To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

Wake up!

HE CLAIMS He asked for NO illegal/underage photos.

what he was sent it out of his control.
What would YOU expect from a convicted paedophile? Holiday snaps?

nearly 40 were illegal, which he'd asked them NOT to send.
Again, CLAIMED, but also HAPPILY KEPT.

what have I missed…?
The blindingly obvious.

Claims like this are ALWAYS made to mitigate the seriousness of what has been done. Pleading guilty is also done for mitigation. (caught red-handed of course)

For many years the BBC have been extremely remiss in their behaviour as regards their perverts. Again and again and again it happens.

His voice can easily be removed and replaced, and it's a kid show. So it's a no-brainier they should do it.

As for people not thinking he is a paedophile, words fail me.

He has been charged with ‘making indecent images of children’ !!!!!!
He spent tens of thousands of pounds on sexually explicit images and videos from a teenage boy.
He arranged to meet the boy.
Open your eyes!!

He has the worst kind of pictures of 9 years ? Wtf do you think a grown man would have pics like that? Seriously, do people like you really exist in real life? You wouldn't say that to my face ! I have children around age. It makes me sick and men like him

Ah ok...... so why didn't he go straight to the police when he had child abuse on his phone sent to him ? And why was he talking to a convicted paedo anyway ? Wake up.

I suppose what my earlier post misses in the janitor analogy, is that for some people, being in the public eye as a broadcaster is itself a form of honour; people who do such jobs are being accorded a sort of respect as a person by being elevated in that way, in a way that more "normal" jobs are not. I don't see it that way because I think it is obvious that public figures - broadcasters, politicians, etc - are just as likely to be greatly or small-ly scuzzy as anyone else.

No, it’s not OTT. They were probably anticipating the loads of complaints that they’d get if they left it in. Maybe they thought it would be upsetting for some viewers to hear his voice as well. It may only be removed temporarily anyway.

Problematic or disgusting views arnt the same as child abuse videos though are they. And still people are minimising this.

If I accidentally received photos or videos showing a child being abused, obviously I would go immediately to the police. Those children need to be found and cared for and the perpetrators caught and stopped. If he didn't do that he is the lowest of the low, even if he did receive them 'unsolicited'.

You see I don't understand your thinking, any normal person receiving images of a child being sexually advised would report the sender to the police. By viewing and not reporting you are supporting child sexual abuse. He's not paying a high price at all. The child who was abused is paying a high price.

I actually think it's very important that music, literature and art produced by bad people continues to remain in the normal public domain and that kids see it.

My mum has a kids' book by Rolf Harris, which is a guide to drawing cartoons. My daughter's used it for learning how to draw cartoons.

At some point, I informed her about what Rolf Harris had done and why you don't often see stuff by him around these days. She was pretty shocked.

I asked her if she was surprised by the information I'd given her. Of course she said she was. I asked her why. She said that it was a shock, because the book was such a nice book - friendly, conversational and funny.

Yep, I said to her. And there's a lesson in that for you and for every kid. People who abuse children aren't pantomime villains or horror-movie bogiemen who go around cackling evilly and all that kind of thing. They are people who come across as quite normal, and are often delightful when interacting with kids. They have learned to be delightful, because that's their way of getting to kids in order to abuse them.

I think it's actually incredibly important to learn that inspiring poetry, beautiful art, addictive films and thrilling books are often produced by really bad people. It's a way of helping children to be skeptical of the people behind content they consume. It's incredibly dangerous to believe that "This book/art/film is wonderful and moving, so the person who created must be a good person who has humanity's best interests at heart, right?" Yet when we remove content created by bad people from the public realm, that's the lesson we are effectively teaching to kids.

He didn’t accidentally received 40+ images of child sex abuse on his phone by a known paedophile.

Paedophiles do not send such images and footage randomly to members of the public.

Edwards had a KC defence lawyer and chose to/was advised to plead guilty - made no attempt to clear his name - knowing it would have a devastating impact on his career and family. This would suggest that the evidence against him was irrefutable.

No one keeps 40 images of CAT A child abuse and is NOT a paedophile. If that were the case having such images would not carry a long custodial sentence.

Most normal people would be utterly sickened receiving even one image of this nature, possibly severely traumatised by the experience, they would immediately report the incident to the police and block the sender.

You are a sympathiser clearly and a very misguided one.

I think it is hard to decide where to draw the line and I agree that we shouldn't have public stuff that was intended to honour him as a person. But on the other hand I think it is weird for all the work that he ever did to disapear - which happens to be public because he had a public job - because that implies that as a society we can make all sex offenders / sex offences not exist, which is not true.
If he was a school janitor, you would not want him to be given some huge retirement present and a big affectionate speech. But you wouldn't throw away all the bins he bought and all the maintenance he had done, would you? It's horrible to think that your kids are in physical contact with things he had made / done, so you might emotionally want to. But the fact is, your kids are not at risk from using a tap that he fitted. And a more complex fact is that sex offenders exist and I think we are at risk of some form of wishful delusion if we think that by picking a few high profile ones, and demanding that all traces of them be formally removed, we have sort of achieved some form of purification of society.

YABU children watch Dr Who so this news makes that collaboration distasteful.

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.

Me too Marbles - hope you can find some space away from this. This is a very troubling thread:-(

This.

It may be a minority but I'm absolutely disgusted by the replies of a few posters.

Apologists for child abuse.

That's my first thought too

Ok what has this got to do with HE?

Jimmy Saville is still on Peter Kays comic relief amarillo song video. But you never see anything made by the BBC, including gary glitter and Rolf Harris. Imagine Chris Langham has not been dubbed off 'The thick of it' - BBC got flack for uploading this to player. Stuart Hill & 'its a knockout' is never seen.

tbh I think the BBC is gaining form for this and is trying to show it is doing the right thing - just too late.

I think that sort of archive footage will need to be retained and used when appropriate. It's historical information not an entertainment show. Whereas the Dr Who episode loses nothing whatever of value by being redubbed. Losing an odd episode of a cookery show harms no one (except maybe other participants but they might well prefer it to be deleted anyway - I would).

There are some topics which can be debated, politics etc, but paedophilia is not one of them. What's there to debate about? Whether its OK for adults to download pictures of young children, forced to take part in sex for entertainment? If you think there's a debate to be had on the wrongs and rights of this, let's hear you.

But we were told for years that the State Pension is NOT a benefit. Now the government wants to swipe the Winter Fuel Allowance component it's suddenly a benefit.
Labour government speak with forked tongue alright.
Well, we can all pile into the hospitals when we all go down with bronchitis - and pray we don't have another round of Covid.

It's not "hysterical"