don't buy your limited world view that this only happens if you're "not out buying milk".

He was stupid, ill informed and likely a victim of rabid conspiracy theories pushed on places like Facebook, but he wasn't trying to burn anything to the ground as that wasn't in the sentence.

Again you're clearly entitled to think he deserved nearly 3 years in jail, clearly I don't.

 

Don't be a prat.

Someone receiving images, however sick, is clearly not the same as being part of a mob trying to burn alive hundreds of people.

I didn't have you down as a ..... oh... hang on.

 

He paid for the images he knew what he was doing. The bloke went to the hotel he shouted some nasty things to police.

 

If he had been convicted, he was looking at approaching 4 years. The judges summing up comments can probably be found online somewhere, but according to the BBC report he shouted encouragement to the rioters and pushed a police office.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lx5d8dy9o

He was free to leave at any time. He chose to go to a "protest" that was always likely to get violent, and he chose to stay when it got violent. He himself, committed an act of violence against a police officer.

 

So you're happy with any mob whipping each other up into a frenzy and setting fire to things? A hospital maybe? You ok with that? Your house maybe? You ok with that? Or does it depend what type of people are inside as to the severity in your eyes?

The man was at a racist riot. He knew what he was doing.

 

And assaulted a police officer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lx5d8dy9o

"The court heard Lynch had made inappropriate comments and appeared to be encouraging others to commit violent disorder.
He also pushed a police officer "in retaliation" after being asked to step back and being pushed by an officer."

 

Not true at all. Minimum sentence for his crime was 2 year inside. Maximum 4 years

 

I'm not sure that is helping explain the sentence he received. Indeed it potentially makes it look worse.

 

I think there's a great irony in people defending the racists who rioted at an hotel housing asylum seekers and who screamed racist abuse including accusing all asylum seekers of being paedophiles and the thing theyre using to defend it? That the white British man hue Edwards is a paedophile

 

" appeared"? Odd choice of words. Either he did or didn't. However pushing an officer That puts a slightly different perspective on it. Still not sure for a first offence it deserved that amount of time. The law is an ass.

 

Not sure how you work that out. It was a Culpability B offence:

• Offender participated in incident which involved widespread and/or large scale acts of violence on people and/or property
• Offender participated in incident involving serious acts of violence
• Offender participated in incident involving significant planning of unlawful activity
• Offender participated in incident involving persistent and/or sustained unlawful activity

And a Category or Category 1 offence:

Category 1

• Cases involving multiple or extreme category 2 factors

Category 2

• Incident results in serious physical injury or serious fear and/or distress and/or disruption
• Incident causes serious disruption or severe detrimental impact to community
• Incident causes loss of livelihood or substantial costs to businesses
• Incident causes substantial costs to be incurred to public purse
• Incident results in attacks on police or public servants
• Incident results in extensive damage to property

Starting point for a Cat 2/Culp B offence is 2 years, typically 1-3 years. For a Cat 1 offence, add another year making it 3 years, with the range of 2-4 years.

His offence, and sentence was at the upper end, but it was an aggravated incident that involved widespread, organized disturbances over several days. 4 years is what he would expect, minus 25% for the guilty plea.

If he pled innocent, he might have got off, but he was likely to be facing 4 years.

 

Really? I'd say it's pretty clearly culpability B and category 1

 

Culpability B

• Offender participated in incident which involved widespread and/or large scale acts of violence on people and/or property
• Offender participated in incident involving serious acts of violence

As we know there was large scale acts of violence on people or property. The defendant was videod pushing police officers.


Harm:
Category 1

• Cases involving multiple or extreme category 2 factors

Category 2

• Incident results in serious physical injury or serious fear and/or distress and/or disruption
• Incident causes serious disruption or severe detrimental impact to community
• Incident causes loss of livelihood or substantial costs to businesses
• Incident causes substantial costs to be incurred to public purse
• Incident results in attacks on police or public servants

The incident resulted in multiple windows being smashed, an hotel set on fire, dozens of police injured and large costs to the public.

So we have a pretty clear culpability B, harm category 1 offence.
Sentencing guidelines. Starting point 3 years custody, rand 2 to 4 years custody.

So explain to me how those sentencing guidelines make his sentence look harsh. It just doesn't

 

He was charged with possession of ~40-50 images. Chris Corke was found with 1,000+ images while under a community protection order and banned from having a laptop. He got 12 months for a far worse offence.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/ex-bank-boss-jailed-over-child-porn-1939326

I'm not defending Edwards BTW. But he was sentenced according to the law.

 

All depends on the severity of the images like said Edwards had some in the worst category. I sent you the article explaining why he was excused jail.

 

So he got sentenced for assaulting police?

 

To be honest, its pretty obvious what side of the political spectrum I'm on - and I think Edwards should have been dealt with more severely. Obviously he's been sentenced in line with current guidelines - but maybe they need a rethink.

His sentence has nothing to do with Lynch though - who was correctly sentenced after pleading guilty.