Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
Original poster
BeachParty · 04/08/2024 09:37

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 10:04

@MNHQ shut this down!

The OP was supposed to have been a discussion on whether we should be editing and erasing people from programmes etc.

OP posts:
Sethera · 04/08/2024 09:40

BeachParty · 04/08/2024 09:37

The OP was supposed to have been a discussion on whether we should be editing and erasing people from programmes etc.

Show quote history

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.

justbeingasmartarse · 04/08/2024 09:51

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.

ChishiyaBat · 04/08/2024 10:52

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.

SerafinasGoose · 04/08/2024 11:35

BeachParty · 04/08/2024 09:23

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.

He's not T S Eliot.

His contribution to the canon will not be missed.

noworklifebalance · 04/08/2024 15:02

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.

FrancisSeaton · 04/08/2024 15:55

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

Rosscameasdoody · 04/08/2024 16:28

Willyoujustbequiet · 03/08/2024 11:52

No he just stored them on his phone for shits n giggles and continued to happily chat to the bloke that sent them to him.

He is absolutely a danger to children.

Show quote history

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.

cathyandclaire · 04/08/2024 16:45

@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.

YankSplaining · 04/08/2024 16:57

achipandachair · 03/08/2024 09:07

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.

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.

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 04/08/2024 17:31

Newbutoldfather · 04/08/2024 08:34

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?

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.

greengreyblue · 06/08/2024 12:17

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

New posts on this thread. Refresh page