So very much has been made of the criminal proceedings against former BBC news anchorman Huw Edwards. My sympathies lie with Huw himself and his family. I do not condone for a moment the creation of and spreading of child porn – let me make that abundantly clear. However Huw’s treatment by the BBC press could have been a little more downbeat.

For one thing, his actual transgression was not the creation or commissioning of images, simply receiving them and not even passing them on. Of course every receiver helps to prolong the trade in such images, and underage children are the victims here.

I make this point however against the background of Huw’s mental illness. Either we accept that people can suffer from inner tortures of the mind or we don’t. If we do, we have to consider the whole story and not just the part that involved an illegal act.

As one of the BBC’s flagship presenters, it surprises me that they were not involved earlier in making sure his high-visibility work had no negative impact on his mental well-being. The stress of being the voice of the news on television for so many years, charged with some of the most important stories in the nation’s life, must have been tremendous.

Let’s face it, all of us welcomed his voice and face, appropriately tuned to the gravitas of the moment.

What really came across as a hypercritical slap in the face was the published reaction of the BBC to Huw’s sentencing. “After the sentencing, a BBC spokesperson said the corporation was “appalled” by Edwards’ crimes. ‘He has betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him.'”

I think ‘saddened’ would have been a better word than ‘appalled’. And ‘betrayed’ is a very populist reaction to go for here. No mention of the mental health issues or reflection on why such a successful broadcaster should have contemplated suicide on apparently multiple occasions even before the offences took place.

Huw Edwards was no Jimmy Saville. Huw was not a predator and did not groom anyone, and no credible stories of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace have emerged. I can only assume that the BBC’s reaction was penned by the one employee they have who has never in their whole life done anything inappropriate with their mobile phone or laptop that they wouldn’t want their bosses to see.

Of course we will not see Huw Edwards again as a news presenter – I cannot imagine a circumstance where that would be even remotely appropriate. He has commanded a salary (rightfully earned in my opinion) which should enable him to continue his life without money issues dogging him.

I hope Huw’s (mental) health improves. The arrest and trial will also have taken its toll, and no, he did not bring it all on himself. Even the most steady moral compass will have difficulty faced with mental health issues. There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Since the curfew was introduced in the Netherlands 3 days ago we have seen a change in mood among the young. The age group starts around 14 and goes up into the early twenties. The day after the first curfew, groups of discontents started mini riots in Amsterdam, Eindhoven and some smaller places like Urk.

These were not demonstrations as such, although gatherings of anti-corona measure demonstrators found their actions piggy-backed by hooligans. The day of the 3rd curfew, Monday 25th January, saw groups of young people running riot on several towns and cities. Even my local mayor announced a state of emergency for certain areas of the town, including where I live. Fortunately, my town was spared any large scale breaches of the peace. Other towns were not so fortunate.

Vandalism and looting has featured in many places, with some shops almost completely emptied of their contents. One mayor on Sunday feared for a move towards civil war (quote, unquote) although that is really not the case.

Press reporters and cameramen have valiantly tried to capture the scenes so that we could see what was happening on our television screens and computers. They were sometimes even turned on by the rioters.

The police brought in flying squads and water canons and so far have finally managed to quell the riots by the end of the evening.

All this is a matter of record. But then you have the various talk-shows on the television and radio. Some of the presenters and interviewers have been asking quite stupid questions, and even twisting the answers of those being interviewed.

The mayor of Amsterdam stated several times in an interview this evening that it was important that legitimate demonstrations continue to be facilitated as long as the organisers followed the rules set out by the town hall, but the interviewer kept on suggesting that demonstrations weren’t possible in Amsterdam at the moment.

It seems that the freedom of the press also includes the freedom to ask stupid questions and ignore the answers given. At a time like this, that is very disappointing.