throbber Posted Monday at 14:39 Share Posted Monday at 14:39 I think all of us would rather serve time in jail than face the shame thst Huw will face for the rest of his life so there is justice in that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHF-23 Posted Monday at 15:24 Share Posted Monday at 15:24 43 minutes ago, throbber said: I think all of us would rather serve time in jail than face the shame thst Huw will face for the rest of his life so there is justice in that. There's been posts circulating by you where you say that you sexually assaulted people while they slept so I imagine you've some idea about shame 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Wilkos Posted Monday at 15:30 Share Posted Monday at 15:30 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted Monday at 15:40 Share Posted Monday at 15:40 3 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said: Huw has been a given six month jail suspended sentence for 2 years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonD Posted Monday at 15:47 Share Posted Monday at 15:47 1 hour ago, throbber said: I think all of us would rather serve time in jail than face the shame thst Huw will face for the rest of his life so there is justice in that. I don't think it's an either/or thing. He would still face shame when he was released. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted Monday at 15:48 Share Posted Monday at 15:48 Rock superstar Pete Townshend admitted buying child porn from an American internet site 'to see what was there' and for 'research' purposes, but insisted he was not a paedophile and was shocked by the prevalence of images of child abuse on the internet. Sentence - 5 years on SOR. Actor Chris Langham downloaded 15 images of child porn during 'research' for a series he was writing. The judge, who told Langham: "Paedophilia is not an issue in this case. You are not a sexual predator," but a police officer told reporters outside, "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile," and either way he was guilty of the offence of downloading images, and sentenced to 10 months, reduced to six on appeal, of which he served a little over three. He had to sign the SOR and was banned from working with kids for 10 years. Huw Edwards, BBC news anchor & Royal favourite pled guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children. He was found to have seven category A images - the most serious classification, which show serious abuse including penetrative sexual activity. The court heard that Edwards replied "yes xxx" when asked in a WhatsApp chat whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16". Sentenced to 6 months porridge, suspended for 2 years, and placed on SOR for 7 years. Huzzah for our consistently wonderful judicial system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted Monday at 16:24 Share Posted Monday at 16:24 If you're on a porn site and a pop up appears of something illegal, that's enough for a conviction under the law that Edwards was charged with breaking. Edwards was clearly soliciting the stuff he was sent, but it isn't necessary to prove that. Be careful out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted Monday at 16:40 Share Posted Monday at 16:40 15 minutes ago, welshbairn said: If you're on a porn site and a pop up appears of something illegal, that's enough for a conviction under the law that Edwards was charged with breaking. Edwards was clearly soliciting the stuff he was sent, but it isn't necessary to prove that. Be careful out there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted Monday at 16:44 Share Posted Monday at 16:44 Explanation here https://x.com/BarristerSecret/status/1835673864614887851?t=caU5BJ_fr2UQjte9l-aiTQ&s=19 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted Monday at 16:49 Share Posted Monday at 16:49 Buying child porn - suspended sentence. Blocking a road - four years in jail. Isn’t the British justice system wonderful absolute shite. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted Monday at 16:50 Share Posted Monday at 16:50 19 minutes ago, welshbairn said: If you're on a porn site and a pop up appears of something illegal, that's enough for a conviction under the law that Edwards was charged with breaking. No it isn't. There has to be a reasonable belief or expectation that something illegal could come up. There would be no belief or expectation you could access child porn on pornhub. You need to be on sites where this is likely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted Monday at 16:51 Share Posted Monday at 16:51 1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said: No it isn't. There has to be a reasonable belief or expectation that something illegal could come up. There would be no belief or expectation you could access child porn on pornhub. You need to be on sites where this is likely. I see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted Monday at 16:52 Share Posted Monday at 16:52 11 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'WellDel Posted Monday at 16:58 Share Posted Monday at 16:58 If prison overcrowding is a factor in sentencing these wrong 'uns, rather than letting them remain at liberty and roaming among us, would euthanasing the cvnts immediately upon conviction not be a cost effective and suitable alternative? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted Monday at 17:14 Share Posted Monday at 17:14 22 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: No it isn't. There has to be a reasonable belief or expectation that something illegal could come up. There would be no belief or expectation you could access child porn on pornhub. You need to be on sites where this is likely. Fair enough, it must be difficult to frame the law to cover phoney excuses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted Monday at 17:59 Share Posted Monday at 17:59 44 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Fair enough, it must be difficult to frame the law to cover phoney excuses. I was just looking for directions on how to get away from that stuff? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted Monday at 18:05 Share Posted Monday at 18:05 1 hour ago, invergowrie arab said: There would be no belief or expectation you could access child porn on pornhub. You need to be on sites where this is likely. I'd start visiting different sites if I were you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted Monday at 18:50 Share Posted Monday at 18:50 1 hour ago, 'WellDel said: If prison overcrowding is a factor in sentencing these wrong 'uns, rather than letting them remain at liberty and roaming among us, would euthanasing the cvnts immediately upon conviction not be a cost effective and suitable alternative? No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted Monday at 18:58 Share Posted Monday at 18:58 Go back to hanging murderers, rapists and folk that shout at police dugs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted Monday at 19:03 Share Posted Monday at 19:03 4 minutes ago, Silvio Tattiescone said: Go back to hanging murderers, rapists and folk that shout at police dugs white women. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.