That doesn’t make sense, as he was an MP at the time and had been since 2015. He became leader of the Labour Party in April that year. He ceased being DPP in 2013.He was part of the 2020 sentencing guideline council that set the guidelines for what goes on today
Yes, an apology more concerned with addressing reputational damage to itself than the life changing impact on the victims of these appalling crimes.You mean like reporting on it consistently and issuing an apology? What other news organisations report on themselves or their employees to the levels the BBC do?
Get some perspective. I despised the pair of them as a child but roared with laughter at both being sent down and ruined.They should have been killed on the spot.
Yes, an apology more concerned with addressing reputational damage to itself than the life changing impact on the victims of these appalling crimes.
BBC news is separate to the BBC corporation, hence why they say they have asked the BBC for comment etc.If it was consistent with the guidelines then there would be no need to use phrases such as "you need to be made an example of" as this smacks of a reactionary and emotive judgement, almost influenced politically to determine the sentence.
I've just been reading an article in The Eye about claims for abuse being thrown out unless the claim is made within three years. Scotland ditched the three year rule in 2017 but England and Wales still have it. I think the average length of time those who have been abused ever get to grips with it is over twenty years. The law does not protect the victim; it continues to abuse them.Because sentencing guidelines aren’t based on one huge line with ‘very bad’ at one end and ‘fuck all’ at the other. With every crime placed somewhere in between.
Each crime or group of crimes has their own set of sentencing guidelines, set by government.
If the general opinion is that Edward’s crimes have been dealt with too leniently. Then that isn’t down to the magistrate. Or Keir Starmer, as some Tory and ex Tory MPs are now ridiculously claiming.
It’s because nobody in government over the years since those guidelines were set, has been of a frame of mind to try and change them.
He cited mental health issues because he didn’t get into Oxford uni decades ago as part of his defence.
That sounds like bollocks.
More likely they had an expert psychiatrist compile a really in depth report on all his mental health issues over his lifetime leading up to the crisis that’s landed him in a mental hospital and someone has picked out the Oxford thing from that massive report and misrepresented it as Edwards trying to use that to get a lighter sentence.
My understanding of mental health being taken into sentencing is that the system is trying to give everyone the same sentence, and taking someone like Edwards out of a live in mental health hospital where he’s getting round the clock treatment and on suicide watch and chucking them in a prison is considered more impactful than doing it to a healthy person, just like being pregnant or having a serious physical health problem that can’t be treated properly in a prison would also be considered.
There also seems to be this false idea that the judge specifically identified his mental health as a reason he gave him that sentence, when in the sentencing remarks he just says he’s taken everything into consideration.
The bigger factor is probably that Edwards didn’t ask for or solicit the images Alex Williams sent him. The fact he wasn’t actively trying to procure this material obviously impacts how likely he is to reoffend and the danger he is to the public.
At least Edward's is well known and will therefore suffer public humiliation for years. No one knows who the other freak is or more importantly where he is.