To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

Just seen the footage of HE walking in to court. So arrogant.

But it is not very limited information. The facts have been on the news about what he has done. He was grooming teenage boys for naked photos in exchange for money. He got nasty when one boy sent only half naked his text messages were actually shown on the news. Also in a separate matter he was talking online to a convicted child sex offender who was sending him child abuse material.

I agree. Also, I think adults should get to pick what existing media they want to engage with, instead of having a corporation make that choice for them. People on this thread have referred to Doctor Who as a children’s show, but it isn’t a children’s show in the way that, say, Bluey is a children’s show. Being an American who learned about its existence in the mid-2000s through the early-20-something fangirls I met in college, I wasn’t even aware until recently that it was appropriate for kids. There’s a large international adult fanbase.

From what I can tell by reading this thread, Huw Edwards is briefly heard in the background of a scene. It’s not like one of those Sesame Street episodes where celebrities appear as themselves, implicitly labeling them as safe people for children. No kid is going to watch this and decide they’re now a Huw Edwards fan. Huw Edwards cannot harm children through a television episode. If it bothers some adults to watch it, then they can make the choice for themselves not to watch it.

@Rosscameasdoody
It was actually a different young man who was sending the images of child abuse- he was obviously in contact with several young Welsh men.

The use of the term ‘friend’ is interesting too. It was actually a teenager who HE was paying to supply the images, and whose family’s complaints to that end were ignored and mishandled by the BBC.

Not a good weekend for the bbc and doctor who. First they need to erase Huw Edwards and now the Southport stabber 😬

I am on the fence but I can completely understand how seeing him or hearing him on TV will be triggering for those who have been victims of child sex abuse, as this is what he will be remembered for first and foremost.

His commentary on major Royal events can probably be dubbed over relatively easily without impacting significance of events, themselves, whether it be for historical purposes or general interest.
I think it is unlikely the Queen’s funeral and Royal Weddings would have been shown in their entirety again but rather clips and montages, so again could have someone else’s voice over these.

The actual original footage may remain within the archives - I am not sure footage is ever completely erased but only the ones with HE erased/dubbed over will be aired again?
Maybe someone in the know will clarify.

He's not T S Eliot.

His contribution to the canon will not be missed.

Dr Who is a kids programme, I guess that is the thinkkng behind it, I watched that episode of Life on Mars with Saville a previous poster mentioned the the other day, adults can choose to turn off when they find offence, I did not because that poster was bang kn eith what they said.
I don't agree with rewriting history, I think we should see it all, especially the bad, so we can try to learn from it.
I will admit I am not impartial when it comes to this subject though.

Well he’s a BBC broadcaster who’s been caught with CSA images. So the BBC wants to be seen to be disapproving of him by removing certain programs that he appears in.

To be honest I can see the logic.

Yes, it's a shame it has become derailed by arguments about H.E.'s culpability. There are several other threads on that subject if people want to debate it.

Sorry to break it to you, but editing something out of a TV show doesn't make it go away. It still happened. All we are doing with such edits is conveniently brushing things under the carpet.

To address the 'can still watch paedos' purely from what you would want to watch, there are nuances to this. From my own examples:

Until it stopped working about a year ago, I still had a VHS player. A couple of years ago I watched a film I had taped off the TV way back when. I had obviously let the tape run when recording, and when I was re-watching I decided to see out of interest what was on after the film. It turned out to be a programme that was a tribute to Jimmy Savile - people who'd been on Jim'll Fix it saying how great he was. Obviously I didn't want to watch this so I exercised the facility to which we all have access - the 'off' button.

Staying with Savile, I have the DVD box set of 'Life on Mars'. There's an episode where Savile is the person who talks to Sam Tyler on the TV. That certainly would not stop me watching it, nor would I want to see it edited out - 'Life on Mars' shows 1973 through the lens of 2006, so it's entirely fitting that Savile should briefly feature in an episode.

@cathyandclaire ,

‘I don't think you can use sentencing as a way to judge this crime. The convicted paedophile who supplied the material, who also offered more illegal images, was only given a suspended sentence. Our criminal justice system is flawed.’

It is less the sentence itself than the narrative that goes with it. I know our prisons are beyond full.

But a judge will possess all the facts and will give a sentence along with a narrative. The narrative will explain the crime and what the judge believe were his intentions. I will listen carefully to that.

And again, the OP was less about the crime than him being erased from an acting role because of it.

@New@NewbutoldfatherIt is scary how quick people are to judge on very limited information

If anyone received one image of CSA and didn't go to the police I would judge them.
I haven't judged on limited information, I've judged on FORTY images being received.

There is no spectrum of acceptable child abuse and the fact you seem to think there is is frankly terrifying.

HE was only found out because the sender was apprehended.

I don't think you can use sentencing as a way to judge this crime. The convicted paedophile who supplied the material, who also offered more illegal images, was only given a suspended sentence. Our criminal justice system is flawed.

It is scary how quick people are to judge on very limited information.

He has pleaded guilty to a very specific crime- ‘making’ images. When I said I would reserve judgment until sentencing, people accused me of being a paedo defender. If the judge gives him a harsh sentence explaining that he clearly wanted and enjoyed the images, then I will judge him harshly.

In addition, the way people have jumped on this thread, it has totally derailed the actual OP which was about the erasing of the artistic work of people who were subsequently found to have committed crimes.

Would people delete Polanski’s ‘The Pianist’ or ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, or want Elvis Presley tracks unavailable due to his first wife being 14 when they met?

You are seriously deluded.

What so you can still watch paedos? Well done 🙄

So incredibly naive. Asking for them not to be sent is very likely code, or at the least arse covering. If he didn't want them to be sent he would have blocked and gone to the police. He has absolutely no excuse.

No problem.

oh good thanks

It is getting edited out, they only removed it to do the edit.