To think this is overkill (Huw Edwards)

[BeachParty]

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?!

Indeed.

He pled guilty so all the sordid details wouldn't see the light of day.

all they could find

I'm sorry what???

What is wrong with you

Fucking hell

The bbc have said they are going to try to claw back payments made to him since his arrest and to do what they can about his pension too but obviously they can only act within the law and their employment conditions. Perhaps this is part of an attempt to ensure the bbc don’t pay him another penny?
I do think people convicted of certain crimes should be no longer profiting from their work but there are also others like Michael Jackson and OJ who continue to profit because there has been limited success in prosecutions/ civil cases instead of criminal / settlements without prejudice who should be stopped but won’t be because enough fans still believe their innocence.
One of the worst of these for many years was R Kelly although he was finally imprisoned after evading justice for a long time.

@EatingTillIDie

Given they will have gone through all his history, that's telling to me, if this is all they could find.

"All they could find"?

Multiple images, at least some moving, of children aged between 7 and 9 being raped?

That's "all they could find".

What's that "telling" you? Be specific please. I'm interested in what that's "telling" you.

genuine question-ant it just be eddited out theyve done it pr4eviously wit harris in a scene on goodnigt sweetheart

@Newbutoldfather reserve judgement until sentencing?! He's admitted possessing the worst images.

Either you have zero understanding of the basics of the judicial system or your moral compass needs a complete reset.

Your user name suggests you're a new father - perhaps to a baby. The images Edwards had in his possession were of the worst kind, and of children as young as 7. Think on that.

I’m shocked by some of the comments here.

I have chosen not to respond to people who have argued with me as I just do not want to interact with anyone who thinks Edwards’ behaviour is ok.

Frightening.

Bevause he admitted it (evsntually) and it was widely reported.

Exactly.

The government need to pull the plug on the BBC and abolish the BBC TV Licence immediately. NOW!

Everyone will be £169.50 better off and will we no longer be funding the abuse of women (Strictly) & children.

Man at centre of Huw Edwards case says he felt ‘groomed’ by presenter

Person who admitted sending BBC presenter explicit messages and videos when teenager felt taken ‘advantage of’

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

oh good thanks

No problem.

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.

What so you can still watch paedos? Well done 🙄

You are seriously deluded.

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?

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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

Yes, this is what my OP was about.

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

I think that's how I feel - I feel uncomfortable when books get edited too.
They're part of history, and should reflect that.
Instead of just erasing and pretending "nothing to see here."