Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
ChishiyaBat · 03/08/2024 09:57

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 09:52

I am reporting this thread

What for?

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:57

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

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

I wonder if they’d feel the same if it was their child in those pictures.

Asherrain · 03/08/2024 09:59

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 09:49

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

Who is excusing him? Can you quote please?

FrancisSeaton · 03/08/2024 10:00

@Asherrain it's already been quoted. Several times. Open your eyes and read

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 10:01

Royalshyness · 03/08/2024 04:32

I think this is a very good call from the BBC

What wasn’t such a good call was to continue to use licence payers money to pay this paedophile his vast salary for five months after he had been arrested. They say they weren’t aware of the exact nature of the allegations, but they knew the category. That should have been enough.

lazyarse123 · 03/08/2024 10:03

Naunet · 03/08/2024 09:56

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.

I stand corrected.i didn't know that.

LlynTegid · 03/08/2024 10:03

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 10:01

What wasn’t such a good call was to continue to use licence payers money to pay this paedophile his vast salary for five months after he had been arrested. They say they weren’t aware of the exact nature of the allegations, but they knew the category. That should have been enough.

Unfortunately given no charges at that point, the law currently would be on his side about being paid his salary during that time.

Hence my suggestion of clawback clauses.

greengreyblue · 03/08/2024 10:04

@MNHQ shut this down!

LuluBlakey1 · 03/08/2024 10:05

I liked Huw Edwards as a presenter and am shocked by what he has done and the character that has emerged to be the real him.
However, we should all think about how we post about this. Yes it is horrible and completely unacceptable.
But do not think for one second he is the only well known man who behaves like this. Some have already been exposed- for varying seriousness of offences and behaviours- Philip Scofield, Jimmy Saville, Prince Andrew. There will be many others, some who colleagues/the public are already aware of (Donald Trump, Prince Andrew), many who they aren't. There are hundreds of thousands of men like Huw Edwards, and many worse. They work in the Houses of Parliament, our, hospitals, schools, GP practices, churches, social services, childrens' clubs, shops, local sports centres, swimming pools. They are on our tvs, we listen to their music, they are idolised as sportsmen. They are the joiner/builder/plumber who came to your house to do a job this week, your NDN, that nice man you chat to while you walk the dog, your child's friend's dad who picks them up and takes them all to football training. They are your brother, brother-in-law, your DP's best friend, your DP/DH/FIL, your dad and grandad.
They are not men in grubby overcoats luring children with sweets. Most are much more sophisticated, often protected by the layers of respectability in their lives, many are our idols.
It's very easy to mouth off about what the BBC should have done, how disgusting Huw Edwards is, how the licence fee should be got rid of etc. Infact, the licence fee is a form of regulation- it means the BBC can be held to account. GB News is dangerous and almost unregulated and produces lies and completely shit broadcasting- but it's free of course.
There are much more complex issues here about how we behave as a society- the regulation of the internet, the easy availability of porn and it's effect on our society and our behaviours, the quality of tv programming (the way males and females are allowed to behave and are presented, particularly in 'reality celeb' stuff), the whole cult of 'celebs', their behaviours and putting people on platforms.
We should not accept it from any man- why is Trump admired by anyone? He sexually assaulted women and admitted it. Why are Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still admired and making films? Why is Philip Scofield apparently planning a tv comeback? Why do people admire Kanye West? Chris Brown? Defend Russell Brand? Defend Kevin Spacey?
Our attitudes to fame and to the behaviours from men (that we are prepared to accept/tolerate) are complex and they shouldn't be. We don't question enough, we are not watchful enough, we don't call out unacceptable behaviours.
What Philip Scofield did was inappropriate but not illegal but people knew it was happening and did not act- because of the power of the celebrity. No one should have that power. The same was true of Huw Edwards- it looked inappropriate but not illegal and that was that until by chance the police picked up, through a different investigation, him conversing with a man they were investigating for pedophile images. Had his inappropriate behaviour been dealt with earlier at the BBC they would not be in the mess now when he has been prosecuted for worse. But let's be clear- they would not have stopped him, he would have continued with whatever he was doing privately.
How many of us know exactly what our DPDH/male family members look at on the internet? We don't. What is our tolerance of porn? Youporn, XXX Or whatever they are called- they are mainstream but have been associated with child abuse and sexual exploitation. Do we know/mind that our partners watch them? Perhaps we watch them ourselves.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:06

The most revolting thread I have seen in a long time....

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:06

@BigFatLiar
Huw Edwards had an experienced KC defending him and they didn't even try the 'unsolicited and deleted quickly' defence. Why? Because he didn't delete quickly? Because they weren't unsolicited? Because they didn't want a court case to expose lots of other, even more sordid, details?

As to your friend, I'd be very suspicious of their story too. The police randomly investigated them, the CPS found enough evidence to prosecute and the court found them guilty.

Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:06

LlynTegid · 03/08/2024 10:03

Unfortunately given no charges at that point, the law currently would be on his side about being paid his salary during that time.

Hence my suggestion of clawback clauses.

And again! No that is not the law! You can let someone go before a charge under the right circumstances, which these arguably were.

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:09

Chellybelle · 03/08/2024 06:52

Can you explain why you think he's not?

As far as I can see, he received some illegal images and asked that they not be sent again. Doesn't sound like someone who wants to look at underage pics to me.

He hasn't been charged with anything else. Given they will have gone through all his history, that's telling to me, if this is all they could find.

TheSecretIsland · 03/08/2024 10:11

Why shut this thread down?

Being able to challenge views is the only chance to change them.

Already on this thread a poster has had their view changed.

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 10:13

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:09

As far as I can see, he received some illegal images and asked that they not be sent again. Doesn't sound like someone who wants to look at underage pics to me.

He hasn't been charged with anything else. Given they will have gone through all his history, that's telling to me, if this is all they could find.

All they could find?

Category A images of seven-year-old children?

Is that not enough?

Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:13

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:09

As far as I can see, he received some illegal images and asked that they not be sent again. Doesn't sound like someone who wants to look at underage pics to me.

He hasn't been charged with anything else. Given they will have gone through all his history, that's telling to me, if this is all they could find.

They were sent over an 8 month period FFS. It wasn’t a one off.

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:14

Is noone else deeply uncomfortable at the homophobia of the suggestion he is a paedophile because he was getting photos from a 20 year old man?

I don't usually get myself involved in online discussions but this has peed me off.

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:15

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:14

Is noone else deeply uncomfortable at the homophobia of the suggestion he is a paedophile because he was getting photos from a 20 year old man?

I don't usually get myself involved in online discussions but this has peed me off.

No one

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:16

SerafinasGoose · 03/08/2024 10:13

All they could find?

Category A images of seven-year-old children?

Is that not enough?

They guy who distributed those images has been done for it (not harshly enough in my view). Waiting to see evidence of HE having actually viewed them before making further judgement.

fieldsofflowers · 03/08/2024 10:16

it’s a complicated law, he asked his friend who he was exchanging porn with on whatsapp not to send him illegal images and his friend did anyway. he’s been convicted because he didn’t report it.
he didn’t solicit the images himself. the cps have not said he is a danger to any children

cathyandclaire · 03/08/2024 10:17

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:14

Is noone else deeply uncomfortable at the homophobia of the suggestion he is a paedophile because he was getting photos from a 20 year old man?

I don't usually get myself involved in online discussions but this has peed me off.

No one is calling him a paedophile for paying for photos from a 20 year old ( who was a teenager when they were corresponding anyway) we're calling him a paedophile because he had category A moving images of a 7-9 year old boy.

pam290358 · 03/08/2024 10:17

StillCreatingAName · 03/08/2024 08:41

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.

I don’t actually think it is so OTT. There have been a few BBC employees convicted of this sort of thing. JSs’ behaviour raised a lot of suspicion, yet he managed to get away with it for years and was never brought to justice. In HEs’ case, the BBC have been aware of the situation since November, when he was arrested, and continued to pay his substantial salary until he resigned in April. Not a good use of the licence fee and not a good look for the BBC that there is yet another scandal of this nature around a high profile employee.

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:17

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:16

They guy who distributed those images has been done for it (not harshly enough in my view). Waiting to see evidence of HE having actually viewed them before making further judgement.

You don't need evidence that he viewed them to be convicted.
He kept the images, that is enough in the eyes of the law.

He will rot in prison for a long time, where karma will be waiting for him.

Naunet · 03/08/2024 10:17

EatingTillIDie · 03/08/2024 10:14

Is noone else deeply uncomfortable at the homophobia of the suggestion he is a paedophile because he was getting photos from a 20 year old man?

I don't usually get myself involved in online discussions but this has peed me off.

Who has done that?

Hummingbird75 · 03/08/2024 10:17

Please report this thread if you are feeling sickened by the truck load of sympathisers clearly here.