Brad252 803 Posted August 2 14 minutes ago, harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy said: Dammit, I love watching that announcement at least three times a day. Pretty sure Charles enjoys watching it more frequently than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 525 Posted August 2 5 hours ago, En Passant said: Reminds me of that stupidity of actors voicing over Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams back in the day. At least that had a national security angle to it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus of Odstock 2,186 Posted August 4 Being removed from BBC archives. This includes the Queens death and funeral. I presume they may just have the footage without his voice as historically he was involved in quite a lot of voice overs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redrumours 860 Posted August 4 16 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said: Being removed from BBC archives. This includes the Queens death and funeral. I presume they may just have the footage without his voice as historically he was involved in quite a lot of voice overs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo Why the pic in that article? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted August 4 19 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said: Being removed from BBC archives. This includes the Queens death and funeral. I presume they may just have the footage without his voice as historically he was involved in quite a lot of voice overs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0w44nz6nneo Pretty stupid thing to do. In 20 years nobody will know Huw Edwards anyway. by all accounts remove him from popular entertainment but not potentially historical footage. I suppose there is still ITV… 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sod's Law 443 Posted August 4 Just as I thought it would, and the precedent for this doesn't sit right with me at all. Remove mention of his name, fine, but the idea that the public can no longer handle viewing a twenty second piece of historical footage based on the identity of the person announcing it seems perverse to me. Carry on this road and soon huge chunks of our media will be completely inaccessible because some extra in some scene in a movie was later found to be a rapist or something. You just can't always delete the fact that shit bags exist. 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master Obit 828 Posted August 4 1 minute ago, Sod's Law said: Just as I thought it would, and the precedent for this doesn't sit right with me at all. Remove mention of his name, fine, but the idea that the public can no longer handle viewing a twenty second piece of historical footage based on the identity of the person announcing it seems perverse to me. Carry on this road and soon huge chunks of our media will be completely inaccessible because some extra in some scene in a movie was later found to be a rapist or something. You just can't always delete the fact that shit bags exist. This does seem a bit absurd to me. What's next, deleting historical footage of Queen Victoria because she was a staunch colonialist? Deleting footage of tennis matches involving Zverev because he was a domestic abuser? Deleting historical films that involved cast members that did some truly abysmal things off screen? Where do you draw the line between what gets kept and what doesn't? Trying to rewrite history doesn't work. You can't delete the fact that there have been truly horrible people throughout history. By all means shame them, remove their name, and make it abundantly clear that their actions are unsupportable, but the precedent of "this person has done something horrible, lets just pretend they didn't exist" creates a rather woeful precedent. The fact remains that Huw Edwards announced the Queen's death - it was a historic moment, and the fact he's been found to have done some very perverse things does not mean that that significant piece of history should be erased. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sod's Law 443 Posted August 4 21 minutes ago, Master Obit said: This does seem a bit absurd to me. What's next, deleting historical footage of Queen Victoria because she was a staunch colonialist? Deleting footage of tennis matches involving Zverev because he was a domestic abuser? Deleting historical films that involved cast members that did some truly abysmal things off screen? Where do you draw the line between what gets kept and what doesn't? Trying to rewrite history doesn't work. You can't delete the fact that there have been truly horrible people throughout history. By all means shame them, remove their name, and make it abundantly clear that their actions are unsupportable, but the precedent of "this person has done something horrible, lets just pretend they didn't exist" creates a rather woeful precedent. The fact remains that Huw Edwards announced the Queen's death - it was a historic moment, and the fact he's been found to have done some very perverse things does not mean that that significant piece of history should be erased. Deleted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frleon 138 Posted August 4 The fact remains that the Queen's death was announced by Huw Edwards – it was a historic moment, and the fact she's been found to have done some very perverse things does not mean that that significant piece of history should be erased. 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad252 803 Posted August 4 I did a video capture of the Queen's death announcement last year when Huw Edwards' personal life matters first emerged. Even though he hadn't been charged with anything, I kept it anyway. Now feeling very fortunate I did, but still don't think it should be taken down (although the videos from the BBC YouTube account are still available at time of writing). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sod's Law 443 Posted August 4 12 minutes ago, Brad252 said: I did a video capture of the Queen's death announcement last year when Huw Edwards' personal life matters first emerged. Even though he hadn't been charged with anything, I kept it anyway. Now feeling very fortunate I did, but still don't think it should be taken down (although the videos from the BBC YouTube account are still available at time of writing). Also makes me glad I have physical copies of Dr Who and sitcom episodes which feature actors later found to have engaged in some dodgy behaviour. Who knows how long it'll be before iPlayer and streaming services decide the public shouldn't be allowed to see them for their own good? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,122 Posted August 4 1 hour ago, Sod's Law said: Just as I thought it would, and the precedent for this doesn't sit right with me at all. Remove mention of his name, fine, but the idea that the public can no longer handle viewing a twenty second piece of historical footage based on the identity of the person announcing it seems perverse to me. Carry on this road and soon huge chunks of our media will be completely inaccessible because some extra in some scene in a movie was later found to be a rapist or something. You just can't always delete the fact that shit bags exist. Already happened with many episodes of Top Of The Pops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad252 803 Posted August 4 8 minutes ago, Toast said: Already happened with many episodes of Top Of The Pops. One counter-example of where a "naughty boy" hasn't been erased is the version of Amarillo with Peter Kay and Tony Christie, where Jimmy Savile appears alongside Kay in part of the video. Apparently when it's played on TV he is cropped out, but the original YouTube video remains unchanged: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Master Obit 828 Posted August 4 Just now, Brad252 said: One counter-example of where a "naughty boy" hasn't been erased is the version of Amarillo with Peter Kay and Tony Christie, where Jimmy Savile appears alongside Kay in part of the video. Apparently when it's played on TV he is cropped out, but the original YouTube video remains unchanged: I don't really mind Jimmy Saville being erased from a video that nobody really cares about, I'd hardly call this video significant historical footage. What I take objection to is people trying to rewrite history in this way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 525 Posted August 4 No chance they'll go so far as to censor the Queen's death announcement. That's a bridge too far - and it's likely the Royal Family would agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,630 Posted August 8 STRIPPED of major Welsh public honours https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78l1kj1yv4o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slackhurst Broadcasting 374 Posted August 8 "Disgraced TV presenter Huw Edwards has been expelled from the Gorsedd of the Bards - one of the highest accolades in Welsh public life." Being expelled is one of the highest accolades? 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sod's Law 443 Posted August 8 5 minutes ago, Slackhurst Broadcasting said: "Disgraced TV presenter Huw Edwards has been expelled from the Gorsedd of the Bards - one of the highest accolades in Welsh public life." Being expelled is one of the highest accolades? To be honest, if I walked in a room and found Huw Edwards strumming a harp and singing poetry, even I'd be calling for every mention of him to be scrubbed from the record... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prussianblue 1,024 Posted August 8 The shame of being expelled from a club where everyone dresses as a druid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Father Brown 209 Posted August 9 16 hours ago, maryportfuncity said: STRIPPED of major Welsh public honours https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78l1kj1yv4o There was a bit of fuss with that as they took almost a week “deciding” it. Granted there’s probably procedures behind the scenes, but he should’ve been removed a lot quicker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad252 803 Posted August 9 BBC wants the 200k back which he "earned" after his arrest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynjvve0gvo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,630 Posted August 9 1 hour ago, Brad252 said: BBC wants the 200k back which he "earned" after his arrest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynjvve0gvo They've got a moral, if not rock-solid legal point, he pleaded guilty so he knew what he'd done and still kept on taking their money as long as he could. That said, he's likely struggling to keep the readies incoming from here onwards so might not be feeling too generous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arsewipe 202 Posted August 9 13 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said: They've got a moral, if not rock-solid legal point, he pleaded guilty so he knew what he'd done and still kept on taking their money as long as he could. That said, he's likely struggling to keep the readies incoming from here onwards so might not be feeling too generous I'm sure he will manage on what he's saved plus the hefty BBC pension he'll be getting in a few years time. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrimThought 4 Posted August 9 18 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said: That said, he's likely struggling to keep the readies incoming from here onwards so might not be feeling too generous I should imagine his team of lawyers will be submitting their hefty bill. They’ll want payment before any repaying to the Beeb? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad252 803 Posted September 15 Due to be sentenced today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
