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?!

@dayswithaY

it is NOT being a child abuse apologist to think it's overkill to remove an episode of a long standing tv program because someone did a background voice on it!

@Heliotropolis

that's like comparing apples & bananas (not even oranges)

I genuinely didn’t know this until I read this post then I went and did further reading to clarify it was true.

I think what has muddied the waters is that the reason why Edwards had to step down was because of grooming the young man/teenager whose parents made it public.

I had completely missed that his charges/his trial were for indecent images including those of younger children and was not connected to the grooming case above.

I did think this was OTT when I thought the issue was a man abusing his power to groom someone vulnerable. Which is still of course very horrible and thought it right that he lost his job etc. It is just a different league to actually being a peadophile which it has now been proved that he is.

''Please don't send me illegal images!''

A cover for himself.

Anyone keeping/viewing images including a two videos of a child between the ages of Seven and Nine that showed the worst category of abuse is a paedophile.

@Edenspirits73

he pleaded guilty to receiving images (he'd asked to NOT be sent). Not to asking illegal images to be sent.

Hmmm they aren’t deleting all reference of him.

But his exclusion from a show that is famously watched by kids, is the right move.

We also don’t know who he has been involved with and this sort of thing could be very triggering.

It’s different to if there was a tv show about HW, then people have the choice to watch or not. But for him to pop up on screen could upset many with CSA

In terms of the announcement of the late Queen's passing, if I recall correctly, Clive Myrie took over the BBC News coverage from around 8pm that day, which includes him announcing the news of the Queen's death at the top of the hour, so the BBC could easily substitute using that clip instead of Huw Edwards' announcement in the future.

Completely misses the point. Someone from the BBC is disgraced. The BBC then erase all evidence of him from their history. Can you not see why that is problematic, and why if we accept it for Huw Edwards, it takes us down a very dangerous path?

Firstly, it opens the door for organisations to pretend their mistakes never happened.

Secondly, while most of us would agree that H.E. is a criminal who does not deserve airtime, it isn't always as clear cut with regard to people being made 'unpersons' for 'wrongthink'. I'm not going go give examples as I don't want to derail the thread with unrelated moral debates, but you don't have to look far for people who strongly divide opinion. Once you accept it's OK to erase people, the door is open for it to happen to anyone.

(Incidentally, I haven't watched an episode of Doctor Who since 1979, I am defending a principle, not a sci-fi series).

Yes SSpratt I was surprised to discover all the episodes in which CL appears are available on iPlayer

What would you do if someone sent you those images unbidden? I think the response of anyone normal would be to call the police immediately, something that HE singularly failed to do.

There's another thread on this. There is no 'not guilty' for him, the very act of receiving the message/email etc is the offence. Even if the message is unsolicited and you don't view it, receiving it is an offence.

If your friend sends you a picture of her kids having fun in the bath you could also be convicted. If you have pictures of your children could also be dodgy, depends on the police's view at the time.

Your children sending pics to each other could be am issue. Some boy sends your daughter a dick pic, she's commited an offence simply by receiving it.

It's a bit of a minefield.

What about choice? The choice to see something as it was originally.

Wagner’s music is still played and there is an annual festival to his ring cycle.

Paedophile on a kids show isn't a good look. Scrub him out.

Why are you defending a paedophile?

People make up cover stories all the time to help protect themselves if they were to be caught down the line.

''Don't send me any underage children'' could even be a code for ''this is what I want''

It's meaningless as a defence.
If he was appalled by what he'd been sent , he should have reported it.

He was sent the images by a known paedophile.

How did the known criminal get Edward's private email?

The person who sent him the images received a 12 month suspended sentence.*

It would be strange if Edwards were to be sent to prison when this guy wasn't.

*which I find surprising

A conundrum: pensioners will get the Winter Fuel Allowance wiped out but there seems to be doubt about whether or not Huw Edwards will be asked to repay the salary he received, somewhere upwards of £400,000.
Hmmmmmm...

Dr who is not a historical documentary being censored, for gods sake.

If only there was a mechanism on smartphones to block unwanted communication.
Oh.....hang on

Yes, why didn't he report and block the paedophile sending him the underage images?

I don't see the correlation. The recovery of H.E.'s salary will depend on his contract, whether there's any kind of claw back clause in case of him 'bringing the BBC into disrepute' or similar. If there's no such contractual provision, it can't be taken back unless he gives it back of his own free will.

The government can stop a benefit at any time as long as they have the parliamentary mandate to do so, which they did for Winter Fuel Allowance.

It makes no difference. Media output forms part of our history, whether fictional or factual.

And I think that he did it in a very offhand way. Not professional at all.

So if you were sent a picture of a young child being sexually abused you wouldn't report the sender to the police immediately? You are happy for children to be securely abused?

Edwards pleaded 'Guilty'.

I found a bag of ''Class A'' drugs on the street a few years ago.

I initially thought someone had dropped a bag of crystals {Minerals} as it was in that type of soft material bag.
Upon opening, It was obvious it wasn't crystals.

Had Police arrested me there and then, I could have been in trouble for 'possession with intent'
However I handed them in to police who were about that day due to football so there were actually police about.

Normal , non paedophiles don't get sent indecent pictures of children being abused in the worst ways, like the ones Edwards had- including two of the worst categories of video.

I can see why its being done. The problem is that consistency is always going to be a problem. Wasn't there also an actor in Rab C Nesbitt who was convicted? I don't know what the answer is really. There is also the issue of DVD's and downloads, its going to be impossible to wipe the web.