Celebrity Paedogeddon and old men yelling at clouds

To be fair some of those climate lot are doing several years inside for planning to glue themselves to stuff in a private zoom call an undercover cop was in. They didn’t actually do the protest.

Getting 3-5 for that is probably more than a driver would get for running them over if they had done it.

Lol, "offers".

The AV club article says Sandman is still in development, last sentence - "Sandman is currently still moving forward with a second season at the streamer"

Netflix were filming outside my office in Woking a few months back, which was widely rumoured to be for Sandman S2. According to the BBC it's doubling up as a police station in the series. They renamed the café outside to Lux something or other too, possibly a reference to Lucifer?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgepv92p5eo

Get Him to the Greek sure was a vehicle for wrong’uns.

Well, three by my count.

That's the final straw. I'm dumping GHTTG out of my top 10 all time greatest ever made.

On the lack of jail sentence for Edwards, I agree with the comments previously about avoiding following the lead of the mob (as well as also thinking it is absolutely insane that disruptive protestors are getting harsher sentences than a nonce).

The other thing that is also worth considering, something that the system has to think about whilst many of the public would think it shouldn't, is the safety of the individual. If Edwards (or anyone convicted of sexual crimes involving minors) went inside, the amount of protection and observation they are going to require must surely be factored in too. They will undoubtedly be a target from other prisoners, be that sexual abuse or physical abuse up to and including life threatening attacks, as well as highly likely to self-harm.

Even if you want to resign yourself from the moral implications of that because of the crimes of the individuals, you can't so easily absolve yourself of the increased cost and strain it would add to the system if you locked them all up and threw away the key.

I don’t know all the ins and outs of his sentence and what rehabilitation etc is involved but I suppose there is one point that feels overlooked for me.

Part of his defence and the argument against imprisonment is that he poses no risk to the general public. Which in an immediate sense I understand, he didn’t have anyone locked in a dungeon and if he had wanted to he doesn’t seem like he has it in him to do it now. But he was buying sexual images from a known paedo and those images became more extreme until they became awful beyond imagination.

Is there not a case to discuss here about the, for lack of a better term, secondary market for abuse?

He wasn’t Ian Watkins asking for a victim to abuse in person but he was creating a market for abuse, validating and enabling a direct abuser to go further. The risk people like Huw Edwards have posed the general public is that there is abuse taking place because where there is demand, there is supply.

I don’t know what you’d do with those kinds of offenders because I’m no expert but I’d hope this case being so high profile forces the right people to have those conversations. Could they be counselled out of it? Will they always want to seek it out? What if pictures aren’t enough one day?

The law does draw that distinction and what he was charged with was basically that. The 'Making' he was charged with is a bit confusing but in cases like this there are basically four categories escalating in seriousness, possession, making, distribution and production.

Production is what you're talking about, making is the lesser 'secondary market' charge.

Sounds like a nob!

I didn't say that. I didn't mention fame once, but I guess I wasn't clear. It doesn't matter much whether he is famous or not. Someone who is convicted of these sort of crimes will be targets, famous or not.

I would say though that I do think something like this should be taken on a case by case basis and individual circumstances considered when deciding sentencing. Potentially, that could work for a famous person or against them, as a high profile case can be used as a deterrent and push them higher up the sentencing guidelines.

I don't think concerns about the ramifications of how the prisons will have to handle him are much on the mind of a judge tbh, it's not their problem.

The fact is his sentence is pretty much perfectly in line with anyone else found with that number of images. Most of those sent to prison have tens of thousands of images, with a good number of those being the highest level.

My old boss was done for posession of twelve thousand images, the slimy cunt, and the sentence was more or less the same as Edwards got.

What sort of person wants to be friends with a bunch of online reprobates anyway?