To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

What about choice? The choice to see something as it was originally.

Wagner’s music is still played and there is an annual festival to his ring cycle.

There's another thread on this. There is no 'not guilty' for him, the very act of receiving the message/email etc is the offence. Even if the message is unsolicited and you don't view it, receiving it is an offence.

If your friend sends you a picture of her kids having fun in the bath you could also be convicted. If you have pictures of your children could also be dodgy, depends on the police's view at the time.

Your children sending pics to each other could be am issue. Some boy sends your daughter a dick pic, she's commited an offence simply by receiving it.

It's a bit of a minefield.

What would you do if someone sent you those images unbidden? I think the response of anyone normal would be to call the police immediately, something that HE singularly failed to do.

Yes SSpratt I was surprised to discover all the episodes in which CL appears are available on iPlayer

Completely misses the point. Someone from the BBC is disgraced. The BBC then erase all evidence of him from their history. Can you not see why that is problematic, and why if we accept it for Huw Edwards, it takes us down a very dangerous path?

Firstly, it opens the door for organisations to pretend their mistakes never happened.

Secondly, while most of us would agree that H.E. is a criminal who does not deserve airtime, it isn't always as clear cut with regard to people being made 'unpersons' for 'wrongthink'. I'm not going go give examples as I don't want to derail the thread with unrelated moral debates, but you don't have to look far for people who strongly divide opinion. Once you accept it's OK to erase people, the door is open for it to happen to anyone.

(Incidentally, I haven't watched an episode of Doctor Who since 1979, I am defending a principle, not a sci-fi series).

In terms of the announcement of the late Queen's passing, if I recall correctly, Clive Myrie took over the BBC News coverage from around 8pm that day, which includes him announcing the news of the Queen's death at the top of the hour, so the BBC could easily substitute using that clip instead of Huw Edwards' announcement in the future.

Hmmm they aren’t deleting all reference of him.

But his exclusion from a show that is famously watched by kids, is the right move.

We also don’t know who he has been involved with and this sort of thing could be very triggering.

It’s different to if there was a tv show about HW, then people have the choice to watch or not. But for him to pop up on screen could upset many with CSA

@Edenspirits73

he pleaded guilty to receiving images (he'd asked to NOT be sent). Not to asking illegal images to be sent.

''Please don't send me illegal images!''

A cover for himself.

Anyone keeping/viewing images including a two videos of a child between the ages of Seven and Nine that showed the worst category of abuse is a paedophile.

I genuinely didn’t know this until I read this post then I went and did further reading to clarify it was true.

I think what has muddied the waters is that the reason why Edwards had to step down was because of grooming the young man/teenager whose parents made it public.

I had completely missed that his charges/his trial were for indecent images including those of younger children and was not connected to the grooming case above.

I did think this was OTT when I thought the issue was a man abusing his power to groom someone vulnerable. Which is still of course very horrible and thought it right that he lost his job etc. It is just a different league to actually being a peadophile which it has now been proved that he is.

@Heliotropolis

that's like comparing apples & bananas (not even oranges)

@dayswithaY

it is NOT being a child abuse apologist to think it's overkill to remove an episode of a long standing tv program because someone did a background voice on it!

How would you feel if they put Jim’ll Fix It on iPlayer for us all to enjoy?

All they’ve done is remove the episode temporarily, they’ll edit out the bit in question (it’s a cameo, not crucial to the plot), and put it back on. They’re not deleting the episode and throwing the film on a bonfire.

That's what they are doing I believe

He’s literally pleaded guilty!

So many apologists for this paedophile online.
He may not have actually physically touched SA'd a child directly, but by paying for indecent images of underaged children, he has harmed them.

The videos {Two} of a ''child between seven and nine'' that show the ''worst'' category of abuse is not a victimless crime.

Children suffer for these repugnant images to be created for the consumption by paedophiles.

The only thing I want to see with Huw Edwards in, is a news report saying he has had the living shit kicked out of him in prison! Most likely he will get protection though due to his status.

Also, the 2006 episode of Doctor Who concerned could have been easily edited rather than deleted from iPlayer altogether: Edwards doesn't appear in person; he's just a voiceover on pseudo news coverage in the episode. They could have got someone else to voice-record the lines he says.

I don't get this?

He asked for NO illegal/underage photos. He opened what he was sent, what he was sent it out of his control.

the vast majority (nearly 400) were legal (so could NOT have been children) nearly 40 were illegal, which he'd asked them NOT to send.

what have I missed that makes him a peadophile??

Where have all these child abuse apologists appeared from? One long forgotten episode of Doctor Who is deleted for sensitivity reasons and people think it’s overkill?

There’s loads of other episodes still available if you’re that bothered.

I don't know how you can bear having a photo of two paedophiles on your wall, I couldn't have that on my wall and have to see that everytime I walk up/downstairs.

Huw Edwards should be wiped out as much as possible, so that we don't have to see that vile man's face.

Being a victim of grooming/exploitation can leave massive issues for the victims to deal with so he should be removed. It wouldn't be fair for them to see or hear him on the TV.

I may be wrong but I thought this had been investigated and that the police had found that no criminal activity had taken place?

When is a disgusting paedophile not a disgusting paedophile......
When mumsnet says so.....apparently

@Topseyt123

well, so what? The children are watching an old episode of a TV show, how in gods name is that going to hurt them?