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?!

I can see the point of 'recasting' any recent and unfinished children's/school/educational material but I don't think they should dub over the rest. Where does it end? He was a broadcaster for decades - are they going to dub over everything? He covered a range of topics including crimes against children - we shouldn't pretend those things never happened because of what he did in other circumstances.

Now that is OTT.

What has the licence fee got to do with an employee issue? In the same way we pay taxes that fund the salaries of NHS, the Police, school teachers, for example, in trusted and safeguarding positions, who are convicted of similar crimes, actually much, much worse crimes than HE.

What is the point of erasing his work?

Would you want ‘The Pianist’ to be permanently erased too?

We can argue about whether he is a paedophile or not, but the main thrust is, whatever the crime, do you erase art because of the nature of the creator, or does that just add another facet through which the work is viewed?

This modern trend is a bit like ‘The Bonfire of the Vanities’. Where does it stop? Do we dburn down the Vatican due to their laxity on priestly paedophilia?

This!

Also I wouldn't be affiliated with other paedophiles who were comfortable enough to have access and share photos as such unless I was also in the same boat.

Of course he knew what he was doing, and I am sure there is a lot more that we don't know.

Removing these vile pieces of shit from general public view isn't rewriting history. It's all out there for people to see what they did, online, books, magazines, news reports.

Nobody is getting rid of all traces of evidence that they existed, they are taking them out of places of privilege.

I don't want to see statues or plaques for sex offenders.
I don't want to flick through the tv channels and hear Huw in the background of a tv show.
I don't want Rolf popping up bending his stupid board or Jim puffing away on a cigar with his creepy fucking noncey face.
They don't deserve to grace TV screens. It is privileged lifestyle to be a celeb in the limelight and to earn royalties from their work. They can fuck off.

I do want to be able to access footage of them being dragged through the courts and bundled in a truck to prison. I do want all of their actions being laid out in black and white so we all know what a dirty bastard they are/were. And that is all out there for anyone who chooses to learn about these types of people.

And to those saying he didn't ask for illegal images, he still had a good look and didn't report what he saw, and continued to ask for and receive very shady images.

@Hummingbird75
If you want to support paedophiles and listen to them, that says more about you, perhaps raise the bar? Your standards are gutter level.

Your responding with gratuitous insults says a lot about you. You don't think adults should decide for themselves? That way lies fascism.

So I don't reach for the off switch when The Stones early recordings come on the radio. And you think that's a low bar.

OK. But maybe reaching for the off switch would be hysterical over reaction.

After you got the first illegal photo any normal person would block and go to the police

It's an excuse for people who already have this agenda for quite other reasons. . You can't expect them to be consistent...

They aren't linked in any way

Could this to be with royalties? People are pissed off enough about him being paid while suspended, I doubt the BBC would like to admit paying him each time this is rerun.

Do you have any idea how terrifying it is to be a child and be sexually abused and raped by an adult? You seem to ignore the most awful suffering and pain to a small child - so why not focus on that rather than music taste my friend?

The BBC has allegedly been covering up for Paedophiles for a great many years it’s about time they took some kind of solid action. Get the filthy deviants off our screens with immediate effect. They are vermin and dangerous to all children, our children. For me there is no place for these perverts in our society. Jail is way too easy for them. Here’s hoping he is dealt some prisoner justice once he’s locked away.

It's not "hysterical"

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.

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.

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).

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.

Ok what has this got to do with HE?

That's my first thought too

This.

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

Apologists for child abuse.

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

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.

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

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.

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.