ChaoticMusings

Anonymous wrote:

---

" Huw Edwards has furiously hit out at a new Channel 5 factual drama exploring his grooming of a 17-year-old, claiming it is “hardly likely to convey the reality of what happened”.

The one-off special, titled Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards, dramatises the events leading up to Edwards pleading guilty to making indecent images of children in 2024, with Martin Clunes playing the disgraced newsreader.

“I am repelled by the idea that some people enjoy viewing indecent images of children. Every image represents an innocent victim. I offer my sincere and profound apologies for what I did.”

He also revealed he wants to produce his “own account of these terrible events”, but said “the fragile state of” his mental health is making that “a slow process”.

Edwards added that while mental illness “can never be an excuse for criminality”, he believes “it can at least help explain why people sometimes behave in shocking and reprehensible ways, and why things fell apart for me in the way they did”.

Channel 5 said in response to Edwards’ statement: “Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards is based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family, the journalists who revealed his story, text exchanges between the victim and Edwards, and court reporting. It has been produced in accordance with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.

“All allegations made in the film were put to Huw Edwards via his solicitors six weeks before transmission.” "  https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/huw-edwards-drama-channel-5-statement-b2943658.html

 

Oh dear, Huw is not a happy bunny.

 

 

---

 Oh the irony...he has actually said....

“I am repelled by the idea that some people enjoy viewing indecent images of children. Every image represents an innocent victim."

Syl wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

" Huw Edwards has furiously hit out at a new Channel 5 factual drama exploring his grooming of a 17-year-old, claiming it is “hardly likely to convey the reality of what happened”.

The one-off special, titled Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards, dramatises the events leading up to Edwards pleading guilty to making indecent images of children in 2024, with Martin Clunes playing the disgraced newsreader.

“I am repelled by the idea that some people enjoy viewing indecent images of children. Every image represents an innocent victim. I offer my sincere and profound apologies for what I did.”

He also revealed he wants to produce his “own account of these terrible events”, but said “the fragile state of” his mental health is making that “a slow process”.

Edwards added that while mental illness “can never be an excuse for criminality”, he believes “it can at least help explain why people sometimes behave in shocking and reprehensible ways, and why things fell apart for me in the way they did”.

Channel 5 said in response to Edwards’ statement: “Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards is based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family, the journalists who revealed his story, text exchanges between the victim and Edwards, and court reporting. It has been produced in accordance with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.

“All allegations made in the film were put to Huw Edwards via his solicitors six weeks before transmission.” "  https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/huw-edwards-drama-channel-5-statement-b2943658.html

 

Oh dear, Huw is not a happy bunny.

 

 

---

 Oh the irony...he has actually said....

 

“I am repelled by the idea that some people enjoy viewing indecent images of children. Every image represents an innocent victim."

---

 And yet he pleaded guilty to receiving "... seven category A images, the most serious classification, [sent to Edwards on WhatsApp by a 25-year-old convicted sex offender called Alex Williams] "...one image/video was of a boy aged 7-9yo iirc. He presumably thinks he's not a common or garden paedo.

His arrogance knows no bounds... "He said Channel 5 made "no attempt to check with me the truth of any aspect of their narrative" in "Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards"...Channel 5 claims the prog "was based on extensive interviews with the victim and his family" as well as court reporting". Still no worries, we possibly have his version to look forward to, MH permitting. 

Meanwhile, the sale of his former home is not doing so well, the poor lamb has had to drop the price to £3,850,000.00.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Magica wrote:

---

Should have got prison 😠

---

 Totally agree, particularly when some Tweeters got prison sentences...makes no sense to me.

Here's a breakdown of how his sentencing was, apparently, worked out...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn033p4d82xo

 

---

 I can't get the link to open, shame.

Yes people who tweeted hurty words got prison. 😵

How comes he is so protected.  He wants to come back.on the tele, I can't see that happening anytime soon.🙄

Anonymous wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

I wonder how long the BBC sat on that one!

---

I wonder if he had a Huw Clause in his contract...paid leave, luxurious hospital stay, pay rise, and be allowed to leave on his own terms - oops, scratch that last one, he's gone already.

 

BBC seems to be a magnet for these types; it seems to be a requisite. Who's next, I wonder?

---

Who knows, but no doubt every time someone else is exposed, some of the mega-paid regulars on BBC start getting fidgety.

Red Okktober wrote:

---

My personal condemnation of anyone involved in 'historical acts' depends on whether those acts were considered unacceptable at that time, and not just unacceptable in these days.

Having never listened to his radio show or watched anything he's been in on TV, I have no idea who Scott Mills is. He does look very bland and boring though.

If it's similar to Phillip Schofield (who I think was hard done by), ie having an affair with a younger, but consenting adult homosexual, then I would disagree with his sacking - does anyone know what he has suppposed to have done?

---

 I don't think it's been made public...yet.

I agree about Philip Scchofield. It was awful the way people turned on him. The only person he wronged was his wife, it should have been a private matter.

Syl wrote:

---

Red Okktober wrote:

---

My personal condemnation of anyone involved in 'historical acts' depends on whether those acts were considered unacceptable at that time, and not just unacceptable in these days.

Having never listened to his radio show or watched anything he's been in on TV, I have no idea who Scott Mills is. He does look very bland and boring though.

If it's similar to Phillip Schofield (who I think was hard done by), ie having an affair with a younger, but consenting adult homosexual, then I would disagree with his sacking - does anyone know what he has suppposed to have done?

---

 I don't think it's been made public...yet.

I agree about Philip Scchofield. It was awful the way people turned on him. The only person he wronged was his wife, it should have been a private matter.

---

 Probably the ones that idolised his whiter-than-white persona he seemed to project on tv...happily married, father etc and the age difference may have seemed a step too far for many, not to mention him lying to his sidekick Holly. Then there's bound to be some who were envious of his success and revelled in his public downfall, Holmes seemed to be in his element bad mouthing him.

Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if someone on tv is gay or not; I neither need nor want to know.  Those making out he was some sort of hero for "coming out" were pathetic imo; there was nothing heroic to me about cheating on his wife. I agree it should have been a private matter between himself and his family and not left until such a time the media were going to release details.