What Huw Edwards did was unspeakably cruel - the law should come down hard
Huw Edwards should face the full force of the law but he should get to keep his BAFTAs, says Ann Widdecombe.
The Huw Edwards scandal highlights a question which has not plagued previous generations as it does our own: how far should we separate the man from his work? Should the art of the late Rolf Harris, for example, be never sold again or even shown again? Or the work of the late Eric Gill?
Should a man with a 10-year-old conviction for rape be allowed to compete in the Olympics if he can excel in feats of athletics? And should Huw Edwards be allowed to keep his Baftas? Supposing, just for the purposes of argument, Einstein had been a paedophile. Would that have made him any less of a genius?
Would it have negated his massive contribution to science and our understanding of the universe? Should we have forbidden his work to be followed? Supposing Shakespeare had been a rapist. Would that have made him any less the Immortal Bard? Should his plays never have been performed? The answer to both those theoretical questions must surely be no.
Excellence is excellence and should be recognised as such and there is no doubt Edwards earned his Baftas through the quality of his commentating. So let him keep them. More controversially he earned his BBC bonus too for his outstanding coverage of the Queen’s funeral and the King’s coronation.
He is unlikely to work again so if he is to be penalised through his work let that be his punishment and it will be. As will the look in the eyes of his wife and five children. How can they even begin to cope with such dreadful revelations?
The law, however, is another matter. I have long believed that those accused of having indecent images of children, particularly when those children are very young, should also be charged with child cruelty because that is exactly what it is. If there were no market for such stuff then the poor little mites would never have to be subjected to such violations.
Every time somebody deliberately opens an image of child sex then he or she is instrumental in their suffering in the first place. Edwards’ private life appears to have been a sewer but I am less concerned by its rampant immorality, so at odds with his wholesome image, than by the cruelty of its exploitation of young children.
The law should come down hard. However, if it does come down hard, then let that be an end of the matter. The modern lynch mob mentality is a horrible phenomenon which tries its best to prevent redemption and rebuilding and especially where public figures are involved.
Just about every commentator has been wallowing in selfrighteous condemnation of the BBC which was between a rock and a hard place, between observing the rule of innocence until guilt proven on the one hand and upsetting disgusted licence payers on the other.
Edwards’ brilliant television work will live on, but so unfortunately will the cruelty in which he participated because the market for it remains as strong as ever.
