Huw edwards (2 Viewers)

D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Tbf and I can't stand nonces, but from reading it someone sent them to him. How is that his fault? As long as he deleted it and didn't forward, surely they should go after whoever sent it to him however much lower profile they are.
I imagine it's the lack of deleting that's the issue!
 

D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Years ago we had someone at work done for similar. First we knew was when a couple of my work colleagues got letters from him in prison! It did however explain why they took all the PCs away one day for 'virus software updates' when it was our job to do said updates!

Anyway he claimed it was his first tiime and he regretted it, he'd just surfed onto the wrong web page and then left and to begin with you thought well maybe unlucky but... I'm sure if it really was as he said, then anybody would have worked that out.

You don't go to prison for clicking on the wrong thing and hurrying away, do you. It's more repeatedly doing so and downloading the images.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Years ago we had someone at work done for similar. First we knew was when a couple of my work colleagues got letters from him in prison! It did however explain why they took all the PCs away one day for 'virus software updates' when it was our job to do said updates!

Anyway he claimed it was his first tiime and he regretted it, he'd just surfed onto the wrong web page and then left and to begin with you thought well maybe unlucky but... I'm sure if it really was as he said, then anybody would have worked that out.

You don't go to prison for clicking on the wrong thing and hurrying away, do you. It's more repeatedly doing so and downloading the images.
That's the thing.

He obviously didn't delete them and DID keep opening them

Otherwise there just wouldn't be this charge.

If they had been marked as unread it would be a different situation entirely
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Years ago we had someone at work done for similar. First we knew was when a couple of my work colleagues got letters from him in prison! It did however explain why they took all the PCs away one day for 'virus software updates' when it was our job to do said updates!

Anyway he claimed it was his first tiime and he regretted it, he'd just surfed onto the wrong web page and then left and to begin with you thought well maybe unlucky but... I'm sure if it really was as he said, then anybody would have worked that out.

You don't go to prison for clicking on the wrong thing and hurrying away, do you. It's more repeatedly doing so and downloading the images.

Not sure if much different now. But during my degree I was taught many many ways to get images into someone’s device with no way of them knowing.
 

SkyBlueMatt

Well-Known Member
Pleading guilty may mean no custodial sentence
In fact I’d say it’s likely

The Crown Prosecution Service said most of the category A images were estimated to show children aged between 13 and 15. Two clips showed a child aged about seven to nine.

He's going to jail. Hopefully for a long time.
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
Blokes got 5 kids. Gotta feel for them, can't be many things worse than finding out your old man is a raging nonce.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I'm sure there's worse ways of finding out your old man's a sex case!
 

Attachments

  • prince-andrew-andrew.gif
    prince-andrew-andrew.gif
    2 MB · Views: 7

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon

Well-Known Member
Tbf and I can't stand nonces, but from reading it someone sent them to him. How is that his fault? As long as he deleted it and didn't forward, surely they should go after whoever sent it to him however much lower profile they are.
Having been sent some frankly fucking disgusting stuff he kept up his correspondence with the person and it would appear did absolutely nothing to report that person either. I get what you are saying but there's clearly enough to show that he was not exactly hostile to seeking out and receiving that kind of stuff.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
How the hell has the bloke sending him the images, who also happened to be a convicted paedophile, only got a suspended sentence?!?
 

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
He’s in for a rough time. If he’s out he’ll become a reclise and suicide candidate . If he’s in prison he will be very risk for both suicide and a battering anyway.
Most persons convicted off a sexual offence serve their time in a prison solely of sex offenders
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Been this way forever, as I say it was a topic on conversation in my CS degree in 2002, but as a techie this law really doesn’t sit right with me. I could make you all criminals with one DM on here. No defence of Edward’s who was clearly happy receiving “barely legal” stuff even if you take his defence as gospel, which you shouldn’t.

IMG_1634.jpeg
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Been this way forever, as I say it was a topic on conversation in my CS degree in 2002, but as a techie this law really doesn’t sit right with me. I could make you all criminals with one DM on here. No defence of Edward’s who was clearly happy receiving “barely legal” stuff even if you take his defence as gospel, which you shouldn’t.

View attachment 37309
I'd hope that automatic deletion and not soliciting more would be sufficient mind you! As you say there's clearly a difference.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Been this way forever, as I say it was a topic on conversation in my CS degree in 2002, but as a techie this law really doesn’t sit right with me. I could make you all criminals with one DM on here. No defence of Edward’s who was clearly happy receiving “barely legal” stuff even if you take his defence as gospel, which you shouldn’t.

View attachment 37309
You’d like to think they’d be a fair bit of pragmatism around that.
 

JAM See

Well-Known Member
Been this way forever, as I say it was a topic on conversation in my CS degree in 2002, but as a techie this law really doesn’t sit right with me. I could make you all criminals with one DM on here. No defence of Edward’s who was clearly happy receiving “barely legal” stuff even if you take his defence as gospel, which you shouldn’t.

View attachment 37309
But surely, any right minded person would immediately reply saying that's inappropriate, and also forward immediately to the police?

I do get some silly stuff over social media, but anything as distressing as child porn would have me straight onto the authorities.

I suspect the wording is such that it can exclude wankers like that loophole lawyer when it comes to parking tickets and speeding fines.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Only if the judge makes an example out him. Typically he’d have got more if he climbed a gantry on the M25 to protest about climate change.

How do you think we will do against Stoke?
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
I'm absolutely baffled by the notion that this wouldn't result in a custodial.
If you go on some of the addiction web sites you’d get an idea of the level of activity
Rumours of 350000 to 750000 where do you expect them to be housed?
it’s an epedemic
Most people convicted the biggest loss is their careers family and friends rather than prison
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top