Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

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:
Sethera · 03/08/2024 06:58

I don't agree in principle with rewriting history. This isn't about Huw Edwards specifically, it's a question of 'where does it end?'. Who decides who is problematic and must be erased? This is not '1984' - we shouldn't go down the 'unperson' route. One reason why I still buy DVDs is to avoid this.

Sethera · 03/08/2024 06:58

Ineverlose · 03/08/2024 06:58

It's a terrible move. People will have even less trust in media now that things are being systematically removed. It’s literally Winston’s job in 1984. Dystopian, depressing etc etc

x-post with you - agree 100%

perfectstorm · 03/08/2024 07:01

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 05:29

He isn't a paedophile. It is OTT.

He had plural Category A images of a child under 9 on his phone, sent to him by a convicted paedophile.

Cat A is the worst category. It means horrific suffering for the child involved.

What exactly do you think the definition of "paedophile" is?

mindutopia · 03/08/2024 07:06

Yes, I do think it’s a bit of overkill. I have two convicted paedophiles in my family. Do I have anything to do with them now? No, absolutely not. We are NC, We don’t ever go anywhere they are also invited (means we miss out on a lot of big family events, because they will be invited now and we won’t).

But do I still have them hanging in the wall in my wedding photos? Yes. I mean, it’s a lovely group photo of all of our guests and a memory of a happy day. I had no idea at the time. I mean I guess I could have them edited out, but it’s an actual printed photo. No idea of I even have a digital version.

I enjoy the photo because of what it is. A memory of a great day. My stance on them is evident in my actions. We are NC. We have been outspoken in not keeping it a secret while others tried to sweep it under the rug. We’ve made sure any family with children also know and can make that decision for themselves (none of them seem to care about their contact with their children, but anyway). I’m not worked up about a picture, the proof is in my actions.

I think removing all the content is a bit of silly PR overkill. The proof really should be in exposing him for what he is and making sure he doesn’t get an easy ride simply because of his celebrity status.

Edenspirits73 · 03/08/2024 07:09

Ultimately he lost the right to a public profile when he downloaded those images - I suspect more about his behaviour will now surface.

Why should he make any more money in royalties? He lost that right too- he might go to prison FFS

OMGsamesame · 03/08/2024 07:11

MrHarleyQuin · 03/08/2024 06:55

He didn't just view a few photos or have problrmatic views (thought that in itself is bad enough) he paid a child for years to send explicit photos of themselves to him.

Really? He hasn't been charged with or pleaded guilty to the latter though, has he? So how are you so sure?

MillyMollyMandHey · 03/08/2024 07:14

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 05:29

He isn't a paedophile. It is OTT.

What?!

Rummly · 03/08/2024 07:15

Ponoka7 · 03/08/2024 06:56

He won't continue to make money from it being shown, like he would that episode. Which is why it has been removed.
He'll be asked to sign away royalty rights, just as Gary Glitter did and the decisions around Saville made sure that the charities wasn't punished. Saville is still in the-way-to-Amarillo (Comic relief) video, for that reason. There are loose ends to sort out.

Ah, what a good explanation. Thank you.

IIRC there’s a statue on Broadcasting House by Eric Gill, now known to have been a paedophile. The BBC doesn’t have much luck in that department!

DancingPhantomsOnTheTerrace · 03/08/2024 07:18

lunar1 · 03/08/2024 04:38

He's not problematic though, he's an actual paedophile. If you or your children were his victims would you want to see him ok the tv?

Just for the sake of pedantry, he isn't actually visible in this episode. It's just his voice as a voiceover on the Olympics which are what is seen on the tv. If he had a less distinctive voice I imagine it wouldn't have come up.

I guess that makes it pretty easy for the bbc to just get someone else to say the lines and add those in instead.

Jennybeans401 · 03/08/2024 07:35

YABU
He's a paedophile.

Charlize43 · 03/08/2024 07:36

The government need to show some leadership and abolish the BBC TV Licence immediately.

It makes me sick to think that my hard earned money is being used to fund the abuse & rape of women (SCD & RB) and the abuse of children (HE, JS, & RH, etc).

Greybeardy · 03/08/2024 07:37

It's funny how a suit and tie makes being a paedophile seem more acceptable. Jim'll and Rolf have been effectively removed from our screens, but they were always a bit 'different' so maybe that's more understandable!
(yes, Huw Edwards should never been seen (or make money from being seen) on our screens again)

Ponkpinkpink15 · 03/08/2024 07:40

Topseyt123 · 03/08/2024 04:39

I think it is something they have to do. They cannot be seen to condone paediphilia in any form.

Doctor Who is family viewing and also seen by a lot of children. Of all ages.

@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?

Lilysgoneshopping · 03/08/2024 07:41

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

Geran4 · 03/08/2024 07:42

OMGsamesame · 03/08/2024 07:11

Really? He hasn't been charged with or pleaded guilty to the latter though, has he? So how are you so sure?

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

Flowers4me · 03/08/2024 07:42

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.

GoodVibesHere · 03/08/2024 07:45

mindutopia · 03/08/2024 07:06

Yes, I do think it’s a bit of overkill. I have two convicted paedophiles in my family. Do I have anything to do with them now? No, absolutely not. We are NC, We don’t ever go anywhere they are also invited (means we miss out on a lot of big family events, because they will be invited now and we won’t).

But do I still have them hanging in the wall in my wedding photos? Yes. I mean, it’s a lovely group photo of all of our guests and a memory of a happy day. I had no idea at the time. I mean I guess I could have them edited out, but it’s an actual printed photo. No idea of I even have a digital version.

I enjoy the photo because of what it is. A memory of a great day. My stance on them is evident in my actions. We are NC. We have been outspoken in not keeping it a secret while others tried to sweep it under the rug. We’ve made sure any family with children also know and can make that decision for themselves (none of them seem to care about their contact with their children, but anyway). I’m not worked up about a picture, the proof is in my actions.

I think removing all the content is a bit of silly PR overkill. The proof really should be in exposing him for what he is and making sure he doesn’t get an easy ride simply because of his celebrity status.

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.

dayswithaY · 03/08/2024 07:45

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.

Ponkpinkpink15 · 03/08/2024 07:47

Edenspirits73 · 03/08/2024 07:09

Ultimately he lost the right to a public profile when he downloaded those images - I suspect more about his behaviour will now surface.

Why should he make any more money in royalties? He lost that right too- he might go to prison FFS

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??

BluePeterNot · 03/08/2024 07:48

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.

CJFJ1 · 03/08/2024 07:48

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.

oakleaffy · 03/08/2024 07:48

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.

Edenspirits73 · 03/08/2024 07:48

Ponkpinkpink15 · 03/08/2024 07:47

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??

He’s literally pleaded guilty!

DancingPhantomsOnTheTerrace · 03/08/2024 07:49

CJFJ1 · 03/08/2024 07:48

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.

That's what they are doing I believe

Heliotropolis · 03/08/2024 07:49

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread