All Categories› The Rail

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Huw Edwards: Attorney general under pressure to appeal against lenient sentence for ex-BBC presenter

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
edited September 18 in The Rail





· Share on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984


    Not sure I'd go as far as saying he is "lucky".

    His reputation & career have been trashed forever (arguably, quite rightly), which to a man in his position is far, far worse than a prison sentence. I think he'd happily accept 6 or 9 months inside if it meant his reputation was restored.

    It's all very subjective, & some people get very emotive about this sort of stuff, but I read the Judge's summing up at length & I think he probably got it about right.

    Whatever way you look at it, it's a very sad & sordid tale.


    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:



    Not sure I'd go as far as saying he is "lucky".

    His reputation & career have been trashed forever (arguably, quite rightly), which to a man in his position is far, far worse than a prison sentence. I think he'd happily accept 6 or 9 months inside if it meant his reputation was restored.

    It's all very subjective, & some people get very emotive about this sort of stuff, but I read the Judge's summing up at length & I think he probably got it about right.

    Whatever way you look at it, it's a very sad & sordid tale.


    Without going into it in any depth.
    It seems strange to me that the ar5eholes from Just Stop Oil can get up to 5 years inside for disrupting the M25, and some of those who were guilty of making comments on social medis during the riots also ended up in jail.
    Shouldnt we also consider the message that no jail for a celebrity sends.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984
    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    Not sure I'd go as far as saying he is "lucky".

    His reputation & career have been trashed forever (arguably, quite rightly), which to a man in his position is far, far worse than a prison sentence. I think he'd happily accept 6 or 9 months inside if it meant his reputation was restored.

    It's all very subjective, & some people get very emotive about this sort of stuff, but I read the Judge's summing up at length & I think he probably got it about right.

    Whatever way you look at it, it's a very sad & sordid tale.


    Without going into it in any depth.
    It seems strange to me that the ar5eholes from Just Stop Oil can get up to 5 years inside for disrupting the M25, and some of those who were guilty of making comments on social medis during the riots also ended up in jail.
    Shouldnt we also consider the message that no jail for a celebrity sends.


    @HAYSIE


    I don't think these things can or should be correlated.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984


    I should add that I'm fully aware that I'm a bit out of step with public opinion on this one. Celebs should NOT get preferential treatment, I agree, but equally, they should not be punished more because they are celebs.

    I read the Judge's summing up at length, & I just think he nailed it, got it spot on.

    Prison or no prison, nothing will be worse for him than the public shame. Nothing.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984
    edited September 17
    Be interested in the view of our Legal Correspondent @Esse4xphil too, though he seems to have been in hiding since Sunday afternoon.
    · Share on Twitter
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,845
    Tikay10 said:


    Be interested in the view of @Esse4xphil too, though he seems to have been in hiding since Sunday afternoon.

    Morning. Been doing other stuff ;)

    Tricky one, this.

    The first thing to say is that this is serious stuff. While he doesn't appear to have committed acts himself, he has paid for some pretty serious stuff.

    Most people who do this sort of stuff are going to Prison. But not all. And I think you can make a case for this non-custodial sentence. As @Tikay10 rightly says, in other senses he has suffered more than other people in his position. From losing massive amounts of money, to having his well-known face plastered everywhere. He faces deprivation and dangers others do not. And he has well-documented mental health problems.

    The 1 thing I have not seen is what financial restitution he has to make. For example, does he have to repay his BBC salary? No. But if he still has that money, and chooses not to, then I think it likely the Court would have given him 2 options in relation to money and/or Prison.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984


    @Essexphil


    Yes, I'm a little surprised he has not voluntarily repaid his salary for the last 6 months or whatever it was. I would have expected him to do so without a seconds thought.

    Then again, perhaps there is more depth to this story, & he does not have the money any more due to some obsession or addiction or whatever.
    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:



    @Essexphil


    Yes, I'm a little surprised he has not voluntarily repaid his salary for the last 6 months or whatever it was. I would have expected him to do so without a seconds thought.

    Then again, perhaps there is more depth to this story, & he does not have the money any more due to some obsession or addiction or whatever.

    If he wanted to repay the money, you would have thought the best time to do so was prior to appearing in court.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984


    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984


    Which is why I'm wondering if there is some other reason.
    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:



    Which is why I'm wondering if there is some other reason.

    Divorce will be expensive.
    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:



    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.

    I just thought it seemed far too lenient.
    The guy that supplied him got 12 months suspended.
    They apparently have him commenting, while watching various acts.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984
    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.

    I just thought it seemed far too lenient.
    The guy that supplied him got 12 months suspended.
    They apparently have him commenting, while watching various acts.


    @HAYSIE



    Throws up an interesting question. Who is worse, the supplier, or the buyer?
    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.

    I just thought it seemed far too lenient.
    The guy that supplied him got 12 months suspended.
    They apparently have him commenting, while watching various acts.


    @HAYSIE



    Throws up an interesting question. Who is worse, the supplier, or the buyer?
    Above my pay grade.
    You should watch last nights NewsNight.
    You can get it on catchup or the iPlayer.
    · Share on Twitter
  • EnutEnut Member Posts: 3,563
    Am I right that HIS phone was never produced? This is based on what was shared to a Whatsapp group, where they could obviously prove who had looked at the images.

    I wonder what HIS phone had on it, maybe that's why he got off lightly, who knows. There may well have been much more evidence on his phone but it was never found.

    Pay back the money? Why would he, voluntarily? He'll forever be known for what he looked at, people won't remember the fact that he pocketed hundreds of thousands whilst suspended and didn't pay it back.
    · Share on Twitter
  • lucy4lucy4 Member Posts: 8,109
    He was never going to be sent to prison as the person who supplied him with the images pleaded guilty at a previous hearing and only received a 12 month suspended sentence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/01/man-who-shared-indecent-images-with-huw-edwards-named-as-alex-williams

    The man who shared indecent images of children with the former BBC presenter Huw Edwards is a 25-year-old fellow Welshman who was given a 12-month suspended jail term earlier this year.

    Alex Williams, from Merthyr Tydfil, was sentenced in March at Merthyr Tydfil crown court after pleading guilty to seven offences related to possessing and distributing indecent images.
    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:



    Which is why I'm wondering if there is some other reason.

    He hasnt paid it back.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984
    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    Which is why I'm wondering if there is some other reason.

    He hasnt paid it back.

    @HAYSIE



    Correct, but I'm curious as to why.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,984
    edited September 17
    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.

    I just thought it seemed far too lenient.
    The guy that supplied him got 12 months suspended.
    They apparently have him commenting, while watching various acts.


    @HAYSIE



    Throws up an interesting question. Who is worse, the supplier, or the buyer?
    Above my pay grade.
    You should watch last nights NewsNight.
    You can get it on catchup or the iPlayer.

    @HAYSIE


    I plan to watch it on I-Player tonight.

    Last night I watched the HS2 thing. I strongly recommend you watch that, it'll take your breath away.


    Here you go;



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002336f/panorama-hs2-the-railway-that-blew-billions




    · Share on Twitter
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,442
    Tikay10 said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Tikay10 said:



    @HAYSIE


    Yes, absolutely, as not doing so makes him look even worse.

    I just thought it seemed far too lenient.
    The guy that supplied him got 12 months suspended.
    They apparently have him commenting, while watching various acts.


    @HAYSIE



    Throws up an interesting question. Who is worse, the supplier, or the buyer?
    Above my pay grade.
    You should watch last nights NewsNight.
    You can get it on catchup or the iPlayer.

    @HAYSIE


    I plan to watch it on I-Player tonight.

    Last night I watched the HS2 thing. I strongly recommend you watch that, it'll take your breath away.


    Here you go;



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002336f/panorama-hs2-the-railway-that-blew-billions




    Cheers.
    · Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.