Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

287 replies

BeachParty · 03/08/2024 03:08

Don't get me wrong, what he did was heinous.
I don't care how or why you got pics on your phone. 🤢😡. 😥

https://deadline.com/2024/08/doctor-who-episode-huw-edwards-removed-bbc-iplayer-1236029881/

Deleting all reference from someone from fictional shows though seems a bit 😕
It's a character, it's not the real life person.
If we started deleting everyone with problematic/disgusting views, would we be left with any art at all?!

'Doctor Who' episode 'Fear Her' removed from iPlayer after featuring Huw Edwards

‘Doctor Who’ Episode Featuring Disgraced Presenter Huw Edwards Removed From BBC iPlayer To Be Redubbed

The BBC has removed from iPlayer a David Tennant episode of 'Doctor Who' that features Huw Edwards, the disgraced news anchor.

https://deadline.com/2024/08/doctor-who-episode-huw-edwards-removed-bbc-iplayer-1236029881

OP posts:
Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:06

LlynTegid · 03/08/2024 10:03

Unfortunately given no charges at that point, the law currently would be on his side about being paid his salary during that time.

Hence my suggestion of clawback clauses.

And again! No that is not the law! You can let someone go before a charge under the right circumstances, which these arguably were.

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:06

@BigFatLiar
Huw Edwards had an experienced KC defending him and they didn't even try the 'unsolicited and deleted quickly' defence. Why? Because he didn't delete quickly? Because they weren't unsolicited? Because they didn't want a court case to expose lots of other, even more sordid, details?

As to your friend, I'd be very suspicious of their story too. The police randomly investigated them, the CPS found enough evidence to prosecute and the court found them guilty.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:06

The most revolting thread I have seen in a long time....

LuluBlakey1 · 03/08/2024 10:05

I liked Huw Edwards as a presenter and am shocked by what he has done and the character that has emerged to be the real him.
However, we should all think about how we post about this. Yes it is horrible and completely unacceptable.
But do not think for one second he is the only well known man who behaves like this. Some have already been exposed- for varying seriousness of offences and behaviours- Philip Scofield, Jimmy Saville, Prince Andrew. There will be many others, some who colleagues/the public are already aware of (Donald Trump, Prince Andrew), many who they aren't. There are hundreds of thousands of men like Huw Edwards, and many worse. They work in the Houses of Parliament, our, hospitals, schools, GP practices, churches, social services, childrens' clubs, shops, local sports centres, swimming pools. They are on our tvs, we listen to their music, they are idolised as sportsmen. They are the joiner/builder/plumber who came to your house to do a job this week, your NDN, that nice man you chat to while you walk the dog, your child's friend's dad who picks them up and takes them all to football training. They are your brother, brother-in-law, your DP's best friend, your DP/DH/FIL, your dad and grandad.
They are not men in grubby overcoats luring children with sweets. Most are much more sophisticated, often protected by the layers of respectability in their lives, many are our idols.
It's very easy to mouth off about what the BBC should have done, how disgusting Huw Edwards is, how the licence fee should be got rid of etc. Infact, the licence fee is a form of regulation- it means the BBC can be held to account. GB News is dangerous and almost unregulated and produces lies and completely shit broadcasting- but it's free of course.
There are much more complex issues here about how we behave as a society- the regulation of the internet, the easy availability of porn and it's effect on our society and our behaviours, the quality of tv programming (the way males and females are allowed to behave and are presented, particularly in 'reality celeb' stuff), the whole cult of 'celebs', their behaviours and putting people on platforms.
We should not accept it from any man- why is Trump admired by anyone? He sexually assaulted women and admitted it. Why are Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still admired and making films? Why is Philip Scofield apparently planning a tv comeback? Why do people admire Kanye West? Chris Brown? Defend Russell Brand? Defend Kevin Spacey?
Our attitudes to fame and to the behaviours from men (that we are prepared to accept/tolerate) are complex and they shouldn't be. We don't question enough, we are not watchful enough, we don't call out unacceptable behaviours.
What Philip Scofield did was inappropriate but not illegal but people knew it was happening and did not act- because of the power of the celebrity. No one should have that power. The same was true of Huw Edwards- it looked inappropriate but not illegal and that was that until by chance the police picked up, through a different investigation, him conversing with a man they were investigating for pedophile images. Had his inappropriate behaviour been dealt with earlier at the BBC they would not be in the mess now when he has been prosecuted for worse. But let's be clear- they would not have stopped him, he would have continued with whatever he was doing privately.
How many of us know exactly what our DPDH/male family members look at on the internet? We don't. What is our tolerance of porn? Youporn, XXX Or whatever they are called- they are mainstream but have been associated with child abuse and sexual exploitation. Do we know/mind that our partners watch them? Perhaps we watch them ourselves.

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 10:04

@MNHQ shut this down!

LlynTegid · 03/08/2024 10:03

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 10:01

What wasn’t such a good call was to continue to use licence payers money to pay this paedophile his vast salary for five months after he had been arrested. They say they weren’t aware of the exact nature of the allegations, but they knew the category. That should have been enough.

Unfortunately given no charges at that point, the law currently would be on his side about being paid his salary during that time.

Hence my suggestion of clawback clauses.

lazyarse123 · 03/08/2024 10:03

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:56

No it’s not. I don’t know why people keep saying this. It is not as clear cut as that. If you can show it will damage the companies reputation by keeping them under employment, you can let them go. Is it a little risky, sure, but it’s not flat out illegal.

I stand corrected.i didn't know that.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 10:01

Royalshyness · 03/08/2024 04:32

I think this is a very good call from the BBC

What wasn’t such a good call was to continue to use licence payers money to pay this paedophile his vast salary for five months after he had been arrested. They say they weren’t aware of the exact nature of the allegations, but they knew the category. That should have been enough.

FrancisSeaton · 03/08/2024 10:00

@Asherrain it's already been quoted. Several times. Open your eyes and read

Asherrain · 03/08/2024 09:59

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

I’m in shock. Mumsnet , a predominantly female forum is bending over backwards to excuse this evil man.

Who is excusing him? Can you quote please?

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:57

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

I’m in shock. Mumsnet , a predominantly female forum is bending over backwards to excuse this evil man.

I wonder if they’d feel the same if it was their child in those pictures.

ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 09:57

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:52

I am reporting this thread

What for?

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 09:56

Viviennemary · 03/08/2024 09:25

It's really bad. And the BBC wheeling out folk to run him down makes me sick. Bunch of hypocrites. And it was HE who announced the Queen had died. Will they censor that as well. Good point.

The queen who cossetted and protected her second son from some very serious allegations concerning his own conduct in association with his (convicted trafficker) friends? That queen?

They're in good company, it seems to me.

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:56

lazyarse123 · 03/08/2024 09:52

As a victim of CSA I feel qualified to say that they couldn't sack him until he'd been convicted as that is the law here.
Now however I would be quite happy to see him put to sleep and not in a humane way.

No it’s not. I don’t know why people keep saying this. It is not as clear cut as that. If you can show it will damage the companies reputation by keeping them under employment, you can let them go. Is it a little risky, sure, but it’s not flat out illegal.

LlynTegid · 03/08/2024 09:55

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

I’m in shock. Mumsnet , a predominantly female forum is bending over backwards to excuse this evil man.

I agree.

I can understand that you never expected a longstanding presenter being so evil, and indeed for those who worked with him and his family, how awful they must feel. That does not excuse or minimise his crimes.

The BBC and indeed perhaps all of the public sector should have clauses in employment contracts in future that claws back salaries for those convicted of certain crimes, for the period of time they are paid but not working. Or at least the amount say above the minimum wage.

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 09:54

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:52

I am reporting this thread

It's a new low, and the bar during the past week has already been on the floor.

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 09:53

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:26

He has admitted it - what more evidence do you need exactly? Do you have 40 images of kids being raped on your phone? And decide to 'keep' them?

Most people are disgusted and sickened, the fact you are not, says a lot to be honest about you.

@Hummingbird75 - check on the user handle.

On a site attracting a mostly female demographic, yet another man shows up to share his oh-so-valuable view on how aberrant male conduct isn't really aberrant - it's just silly Mumsnetters overreacting. Women, of course, are just queueing up to hear male opinion.

Wish the lot of them would just fuck off.

lazyarse123 · 03/08/2024 09:52

OhshutupNancy · 03/08/2024 06:05

Is this the same BBC that carried on paying him a fortune after he had been arrested and they were aware of the charges?

As a victim of CSA I feel qualified to say that they couldn't sack him until he'd been convicted as that is the law here.
Now however I would be quite happy to see him put to sleep and not in a humane way.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:52

I am reporting this thread

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:50

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

I don't believe he is a paedophile.
A paedophile is defined as a noun for someone who is sexual attracted to children.
He explicitly stated he did not want any photos of anyone underage. He asked not to be sent any. He was sent one anyway, which immediately downloaded onto his phone, but he said it was wrong and he does not want that.
Yes he should have blocked all contact, yes he should have reported to the police. He didn't and he is now paying a very severe price for that. However, there is nothing to suggest he has any sexual feelings towards children and therefore nothing that defines him as a paedophile.

Nothing to suggest he had sexual feeling towards children, except all the pictures of child abuse on his phone of course. 🙄

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

I’m in shock. Mumsnet , a predominantly female forum is bending over backwards to excuse this evil man.

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 09:47

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

I don't believe he is a paedophile.
A paedophile is defined as a noun for someone who is sexual attracted to children.
He explicitly stated he did not want any photos of anyone underage. He asked not to be sent any. He was sent one anyway, which immediately downloaded onto his phone, but he said it was wrong and he does not want that.
Yes he should have blocked all contact, yes he should have reported to the police. He didn't and he is now paying a very severe price for that. However, there is nothing to suggest he has any sexual feelings towards children and therefore nothing that defines him as a paedophile.

Oh, yes. Nothing but category A MP4 images of children, the youngest of who was seven. SEVEN.

For sure, he's 'not a paedophile'. Some people will excuse these fuckers even with this serious a smoking gun. I'm very glad his wife did not turn out to be one of them.

Society needs curing of this malaise: the belief that any male sexual predilection can be acted upon and the males will be excused at everyone else's, and especially the victims', expense.

And this, above, is the reason so many victims are afraid to report or even speak about it, and how the cycle is perpetuated with impunity. No wonder his conduct grew emboldened. These men really are pretty much untouchable. Now just one got his comeuppance - guaranteed there'll be others lurking in the shadows - and even on a parenting support site there are people lining up to inform members how hard-done-by he is, and how it really isn't as bad as it looks.

It's worse.

Your post is simply inexcusable.

ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 09:47

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:43

This. ‘Problematic views’ is sickeningly minimising language.

Nonce sympathisers love to minimise what actually happened, water down the language, play down what happens to those poor kids in those images/videos that they share around. It is vile!
What about the term "minor attracted person" that makes me sick, every time I hear that term it makes me angry!

FrancisSeaton · 03/08/2024 09:47

@TheUnknownsMum

Do you not think you can access 'legal' gay porn on the internet? And as it happens the rape and abuse of children regardless of whether they are 7 or 16 is ILLEGAL so wtf do you mean 'well he asked for nothing illegal' ? All of this stuff being sent by this nonce was illegal and he knew this yet engaged over a period of time!

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:43

ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 09:36

I say it every thread that has nonces discussed, but the amount of paedophile apologjsts on this site never fail to shock me!
They are only editing his voice out of the episode not scrubbing him from history they are also removing a plaque celebrating him off Cardiff castle.

This. ‘Problematic views’ is sickeningly minimising language.