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?!

BBC is proud to display Eric Gill's sculptures. Huw Edwards not being an artist probably counts against him 🤔

Grubby little man, happy not to be reminded of him, but why spend time and money NOW when there was unease about him before. Same with many TV so-called personalities, lots of hand-wringing once they get found out.

Have you googled what cat A images are?!? They include penetrative sx, torture and rpe. I’m outraged that BBC boss thanked him for his service tbh.

He has admitted it - what more evidence do you need exactly? Do you have 40 images of kids being raped on your phone? And decide to 'keep' them?

Most people are disgusted and sickened, the fact you are not, says a lot to be honest about you.

It is always difficult to be sure what people mean particularly if they use a code. I suppose one indicator would be did the other person continue to send illegal images of children, if he did yes it might have been a code, if he stopped then it probably meant don't send illegal images. I don't know if there is any evidence of which of the two happened.

Depends on the police.

Don't rely on deleting the image and telling the police. If they think they can convict they will.

I know of someone prosecuted for having indecent images on a pc. The pc was second hand and had been scrubbed before resale however using file recovery software the police were able to retrieve remains of files from before he bought the machine. The files weren't visible without the specialist tools. They acknowledged the files were old files, fragmented and not accessible without specialist tools but still prosecuted.

Police will prosecute if they think they can and juries will convict on flimsy evidence.

Wait, I thought he had just been an idiot in asking for legal pictures from a guy who (without prompting) sent illegal ones in the same batch. Not trying to minimize it but does that genuinely equal the definition of one?

It wasn't just one picture though was it. Why didn't he block the guy who sent the pics.
Well that's pretty clear. He wanted more of the same.
He could easily have accessed legal adult pornography but that's not what he wanted
What's with mumsnet posters suddenly trying to excuse someone who pleaded guilty to viewing child abuse?
Maybe he pleaded guilty to avoid any deeper digging into his very unsavoury behaviour

In response to the first poster. This isn't about 'problematic' or disgusting views. People can think what they like; it's the acting on it that's the issue.

He pleaded guilty. He is a convicted paedophile.

These apologists will be saying it's a 'witch hunt' next, despite the guilty plea. Just as those of a similar mindset said Andrew Windsor was never convicted therefore never did anything wrong (despite seriously incriminating himself on national TV and being an unelected diplomat whose bezzie was a convicted paedophile).

@MNHQ as per some of the threads on 'site stuff', IMO this site needs some serious disinfecting, particularly of the content of the past week.

Out of interest if you were sent one picture of a boy child between 7-9 being penetrated (Cat A moving video) what would you do?

Report to the police and
Block sender
Or
Allow 39 other messages to be sent over a couple of months and
Talk about the images in the chat?

I say it every thread that has nonces discussed, but the amount of paedophile apologjsts on this site never fail to shock me!
They are only editing his voice out of the episode not scrubbing him from history they are also removing a plaque celebrating him off Cardiff castle.

Maybe it's a two part process of removing and then checking there's been no funny stuff on set or on film.

Well there is more to that story

Police don't forensically check random home computers. There was a reason they looked at that person's hard drive.

This. ‘Problematic views’ is sickeningly minimising language.

@TheUnknownsMum

Do you not think you can access 'legal' gay porn on the internet? And as it happens the rape and abuse of children regardless of whether they are 7 or 16 is ILLEGAL so wtf do you mean 'well he asked for nothing illegal' ? All of this stuff being sent by this nonce was illegal and he knew this yet engaged over a period of time!

Nonce sympathisers love to minimise what actually happened, water down the language, play down what happens to those poor kids in those images/videos that they share around. It is vile!
What about the term "minor attracted person" that makes me sick, every time I hear that term it makes me angry!

Oh, yes. Nothing but category A MP4 images of children, the youngest of who was seven. SEVEN.

For sure, he's 'not a paedophile'. Some people will excuse these fuckers even with this serious a smoking gun. I'm very glad his wife did not turn out to be one of them.

Society needs curing of this malaise: the belief that any male sexual predilection can be acted upon and the males will be excused at everyone else's, and especially the victims', expense.

And this, above, is the reason so many victims are afraid to report or even speak about it, and how the cycle is perpetuated with impunity. No wonder his conduct grew emboldened. These men really are pretty much untouchable. Now just one got his comeuppance - guaranteed there'll be others lurking in the shadows - and even on a parenting support site there are people lining up to inform members how hard-done-by he is, and how it really isn't as bad as it looks.

It's worse.

Your post is simply inexcusable.

I’m in shock. Mumsnet , a predominantly female forum is bending over backwards to excuse this evil man.

Nothing to suggest he had sexual feeling towards children, except all the pictures of child abuse on his phone of course. 🙄

I am reporting this thread

As a victim of CSA I feel qualified to say that they couldn't sack him until he'd been convicted as that is the law here.
Now however I would be quite happy to see him put to sleep and not in a humane way.

@Hummingbird75 - check on the user handle.

On a site attracting a mostly female demographic, yet another man shows up to share his oh-so-valuable view on how aberrant male conduct isn't really aberrant - it's just silly Mumsnetters overreacting. Women, of course, are just queueing up to hear male opinion.

Wish the lot of them would just fuck off.

It's a new low, and the bar during the past week has already been on the floor.

I agree.

I can understand that you never expected a longstanding presenter being so evil, and indeed for those who worked with him and his family, how awful they must feel. That does not excuse or minimise his crimes.

The BBC and indeed perhaps all of the public sector should have clauses in employment contracts in future that claws back salaries for those convicted of certain crimes, for the period of time they are paid but not working. Or at least the amount say above the minimum wage.

No it’s not. I don’t know why people keep saying this. It is not as clear cut as that. If you can show it will damage the companies reputation by keeping them under employment, you can let them go. Is it a little risky, sure, but it’s not flat out illegal.

The queen who cossetted and protected her second son from some very serious allegations concerning his own conduct in association with his (convicted trafficker) friends? That queen?

They're in good company, it seems to me.