Honey wrote, "Child rape is not porn."

Always respect true, not fake, victims. Include millions of true victims of fake media.

No evidence of rape, only porn increasingly selfie-made by guilt-free body proud modern kids as a young four, MOCKING Victorian 'Sex Laws'.

Four four-year-olds have been investigated by police in England for sexting since 2017.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/30/...y-police-for-sexting

Info wrote:
Honey wrote, "Child rape is not porn."

Always respect true, not fake, victims. Include millions of true victims of fake media.

No evidence of rape, only porn increasingly selfie-made by guilt-free body proud modern kids as a young four, MOCKING Victorian 'Sex Laws'.

Four four-year-olds have been investigated by police in England for sexting since 2017.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/30/...y-police-for-sexting

They said that it was indeed images of small children being attacked.

Honey wrote:
Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics. Amazing - could well have referred to one gorgeous hunk. Young? Like Savile it could have been "over 16 but under 21". My point is it's the way media stokes and pours petrol by using language making it all far worse than it was and by going along with the hyped story. People DO like porn - god knows why - and because it's not to our taste shouldn't affect their acceptance as a newsreader (silly job anyway).


Child rape is not porn.

Did he call the police when it was sent to him? No.


It's laughable how people are trying to defend him. If he wanted AI porn he could have Googled it or gotten some Hentai shit.

If he shouted at a police dog he would have gotten so jail time.

I think he should have got exactly the same sentence as everybody else who commits the same crime, and he did.
It is nonsense to say he should set an example just because he reads the news.
I am pretty sure that no criminal has ever gone straight because they want to be just like Martin Brunt.


Brunt is satire himself.

Tom Tugendhat's call for review of Huw Edwards' sentence backfires after experts tell him law doesn't allow it

Tom Tugendhat’s call for the government to use the unduly lenient sentences scheme to review Huw Edwards’ sentence, and get it increased, backfired after Tugendhat was told this was not legally possible because the mechanism only applies to crown court sentences.

www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/s...icy-uk-politics-live

Mark wrote:


The judge must have bought into this nonsense like only some judges manage to do.

The judge did his job and followed sentencing guidelines. If you mistake such statements as making "excuses" for Edwards you are incorrect.

Edwards can plead in mitigation what he wishes; but you have no idea what the judge did or didn't "buy into".

Info wrote:
Honey wrote, "Child rape is not porn."

Always respect true, not fake, victims. Include millions of true victims of fake media.

No evidence of rape, only porn increasingly selfie-made by guilt-free body proud modern kids as a young four, MOCKING Victorian 'Sex Laws'.

Four four-year-olds have been investigated by police in England for sexting since 2017.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/30/...y-police-for-sexting

7 of the images were Cat A (penetration) involving children aged 7-9. This is child rape not a"selfie"; unless you believe children of 7 can consent to being fucked by an adult? Are, in fact, the instigators and guilty party in these interactions?

Wyot wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Didn't look to me like he ever wanted or agreed to underage pics

This is the passage on BBC news:

"The court heard that in another exchange with Williams, Edwards replied "yes" followed by three 'X's when asked whether he wanted sexual images of a person whose "age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16"."

I know spin can be put on this either way (could & discerned...), but as the judge did explicitly comment this is - words to the effect - not a case of Edwards receiving isolated unsolicited pics. He was being a lot more sly than this - and allowing it to happen.

So, fairly sentenced for a horrible crime that does sustain the real abuse of children. No point sending him to prison though. I bet he will run a mile from any porn from now on. The judge and Probation reports accepted his remorse as genuine.

A civilised society would just let him move on now. Where has forgiveness gone?

Forgiveness? Where is the rectification for the victims? Their innocence will never be regained. With help and therapy and a significant financial contribution from Edwards, they might be able to move on.

Also, videos of children being rated and murdered isn't porn. Stop calling it that.

Edwards should be sterilised.

Not Edwards wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]JK2006 wrote:


Forgiveness? Where is the rectification for the victims? Their innocence will never be regained. With help and therapy and a significant financial contribution from Edwards, they might be able to move on.

Also, videos of children being rated and murdered isn't porn. Stop calling it that.

Edwards should be sterilised.

Of course these images (sans murder - not sure where that came from) perpetuate child abuse and that is a terrible thing. The images are porn but are also child abuse. The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

Nor are the questions of rectification for the victims and showing forgiveness, after due punishment, to Edwards. Which you appear to assume is a zero sum situation.

You don't become somehow worthier or more upset by the idea of child abuse than me - or anyone else -just by more loudly insisting how awful what Edwards did is, the language it must be framed in, and setting out what, as a result, should happen to him.

By what authority do you claim the right to do so?

No one is made somehow worthier by dismissing forgiveness; and no victim harmed in the practice of it. Don't dismiss forgiveness. It may be precisely what allows the victims to heal the fullest.

And perhaps all of us.

Victims Victims Victims.

Always respect true, not fake, victims. Include millions of all-age true victims of fake media. And, include thousands of child victims of fake media useful new 'Victims Victims Victims Industry'.

But, no official police note of any VICTIMS in mass consensual sexting from age four.

Among 306 investigations into children aged nine and under, 17 were aged six, nine were five years old and four were just four years old.

These 306 children were classified as suspects on police databases despite being under the age of criminal responsibility, meaning no action could be taken against them. One case involved a nine-year-old girl who was investigated by Leicestershire police for sending a naked selfie to another child. In this case it is understood that safeguarding checks were made on the girl, yet she was still named as a suspect on the police system.

Only 30 of 6,499 cases resulted in a charge, caution or summons for the child, with the vast majority of investigations dropped because the police decided it would not be in the public interest to take formal action – a decision usually taken when the sexting is consensual.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/30/...y-police-for-sexting

Not Edwards wrote:


Forgiveness? Where is the rectification for the victims? Their innocence will never be regained. With help and therapy and a significant financial contribution from Edwards, they might be able to move on.

Also, videos of children being rated and murdered isn't porn. Stop calling it that.

Edwards should be sterilised.

I understand the sentiments but no victim of abuse/assault should hear or be told the words in effect : "you will never recover from your abuse"

This is abuse all over again

Imagine future victims hearing this or reading it in newspapers etc..being told over and over that sexual assault means effectively "your life is now over and will never be the same again".

It's a terrible message to keep repeating also on no proof. Many victims recover just as victims of road accidents or tragic events etc can.

As a sex assault victim myself (of many decades ago) I can attest that of course one's life is affected..mine was chaotic for about 2 years..but at that time this message.."your life is now wrecked forever" was not daily repeated over and over again in the ignorant media.

I recovered and thrived.

Info wrote:
Victims Victims Victims.

Always respect true, not fake, victims. Include millions of all-age true victims of fake media. And, include thousands of child victims of fake media useful new 'Victims Victims Victims Industry'.

But, no official police note of any VICTIMS in mass consensual sexting from age four.

Among 306 investigations into children aged nine and under, 17 were aged six, nine were five years old and four were just four years old.

These 306 children were classified as suspects on police databases despite being under the age of criminal responsibility, meaning no action could be taken against them. One case involved a nine-year-old girl who was investigated by Leicestershire police for sending a naked selfie to another child. In this case it is understood that safeguarding checks were made on the girl, yet she was still named as a suspect on the police system.

Only 30 of 6,499 cases resulted in a charge, caution or summons for the child, with the vast majority of investigations dropped because the police decided it would not be in the public interest to take formal action – a decision usually taken when the sexting is consensual.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/30/...y-police-for-sexting

Classic paedophile (and I use that word accurately and carefully given the age of the children cited) behaviour: to point to assumed sexualised behaviour in the infant (she sat on my lap every time she could your honour!) as justification for their desired or realised actions.

You keep doing it Info: get some help.

Peter Blekskley on Nonce Edwards. I will not be surprised if Huw has more phones hidden.