Huw Edwards - 6 month suspended sentence (pg 107)

As far as the evidence proved, he didn't.

Townshend accepted a caution from the Metropolitan Police (the Met) as part of Operation Ore, a major investigation on child sexual abuse images conducted in 2002–2003. The Met stated that "it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images". Townshend was on a sex offenders register for five years, beginning in 2003, after admitting he had used his credit card to access a child sexual abuse images website.[151][152] Townshend said he accessed the images as research in a campaign against child sexual abuse[153]—specifically, to prove that British banks were complicit in channelling the profits from paedophile rings.[154] Authorities could not prove that the website accessed by Townshend involved children, and no incriminating evidence was found on his personal computer.[155]
Why would he be on the sex offenders register if there was no evidence that he accessed any child abuse images?
 
Cat A pictures and videos are defined in the eyes of the law as penetrative sexual activity or sadism. For these to be made available, there has to be child victims that have been raped/sadistily hurt for the gratification of hideous low life's such as Hugh. Hope the sick fuck gets a sentence worthy of his crimes, but I won't hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
Why would he be on the sex offenders register if there was no evidence that he accessed any child abuse images?

He accepted a caution that admitted he did access a website that did contain those images. But that wasn't the claim I was responding to, he wasn't in possession of a shed load of images, they couldn't prove he was in possession of any.

People take it for granted that people accessing those websites have a sexual interest in children, the majority do, but some don't and have instead a morbid curiosity. That's no excuse for viewing the images and nor should it be.

Whether Townsend is a paedo or the latter, we'll likely never know.
 
He accepted a caution that admitted he did access a website that did contain those images. But that wasn't the claim I was responding to, he wasn't in possession of a shed load of images, they couldn't prove he was in possession of any.

People take it for granted that people accessing those websites have a sexual interest in children, the majority do, but some don't and have instead a morbid curiosity. That's no excuse for viewing the images and nor should it be.

Whether Townsend is a paedo or the latter, we'll likely never know.

Well I know I wouldn't want him near my kids if he admitted to at least accessing the images.

Accessing the material just sounds like he was viewing them on a browser and not actually downloading them onto his computer, which doesn't seem any better to me.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.