Huw Edwards arrives at court this morning

I am not sure that's a wise decision from the BBC, I actually think that makes it worse by deleting things, you cant pretend something didnt happen.

Galaxy

I am not sure that's a wise decision from the BBC, I actually think that makes it worse by deleting things, you cant pretend something didnt happen.

I agre. He presented in huge historical events. Those events and the records of them remain important as part of history regardless of his involvement.

mokryna

It was said he had received certain unrequested photos and he may have deleted them but they were still on his phone because we can never delete completely. It was said that he asked that no illegal photos be sent to him. I have no other comment to make on his other illegal dealings. However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

This has made me think back to the early 90s, the beginning of the web revolution for me, we were living in Beijing. Someone we barely knew from Germany sent my exh a photo of a scantily dressed woman, not even UK page 3 level, we deleted it. We thought it was weird to have been sent it but the imprint was on our computer even though it had been deleted.

However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

Surely you have some control over what is sent to you?

To receive such pictures you must knowingly be in a group or in touch with even one such person who would send photographs of small children being abused.

Callistemon213

mokryna

It was said he had received certain unrequested photos and he may have deleted them but they were still on his phone because we can never delete completely. It was said that he asked that no illegal photos be sent to him. I have no other comment to make on his other illegal dealings. However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

This has made me think back to the early 90s, the beginning of the web revolution for me, we were living in Beijing. Someone we barely knew from Germany sent my exh a photo of a scantily dressed woman, not even UK page 3 level, we deleted it. We thought it was weird to have been sent it but the imprint was on our computer even though it had been deleted.

However, people cannot control what has been sent to them and it is on your data even if deleted.

Surely you have some control over what is sent to you?

To receive such pictures you must knowingly be in a group or in touch with even one such person who would send photographs of small children being abused.

I think the point made was that he opened them.. ie he was aware what they contained

Entitlement and vulnerability is at the root of so many abhorrent behaviours
Mental ill health, well I guess some paedophiles might have cancer or diabetes, but nobody would say that the cancer or diabetes caused the paedophilia
Someone I knew worked with such offenders. He spoke of one such man who had ended up in a wheelchair, dead from the waist down. He still has a tendency to b*gger little boys with a chair leg.
The BBC breeding paedophiles...maybe they are known to us because of being high profile, and because of the attitudes to it in the past, that children were lying or making it up, that the best thing to do was sweep it under the carpet and just make sure they were not left with children
Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet

Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet

Yes.

Callistemon213

^Even today, a clean DBS or PVG only means that a guilty person has not been found out yet^

Yes.

Some people are very clever at covering their tracks and don't get found out. I know from experience and it rocked me to the core! Destroyed that person's family too.

I agree that he was part of a group or whatever that shared these images. Of course he was. I am still flabbergasted that people think they know people on TV even if they have met them. It's in their interests to come across as nice. My sister met Jimmy Savile in the 80s. She said he was nice.

I have no idea how these things work, but if I 'accidentally' got pictures of abused children on my phone I would ring the police immediately. I wouldn't pass Go.

I can just about understand someone seeing them and deleting without thinking - a reaction a bit like flicking away a spider that's crawling on your arm - but when the shock subsided I'd expect them to take their phone to the police for inspection.

As I say, I don't know the mechanics of it, but I've been told by a police officer neighbour that it's not really possible to view hard porn by mistake.

I don't know what I think about deleting the footage. Rewriting history doesn't sit right with me, and of course things like the coronation are part of history. Obviously I wouldn't expect his estate to gain from royalties if they apply to clips of things like that, but I don't really see the point in not showing them. I suppose deleting them makes it more likely that sex offenders will be forgotten over time - eg younger generations will grow up not recognising Gary Glitter songs - but it won't help their victims.

I suppose we will still have the other channels reports of the coronation etc. Just not the BBC.

Ilovecheese

I suppose we will still have the other channels reports of the coronation etc. Just not the BBC.

That's true . Why didn't I think of that?

Doodledog

"I have no idea how these things work, but if I 'accidentally' got pictures of abused children on my phone I would ring the police immediately. I wouldn't pass Go.

I can just about understand someone seeing them and deleting without thinking - a reaction a bit like flicking away a spider that's crawling on your arm - but when the shock subsided I'd expect them to take their phone to the police for inspection.

Most definitely.

I think on balance not delete. I don't see what is to be gained by this.

Unlike the days of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, when there were suspicions when they were still performing on TV, I don't think the BBC can be "blamed" for what Huw Edwards did. They suspended him before the telephone pictures all came out.

(I do mind greatly he continued to be paid but that was a contract matter)

I think on balance not delete. I don't see what is to be gained by this.
Not deleting is the right thing to do, but someone genuinely taken by surprise would probably not be thinking straight if they saw something like that. I can imagine an 'AARRGGHH' reaction being just to want to get rid of it.

I can just about understand someone seeing them and deleting without thinking - a reaction a bit like flicking away a spider that's crawling on your arm - but when the shock subsided I'd expect them to take their phone to the police for inspection.

Agree!

How did someone get his email address?'
You'd need to know the person well before sending content of that sort.

Was it email, or just phone (sorry if I have missed something upthread). I know hackers can crack both, but again, he should have reported it.

Wyllow3

Was it email, or just phone (sorry if I have missed something upthread). I know hackers can crack both, but again, he should have reported it.

It was reported as WhatsApp messages

the bbc must have known that he was bothering young men at work, suggesting they stay in his lavish hotel room, provided by the bbc to report on prince philip's funeral the next day.
i bet everyone in and around the newsroom knew.
this is all coming out now.
and the woman who reported a toxic relationship with
him, who is still having counselling, paid for by the bbc.
why did they pay. did they feel some responsibility. did they want her to keep quiet.
why didn't he pay.
why was he still feted and highly paid.
this in not even touching on the criminal activity, which the bbc may not have known at the time.

Are they speaking the truth ? Are the claims made in newspapers?

they are, with extracts of text messages re the hotel room, i'm surprised you have not seen them.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13702357/Huw-Edwards-young-men-messages-BBC.html

Yet Emily Maitlis , Jon Sopel, Nicholas Whitchell , didn’t know , or they lied

it is often the way that those on a par or in a similar league do not realise how the person behaves to or with those of a lower status.
he targeted young unknown men, not rich, not famous, not household names.
the reasons are obvious, quite apart from any sexual preference; they are easier to manipulate, tempt with money, his fame, and less likely to be troublesome afterwards.

So your ‘I bet Everyone in and around the newsroom * was a wild guess.

Case over, sentence to come, and stories will continue to be sold to newspapers. Enjoy them

I doubt very much that * welbeck* or anyone else will enjoy hearing stories of young men being abused. That’s a shocking thing to say.

What do you think should happen, given that HE pleaded guilty as charged? Do you not think justice should be seen to be done?

Well, I don’t think that historical events that he covered should be deleted. The Coronation, for example. The fact it can still be viewed on ITV, say, is irrelevant.

Think of footage we are shown of the late Queen’s Coronation, Churchill’s funeral etc. I assume it was Richard Dimbleby narrating it, I haven’t checked, but to many it will just be a ‘voice’, and so it will be in future years when we view events that HE has presided over.

You can’t wipe out history.