Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
noworklifebalance · 03/08/2024 09:08

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

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.

He didn’t accidentally received 40+ images of child sex abuse on his phone by a known paedophile.

Paedophiles do not send such images and footage randomly to members of the public.

Edwards had a KC defence lawyer and chose to/was advised to plead guilty - made no attempt to clear his name - knowing it would have a devastating impact on his career and family. This would suggest that the evidence against him was irrefutable.

GreenTeaLikesMe · 03/08/2024 09:09

I actually think it's very important that music, literature and art produced by bad people continues to remain in the normal public domain and that kids see it.

My mum has a kids' book by Rolf Harris, which is a guide to drawing cartoons. My daughter's used it for learning how to draw cartoons.

At some point, I informed her about what Rolf Harris had done and why you don't often see stuff by him around these days. She was pretty shocked.

I asked her if she was surprised by the information I'd given her. Of course she said she was. I asked her why. She said that it was a shock, because the book was such a nice book - friendly, conversational and funny.

Yep, I said to her. And there's a lesson in that for you and for every kid. People who abuse children aren't pantomime villains or horror-movie bogiemen who go around cackling evilly and all that kind of thing. They are people who come across as quite normal, and are often delightful when interacting with kids. They have learned to be delightful, because that's their way of getting to kids in order to abuse them.

I think it's actually incredibly important to learn that inspiring poetry, beautiful art, addictive films and thrilling books are often produced by really bad people. It's a way of helping children to be skeptical of the people behind content they consume. It's incredibly dangerous to believe that "This book/art/film is wonderful and moving, so the person who created must be a good person who has humanity's best interests at heart, right?" Yet when we remove content created by bad people from the public realm, that's the lesson we are effectively teaching to kids.

Happydays321 · 03/08/2024 09:09

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

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.

You see I don't understand your thinking, any normal person receiving images of a child being sexually advised would report the sender to the police. By viewing and not reporting you are supporting child sexual abuse. He's not paying a high price at all. The child who was abused is paying a high price.

DiscoBeat · 03/08/2024 09:10

If I accidentally received photos or videos showing a child being abused, obviously I would go immediately to the police. Those children need to be found and cared for and the perpetrators caught and stopped. If he didn't do that he is the lowest of the low, even if he did receive them 'unsolicited'.

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 03/08/2024 09:10

Problematic or disgusting views arnt the same as child abuse videos though are they. And still people are minimising this.

GraceUnderwire · 03/08/2024 09:11

No, it’s not OTT. They were probably anticipating the loads of complaints that they’d get if they left it in. Maybe they thought it would be upsetting for some viewers to hear his voice as well. It may only be removed temporarily anyway.

achipandachair · 03/08/2024 09:11

I suppose what my earlier post misses in the janitor analogy, is that for some people, being in the public eye as a broadcaster is itself a form of honour; people who do such jobs are being accorded a sort of respect as a person by being elevated in that way, in a way that more "normal" jobs are not. I don't see it that way because I think it is obvious that public figures - broadcasters, politicians, etc - are just as likely to be greatly or small-ly scuzzy as anyone else.

ineedtogwtoutbeforeitatoohot · 03/08/2024 09:13

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

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.

Ah ok...... so why didn't he go straight to the police when he had child abuse on his phone sent to him ? And why was he talking to a convicted paedo anyway ? Wake up.

ForKeenDeer · 03/08/2024 09:13

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 05:29

He isn't a paedophile. It is OTT.

He has the worst kind of pictures of 9 years ? Wtf do you think a grown man would have pics like that? Seriously, do people like you really exist in real life? You wouldn't say that to my face ! I have children around age. It makes me sick and men like him

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:14

He has been charged with ‘making indecent images of children’ !!!!!!
He spent tens of thousands of pounds on sexually explicit images and videos from a teenage boy.
He arranged to meet the boy.
Open your eyes!!

GreenPoppy · 03/08/2024 09:14

His voice can easily be removed and replaced, and it's a kid show. So it's a no-brainier they should do it.

As for people not thinking he is a paedophile, words fail me.

swimlyn · 03/08/2024 09:15

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??

Wake up!

HE CLAIMS He asked for NO illegal/underage photos.

what he was sent it out of his control.
What would YOU expect from a convicted paedophile? Holiday snaps?

nearly 40 were illegal, which he'd asked them NOT to send.
Again, CLAIMED, but also HAPPILY KEPT.

what have I missed…?
The blindingly obvious.

Claims like this are ALWAYS made to mitigate the seriousness of what has been done. Pleading guilty is also done for mitigation. (caught red-handed of course)

For many years the BBC have been extremely remiss in their behaviour as regards their perverts. Again and again and again it happens.

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:16

This has the same stink that paedo priests have. Some people just will not accept that someone held in high regard can be duplicitous.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:17

There are a lot of windups/weirdos on this thread.....of course he needs to be removed, he is now convicted.

Of course he is going to prison where the consequences of his actions await him.

Of course he is a paedophile.
He is going to rot in prison, thank god.

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:17

@Ponkpinkpink15 he was in contact with a child for years sending money in exchange for photos and videos.

Livelovebehappy · 03/08/2024 09:18

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

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.

There wasn’t just one picture. There were numerous ones. He clearly kept them, or the police wouldn’t have found them. Any normal person would have immediately deleted the pictures (although any ‘normal’ person wouldn’t have engaged with having any type of pornographic material sent to them in the first place), and reported them to the police. He chose to keep them. Why would that be, unless he had an interest in them?

ashitghost · 03/08/2024 09:18

fiddleleaffig · 03/08/2024 09:04

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.

Are you for real? Of course he was asking them not to be sent to him. It’s a nonce practice, which they think will exonerate them if anything should come to light.

He said “no don’t send me those pictures” to get that in writing and yet then kept all those 40 images of the very worst sexual abuse of children as young as nine. He kept them for months and never went to the police.

Anyone who thinks he isn’t attracted to children is so naive it’s worrying. These cunts are cunning.

dottiedodah · 03/08/2024 09:20

Lisa Nandy apparently is having Crisis talks with the beeb, about Huw Edwards pocketing 479,000 in payments since he was suspended WTF! The BBC seem to think they can do whatever they want. Hopefully Lisa will give them a thorough grilling!

Asherrain · 03/08/2024 09:21

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:14

He has been charged with ‘making indecent images of children’ !!!!!!
He spent tens of thousands of pounds on sexually explicit images and videos from a teenage boy.
He arranged to meet the boy.
Open your eyes!!

Do you know for sure that he spent money on videos from an underage boy? The police investigated that and no charges were brought. It's illegal to receive explicit content from a person under the age of 18. So if he received videos of a teenage boy under the age of 18 and the police were alerted (which we know they were) he would have been arrested and charged, but they said no criminal offence had taken place.
The indecent images are another issue but don't make up other offences that aren't real.

GTTIA1107 · 03/08/2024 09:22

It can be illegal today and legal tmrw due to a birthday but the young persons body doesn't change at midnight.
He enjoyed looking at pictures of younger people, much much younger than himself and he kept them, he didn't delete them nor report them.

He's a peodophile and he should be erased so he can't make money and he should go to jail.
If it were your child in those photos you'd not think the reaction was OTT

Newbutoldfather · 03/08/2024 09:22

I will reserve judgment until the sentencing.

People are quick to say that they would go straight to the police. He was married and not ‘out’ at the time. Going to trial as a witness and saying ‘yes I befriended a dodgy guy and wanted lots of young legal gay porn, but nothing illegal’ wouldn’t have been a good look to his wife and children. He maybe just panicked.

Do we know he kept the pictures or that they were still ‘available’? Maybe he did instantly delete them.

Maybe he is a paedophile but we don’t know that yet. All we know is that he received images over WhatsApp that he ‘kept’, which might have been an automatic save to his album. That is what we know and that is what he pleaded guilty to. Beyond that no one on this thread knows any more.

MrsBreeze · 03/08/2024 09:23

There’s some very naive people on this thread.

So just because he said ‘don’t send me anything illegal’ it’s all ok, he can’t possibly be a paedophile?

Perhaps he didn’t want to get caught out, didn’t he pay a 17 year old boy to send him nude pictures? He’s obviously attracted to younger kids and a 17 year old is legally what he thinks he can get away with.

He’s perverted.

He was still in contact with that other pos for a year - he can’t have been that outraged or upset by the images. He knew what he was doing. This wasn’t just one image, there were lots. Stop making excuses for him and see him for what he is.

FrancisSeaton · 03/08/2024 09:23

Oh ffs some people
There are loads of places where you can access legal naughty pictures it's 2024. Why would any adult let alone a professional male with intelligence engage in a chat with someone providing dodgy photos of kids? Hark at some of you 🤦‍♀️

swimlyn · 03/08/2024 09:24

Sethera · 03/08/2024 08:12

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

Let’s face it. We’ve accepted Enid Blyton being censored.

Viviennemary · 03/08/2024 09:25

It's really bad. And the BBC wheeling out folk to run him down makes me sick. Bunch of hypocrites. And it was HE who announced the Queen had died. Will they censor that as well. Good point.

Swipe left for the next trending thread