Huw Edwards arrives at court this morning

I feel sad for people let down by this horrible man.

A great honour

Disgraced TV presenter Huw Edwards has been expelled from the Gorsedd of the Bards - one of the highest accolades in Welsh public life.
Good. My grandfather was a clergyman from Brecon College and was awarded this title. It's an honour and a privilege not to be abused.

Who has done that? He pleaded guilty. No allegations were made - charges were read and he admitted them. Do you accept that he did it?

No, too serious a crime to repeat allegations as fact

Yes, we know. But what makes you think that welbeck or others will ‘enjoy reading about it’? People follow the news, and this story is newsworthy. It is not salacious to take an interest, surely?

Quote Doodledog Fri 09-Aug-24 02:55:38
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?

Charged and pleaded guilty t9 making indecent images of children, awaiting sentencing. Fact

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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)

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?

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

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 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.