Martin Clunes as Huw Edwards

wellbeck, absolutely right. Thanks for repeating what by now, we all should know. There is no such thing as child pornography. There are images of child sexual abuse. I try not to share anyone’s history without their explicit consent. In this case I have that. The young woman aged 28 recalled being taken to Amsterdam by her mum at age seven. She was filmed in a ‘medical story’ with an adult male. That video was (and is) on the internet.
I struggle not to be outraged when abuse of children, including the 17 year old boy we are discussing, is diminished in any wayb

Someone mentioned pornography in relation to all this.
Also child performers.
Pornography is a business involving sexual images of adults.
Anything involving children are images of child sexual abuse.
Likewise they are not child performers but victims.
Terminology matters because it frames concepts and makes links in our minds.

I totally agree with all the posts :-
Very good acting
A story that needs to be told
May help some being abused (may not) young people rarely watch celestial TV
Definitely good to open all people’s eyes (have the programmes about Saville, Glitter etc opened people’s eyes enough)
However
I still believe it’s way too soon. Surely there has been enough information on the news programmes about this man to tell everyone what he did, (and open eyes) I don’t think it is necessary to be turned into ‘entertainment’ …a play not at this point anyway
So all in all I think the tv producers and Clunes made a mistake. It’s not entertainment and at this stage should have stayed as factual news.

The BBC needs to put its house in order as regards complaints about their employees. Whatever their status it needs to be taken seriously.

Exactly. Which is why programmes such as this can be helpful.

Doodledog

Yes, and to let people know that whilst there will always be some who jump to the conclusion that a victim with little or no money must be lying if the perpetrator is well-off, there is a possibility of some sort of justice. And it might make it less likely that huge companies such as the BBC will cover for high profile employees knowing that they are going to be portrayed in a bad light.

Few victims report their experiences because getting any kind of justice is so rare. Even if the case reaches to 80% likelihood of conviction that means the CPS will advise police to charge, there will be long delays before it reaches the criminal court. The victim will be advised not to seek therapy until after the court case. The defence team can request sight of therapy notes and use them in cross exam.

It seems as with other high profile tv presenters, his employer was aware of concerns before it became public knowledge. No wonder so few complaints are made and fewer still pursued

Yes, and to let people know that whilst there will always be some who jump to the conclusion that a victim with little or no money must be lying if the perpetrator is well-off, there is a possibility of some sort of justice. And it might make it less likely that huge companies such as the BBC will cover for high profile employees knowing that they are going to be portrayed in a bad light.

But we need to know that and how these people operate in order to protect new victims.

Never ever thought Huw Edwards would be such a depraved man. Never.

And yes, Greciangirl, I agree that it should not only be 'easy' subjects that are televised.

Luckygirl3

I have been reading some of the reviews in the papers and was amazed that some criticised the acting, which I thought was impeccable, aside from whether it should have been made or made now

I thought the acting was very good, too.

I'm not sure that there could be a drama from HE's 'side of the story'. It's pretty obvious what he got out of it (we saw a couple of seconds of that - highly edited - in case anyone was in doubt). At best his side of the story would be like that awful desert island programme with Phillip Schofield - all about how painful it is to be exposed, but nothing remotely insightful or contritious. At worst it would be unscreenable.

I found this programme riveting.
Mainly because of Martin Clunes acting and the subject.

Of course it was uncomfortable viewing for some.
But personally I would rather feel uncomfortable and know that this man has been exposed for what he is.
Sometimes the truth is never pretty.

I remember reading quite some time ago that Edwards refused to ‘allow’ another person or persons to be on the News with him, as a lot of the other news programmes do. So he was arrogant then!!

Never watched it, not if my life depended on it.

Allira

Luckygirl3

I could not bear more than about 19 minutes of Schitts Creek .. so mind-numbing. Dreadful series ....

What has it got to do with this anyway? Designed to derail the thread for some reason?
(Not you, * Luckygirl*)

Each to their own …… and I’m not de-railing anything,
calm …

Martin Clunes was excellent. Did the programme very stressful to watch.

That scene was discreet and about 2 seconds. I do not think the whole performance should be judged on that.

Robin202

I started to watch it but found it uncomfortable particularly when ‘Edwards’ was doing something gross in front of his computer screen. It all turned my stomach, the subject and Clune’s portrayal so I switched over.

So this is " entertainment". Really , what have we become?

Huw Edwards read the news, did Martin Clunes say when did HE take part in the outing of anyone?

I thought it was excellent and if it stops one person being abused by these so called celebrities,

I agree - it is about flagging up the insidious nature of this sort of grooming. If just one person sees this play and is alerted to what is happening then that has to be good.

Clunes was interviewed this morning and was asked whether it was too soon and he asked what is the right timescale for this? - and felt that any time was right to alert people about it. He said his task was to inhabit the script and do his job as an actor. He also pointed out that HE had in the past been "outing" celebrity abusers in his job.

I haven't watched it yet but will soon.

I am astounded by his arrogance in saying he wants to put his side of the story forward. Really ?

Oddly I have experienced this sort of paedophile arrogance before. Several years ago I attended Sunday night meditation sessions run by a charming man we all adored and listened to. Suddenly he went missing from the class and when he returned he had lost a lot of weight and looked terrible. We discovered that he had been arrested for the sexual abuse of the 13 year old son of a friend of his.

Long story short, he showed the same arrogance as HE when a local Buddhist monk arranged a meeting so we could all listen to "his side of the story" What followed was two solid hours of self pity and attempts to justify his actions. It was sickening. Like HE he was given a non custodial sentence. We were all disgusted.

Bea that’s my point much, much too soon I don’t think it’s justified to make this just over a year after it all came out he has five children so maybe grandchildren who will be possible school age Can you imagine the stick they could get !!!
I m not saying it shouldn’t br produced just that it’s far too soon to be making such a programme

Wyllow I was thinking of Huw Edwards family not the victims families I’m sure the lads family would want it aired

I m not saying it shouldn’t be aired I just think the timing was all wrong There have been programmes about Saville but he was already dead, there was one about Gary Glitter but as far as I know he didn’t have a wife and children (maybe he has) but it was made many years after his conviction If this had been made in five years time I may not have felt so uneasy

I thought it was excellent and if it stops one person being abused by these so called celebrities, I am more than content. I was abused by an older male relative when I was 13. Much of what I felt with the pressure of not outing that person because of the damage done to our family and the worry that I had brought it on myself is something a lot of abused children feel. I didn't realise that other abused children felt like this, that it was part of the grooming process, etc and these programmes have helped me come to terms with that side of things.
Of course I empathise with Huw Edward's family but they should have no shame. They are innocent victims too. Sadly, I speak as someone who found out that my father was a paedophile when he was in his 80's and it makes me really angry that we are not allowed to out him as such because of a court order. The judge said it was to protect his victim and because he was a first time offender. No, he wasn't, we only found out afterwards that other family members had suffered abuse at his hands too. It is this silence that helps the abuse to carry on.

I have been reading some of the reviews in the papers and was amazed that some criticised the acting, which I thought was impeccable, aside from whether it should have been made or made now

I felt queasy watching this and thought this drama was aired much too soon