David Hankey Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July (edited) 3 hours ago, hejammy said: I think maybe Sealed his own fate..... Unless the originator doesn't say what is actually meant it is open to interpretation, hence my preference. Edited 31 July by David Hankey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July Hope this is a worry over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July Another reported stabbing in Ipswich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampson Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 17 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said: Another reported stabbing in Ipswich. Where have you seen this? I can’t see it on any news sites yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 1 hour ago, ramboacdc said: Hope this is a worry over nothing. Better to be prepared! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 4 minutes ago, Sampson said: Where have you seen this? I can’t see it on any news sites yet Arrest made after stabbing in Christchurch Park in Ipswich | Ipswich Star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July EU going to block our reentry because of fears over importing violent crime from impoverished failed state Great Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 4 arrested after last night. Hopefully more to follow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July (edited) Trying to make head and tail of this Huw Edwards thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o "The court heard he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children." "On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard." "The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told. Edwards told him not to send any illegal images. No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022." "Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort." He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else"." So he has admitted he had these images, but why are they providing a defence if he is guilty? Is this to hopefully sway the judge to be more lenient sentencing-wise? With how it is being defended there, it sounded a lot like when Ian Watkin's ex girlfriend was put on trial because Watkins sent her images to gloat about the fact he thought no one could touch him. She went to the police, showed them the phone with it on to hopefully get them to do something about it and was arrested for having the images. Maybe it is how it is worded? He can't deny he didn't have them but seems to be trying to claim he was saying he didn't want them, and then somehow got caught but didn't keep the images? How the hell does that work? Is it clear I am not legally or tech-savvy? Edited 31 July by ramboacdc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collymore Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July (edited) 17 minutes ago, ramboacdc said: Trying to make head and tail of this Huw Edwards thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o "The court heard he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children." "On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard." "The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told. Edwards told him not to send any illegal images. No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022." "Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort." He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else"." So he has admitted he had these images, but why are they providing a defence if he is guilty? Is this to hopefully sway the judge to be more lenient sentencing-wise? With how it is being defended there, it sounded a lot like when Ian Watkin's ex girlfriend was put on trial because Watkins sent her images to gloat about the fact he thought no one could touch him. She went to the police, showed them the phone with it on to hopefully get them to do something about it and was arrested for having the images. Maybe it is how it is worded? He can't deny he didn't have them but seems to be trying to claim he was saying he didn't want them, and then somehow got caught but didn't keep the images? How the hell does that work? Is it clear I am not legally or tech-savvy? Yeah but it sounded like he didn't delete them hence the evidence was there to prosecute him. I don't understand why he was sharing porn on WhatsApp in the first place, it sounds like he was obviously chatting with a Paedo, where did he find this bloke? Sounds like some some sort of personal private porn manager "So Huw, got some new stuff for you today, tell me what you think?" What is that all about! Actually reading it again is he taking photos of himself and sending them to the man vice versa - does that what it means? Edited 31 July by Collymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paninistickers Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 9 minutes ago, ramboacdc said: Trying to make head and tail of this Huw Edwards thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o "The court heard he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children." "On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard." "The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told. Edwards told him not to send any illegal images. No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022." "Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort." He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else"." So he has admitted he had these images, but why are they providing a defence if he is guilty? Is this to hopefully sway the judge to be more lenient sentencing-wise? With how it is being defended there, it sounded a lot like when Ian Watkin's ex girlfriend was put on trial because Watkins sent her images to gloat about the fact he thought no one could touch him. She went to the police, showed them the phone with it on to hopefully get them to do something about it and was arrested for having the images. Maybe it is how it is worded? He can't deny he didn't have them but seems to be trying to claim he was saying he didn't want them, and then somehow got caught but didn't keep the images? How the hell does that work? Is it clear I am not legally or tech-savvy? I'm surprised at the detail and gravity of his offences. I had expected the images were going to be of his 17 yo sugar baby. Yet apparently no crimes committed there. His barrister is not making a defence. He's pled guilty. But his team are entitled to provide mitigation. My own opinion on reading the details is that there isn't much mitigation though. If this fella sent through some unsolicited filth, you'd either go to the police (as in the case of the girlfriend you mentioned above) or if you feared being arrested anyway like she was, you'd smash the phone with a hammer burn it and chuck the embers in a random skip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthyfox Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 2 hours ago, Leicesterpool said: Is it time to move things to higher level in terms of rioting is it a police matter or an Army matter. Once the police lose control... that's it. Whilst the army have experience of dealing with more hostile situation are more protected. These hooligans will back off knowing armed unit is present. Every copper worth his salt YEARNS for a riot. It's all part of the initial training. It's very similar to ancient roman tactics. The problem comes when 12 years of Tory policy has rendered Police unfit for purpose. And yes... I was there (a copper, not in Rome) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 1 hour ago, ramboacdc said: Trying to make head and tail of this Huw Edwards thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmj260e54x7o "The court heard he had been involved in online chat on WhatsApp from December 2020 with an adult man, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children." "On 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images, the court heard." "The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told. Edwards told him not to send any illegal images. No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022." "Edwards's barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: "There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has... in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort." He added that Edwards "did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else"." So he has admitted he had these images, but why are they providing a defence if he is guilty? Is this to hopefully sway the judge to be more lenient sentencing-wise? With how it is being defended there, it sounded a lot like when Ian Watkin's ex girlfriend was put on trial because Watkins sent her images to gloat about the fact he thought no one could touch him. She went to the police, showed them the phone with it on to hopefully get them to do something about it and was arrested for having the images. Maybe it is how it is worded? He can't deny he didn't have them but seems to be trying to claim he was saying he didn't want them, and then somehow got caught but didn't keep the images? How the hell does that work? Is it clear I am not legally or tech-savvy? Defence are putting in their mitigation. When it comes to sentencing there is a range of sentences that can be passed. The starting point will be somewhere in the middle and if there are aggravating factors the sentence will drift towards the tougher end. If there are mitigating factors, they will be taken into account and the sentence may drift to the more lenient end of the scale. Defence are basically saying he isn't a raging pedo that was looking to get access to children, he received a few images that were clearly of children but that wasn't what he was asking for. Suspended sentence all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritwalker Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 18 hours ago, urban.spaceman said: Please, stop your arguing for a second, and watch this: Then, for the love of Christ, promise me you'll watch this: Its a bit like the Roma scooter guy I could watch the clip a hundred times and laugh every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampson Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July (edited) 8 minutes ago, nnfox said: Defence are basically saying he isn't a raging pedo that was looking to get access to children, he received a few images that were clearly of children but that wasn't what he was asking for. Suspended sentence all day long. Yeah that’s my thoughts too. Will kill his career but doesn’t feel like he’ll get prison time. But we obviously don’t know the full facts yet. Edited 31 July by Sampson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Falling Foxes Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July (edited) 1 hour ago, StanSP said: 4 arrested after last night. Hopefully more to follow. Indeed. Also hopefully, any successful prosecutions will lead to the sentances and/or fines handed out, match those of other violent and distructive rioters in recent times. Edited 31 July by Free Falling Foxes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 3 hours ago, Leicesterpool said: Is it time to move things to higher level in terms of rioting is it a police matter or an Army matter. Once the police lose control... that's it. Whilst the army have experience of dealing with more hostile situation are more protected. These hooligans will back off knowing armed unit is present. Deploy the army onto the streets? Really? The police could be fine if they were backed by politicians and the media. What we see now is the result of years of criticising the police every time some protester get hurt because of a baton strike or being thrown to the floor and crying about it because they were there to "peacefully protest" and it's not their fault everyone else was kicking off. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paninistickers Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 16 minutes ago, nnfox said: Defence are basically saying he isn't a raging pedo that was looking to get access to children, he received a few images that were clearly of children but that wasn't what he was asking for. Seems absolute madness to have kept the images though. Depends on the mood of the judge. Won't questions be asked why on earth did he continue to engage with this fella? Surely you'd block him and bin off that phone and its storage as a matter of immense urgency. That said, I think Edwards is more likely to receive an 'understanding' judge,.same age, same social class etc than a vindictive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennisNedry Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 3 minutes ago, Paninistickers said: Seems absolute madness to have kept the images though. Depends on the mood of the judge. Won't questions be asked why on earth did he continue to engage with this fella? Surely you'd block him and bin off that phone and its storage as a matter of immense urgency. That said, I think Edwards is more likely to receive an 'understanding' judge,.same age, same social class etc than a vindictive one. I wouldn't be surprised if he did delete them - hence why he wasn't charged with possession of the images. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paninistickers Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 2 minutes ago, DennisNedry said: I think many of us would support the use of firearms in these circumstances.. Certainly taser them. I can only imagine those officers on duty were PCSOs Taser. Arrest. Charge. Aggravating features. Hand out maximum sentence of four years. Parliament should introduce a bill upgrading knife crime to life sentence as a maximum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_Loyal Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July Those in charge are losing control of the country, and I think it'll continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy boxing Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said: Those in charge are losing control of the country, and I think it'll continue. People are angry and getting angrier. Things never seem to change whoever is in charge. The British public generally are not listened to.our prisons are beyond capacity and their are no credible deterrents to violent crime in this country. Knife crime is an epidemic especially among young people. Now we're seeing very young children killed. The victims of crime feel constantly let down. There is simply no confidence in the police particularly after a number of bad apples among the police force. With an increasing population and an increasing prison population we need to build a lot more prisons and reconsider capital punishment. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 21 minutes ago, DennisNedry said: I bet the Twitter comments are all saying how them 2 PCSO's aren't doing much about it. Not sure what they could do but call for emergency help with appropriate kit to sort them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salisbury Fox Posted 31 July Share Posted 31 July 9 hours ago, ealingfox said: The great irony is that the small boats crisis, which has changed the complexion of the debate around immigration in the country, is a direct consequence of Brexit, which all these people supported. Not sure I understand this as there were people trying to cross the channel decades before Brexit. Just looked up that the Sangatte ‘jungle’ camp opened in 1999. All that seems to have changed is the method of entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts