What annoyed you (in the news) today?

They went into the sentencing in some depth on R4 WATO. Absolutely in line with sentencing guidelines... No special treatment given.

I think we need to keep in mind the details of the offence. From what I've read, it was something like "only" 40-45 (I recall the number 41 but I might have that wrong) images in total. That weren't passed on, and I think weren't even saved, (other than how they might have been locally saved by WhatsApp. 

In think typically these cases involve many hundreds or indeed thousands of images. It also seems to be the case that this happened in a specific single period, and is known as a matter of fact that he was having a fairly heavy mental breakdown at that time.

None of which is to excuse, but I just think that if one is going to start bemoaning that his sentence is too light, it does need to be looked at in the context of other prior cases. And I'm not saying how the sentence does actually compare as I haven't done any resuuuuuurch into it. 

Yes, this particular law is a minefield. 

I recall the case of the senior female police officer (Met?) who received a handful (2? 3?) child sexual exploitation images from her sister (?). She was sent them IIRC because the sister suggested she should be looking into it. I don't think she even opened the pictures. I think in the end no criminal charges were brought but she was being booted out the force (or similar) for the act of having received them. 

Needless to say the whole thing ended up a mess with tribunals and stuff (but don't recall the final outcome). 

Superintendent Robyn Williams.
Yup, her sister forwarded it to her, having been sent it by her boyfriend.

She had not reported the material (which, really, you'd think would be absolutely stage one...), and swore blind she'd not viewed it - but she'd messaged her sister in response, to tell her to call. Her phone could not be fully examined to determine if she had viewed it or not.

She won her tribunal for unfair dismissal - but it should have been a final written warning.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57501764

She appealed that, but it was upheld.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Met-Commissionver-v-Police-Appeals-Tribunal-CO-3164-2021.pdf

She was then charged with failure to provide information required of somebody on the sex offenders' register.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3n19ndn3eo
Those charges eventually got dropped as "not in the public interest".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq3xw37jdqo

You forgot to mention this was from his friend/acquaintance who is a convicted paedophile. You also didn't mention he was asked (by this paedophile) "do you want some pics of any _young_ ?" to which Edwards replied "Go on".

I have no idea why anyone would think walking away from this crime is acceptable or try and minimise it. 

Edwards should have been ordered to spend at least some time inside.

This sort of thing will just divide society even further.

A six month sentence, suspended for two years, is hardly "walking away". Nobody's minimising it.

The sentence is fully in line with the sentencing council's guidelines.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child/