Huw Edwards: BBC starts removing former newsreader from archive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo
Posted by pppppppppppppppppd
Huw Edwards: BBC starts removing former newsreader from archive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo
Posted by pppppppppppppppppd
29 Comments
From archive…
So what happens with the history of those historical news events?
> “As you would expect we are actively considering the availability of our archive,”
That’s not what I’d expect at all, no. Yes, what he did is awful, no, erasing him from history is not a sensible response.
They should also redecorate every room he ever entered in the BBC headquarters
Huw is an “unperson” now.
Because people can’t deal with problematic issues. I am disgusted.
Not really sure why this is needed? Surely it means a huge amount of news archives with coverage of important events are going to be lost or edited to be worthless? It’s starting with family/entertainment so I kind of get that but it sounds like they’re considering the news side of it as well.
Stick a slide about what he’s done at the start of it or something but do we really have to lose news archives because the guy turned out to be a pedo?
It’s a better warning to show that predators can hide in plain site like Jimmy Saville.
I think the idea is they are removing him from the archives of footage they might use in future rather than erasing him from history.
the use of the word “archive” about a news reader, does make you wonder if you reach a point where you are doing more harm than good. History should be preserved, and BBC News is a reasonable record of that history.
Yes. Yes. Sweep it all. All under the carpet. Totally not something the Soviet Union would have done.
I would actually expect them to apologise for their association, not try to bury the evidence of it.
I hate shit like this, statues, street names, disgraced celebrities, uncivilised language not-of-the-current-time in films/books.
It is like some sort if new statist-stallinism where instead of things being removed for being against ‘the party’ they are removed so’s not to ‘offend’.
The campaign against offense has become the new bueracracy bulldozer to quell dissent and sanitize the past.
Yes, better to re-write history lest we, the general public who fund the bloated wages of the BBC, remember how this institution has systematically enabled multiple predators, such this, over several decades.
What have they done with the Jim’ll Fix It and Rolf Harris shows? Does anyone know if they’re archived or deleted from the records? Genuine question, I hadn’t thought of it until seeing this story.
Did they remove all the Jimmy Saville material from their archive too? Curious
But they haven’t removed him from the freakin’ PAYROLL.
He’s going to get paid for years and years and years, but they’ll keep that quiet. Like they kept paying other paedos and people who knew where the skeletons are buried.
Just stick a notice up underneath any content with him in it and a link to an article about it.
This is so stupid and the mark lf an organisation that’s clueless.
What a ridiculous decision, this is a historical record who delivered the content is irrelevant. Whoever thinks this is an appropriate action is clearly incompetent.
>’It exists!’ he cried.
>’No,’ said O’Brien.
>He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O’Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O’Brien turned away from the wall.
>’Ashes,’ he said. ‘Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.’
>’But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.’
>’I do not remember it,’ said O’Brien.
I really think that they should at least keep the footage of him breaking the news about the late Queen.
It’s a moment in history and knowing what we do about him now shouldn’t rob us of the ability to relive that moment.
This is really ridiculous in some cases. Pulling a Doctor Who episode because he’s in it for a few seconds?
The actors, writers, set designers, camera operators, costume designers, directors, producers and so on – huge amounts of work goes into making this, a huge number of people’s creativity, they don’t deserve it erased because he spoke 2 lines in it.
What does this achieve? Just makes you look terrified of your own shadow. History is history. It’s not like he was blinking ‘I’m a massive nonce’ in morse code between reading news stories.
Weird they want to pretend he never existed, yet you can find plenty of articles and programs about Hitler on the bbc
Well, it’s no wonder I don’t watch TV anymore if that’s the way they deal with their embarrassing situations. If that’s the issue, I can think of much more crap they can remove.
Acting like it never happened is not the way to go about it. You can’t just remove history
Load of shit really. BBC covering up much more than Huw I had some photos Edward’s. Lovely Jubbly as they say .
Have they explained why? I dont understand what its meant to achieve. I just get totalitarian re-writing history vibes.
Serious question, not trying to defend him, but would really like to know, for everyone’s legal certainty.
What is the average person supposed to do if they get sent an illegal image of this nature?
I ask because it has been repeatedly reported that Edwards was sent the image and that he told the other person not to send anything illegal. And that is the extent of which we have been told of his offending.
This could potentially happen to anyone. Granted, more likely if you are sharing porn over WhatsApp, but as long as it’s the legal type then that is irrelevant. Anyone could get sent something illegal that they have not asked for.
The standard answer would be to tell the police. But as soon as you receive and look at the WhatsApp, it’s on your phone and it seems that you are guilty of possession (“making”). So not a good idea.
Typically people guilty of this offence have gone and searched out this material and/or shared it with others. I haven’t heard of a case before where a person has merely received such material after making it clear they did not want it.
I am guessing more may come out at sentencing … perhaps he repeatedly viewed the images, so the mere unsolicited receipt would not be a plausible argument. I think this is a crucial question because it would be a slippery slope if anyone who receives something illegal without wanting it was automatically guilty of a crime that will lose you your career, home and family.
Deleting history and their association with him they mean.