How is Huw Edwards different to Philip Schofield

[user6482952]

Heard this question raised on LBC this morning and was wondering the same thing.

How are the two any different? Both older men engaged with younger men, both cheating on their wives, and both claiming mental health issues post revelation.

He's not.

They're both sleezy bastards.

However, there's no law against being a sleezy bastard and it appears Huw Edwards has commited no crime.

I'm not sure about Schofield, isn't there speculation that he groomed an underage boy?

And what short memories the media have.

Remember this? Mandy Smith subsequently confirmed that their relationship was actually consummated when she was 14.

‘Wyman wrote in his 1990 autobiography: "She took my breath away...she was a woman at thirteen.’ 🤢

https://www.smoothradio.com/news/music/bill-wyman-mandy-smith-marriage-wedding/

These events were possibly part of a MH episode or ongoing symptoms in the first place. Mania can have depressive aspects and dangerous, highly risky behaviour. If there's no criminality then it's behaviour others disapprove of, end of.

Differences to me are that PS had physical sexual contact with the young man. Who was working with him in a junior position at the time of the sexual contact.

And AFAIK hadn't mentioned MH difficulties before? Whereas Huw spoke openly about having severe depression before all this happened.

Those seem to be factual differences that are relevant.

There are also many similarities.

If HE did indeed meet the young person on OnlyFans or similar then I don't know why there isn't an outcry for such sites to do more due diligence and safeguarding with their performers. I'm not sure what shape this would take as there are presumably so many people on there but at least mandatory ID checks if they don't already.

Some of the allegations are from his junior colleagues.

For me the big difference is that PS first started grooming the young man aged 14 and was also in a position of power/responsibility over him.

HE went through a website where it assumed everyone is over 18, and the young person was 17 anyway.

I guess it is different if there was engagement with the other party before they were 18. Also if you worked with them, lied about it and were generally a sanctimonious prat to others as a career.

That said both were unable to be out in the eighties and nineties as it would have been career suicicde from a societal point of view perhaps we should address why that even now why tv and film actors and actresses still have to hide their sexuality.

We dont know what went on in either of their marriages, obviously the age gap is worrying, but noone gave the same ick factor faux offence to likes of barbara Windsor. For now he is generally poorly having had his private life paraded in front of us to hide boris's text messages.

Allow the bbc to investigate and move on...

My personal view is that the age of consent should not be raised, no-one wants to prosecute a 16 year old and a 17 year old for having sex.

But there should be a law in place that anyone over the age of 21 (or possibly 23) should not have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18.

Did Huw edwards allegedly have dealings with young men or young women? It just says "they" in news updates.

1. PS met his victim at a much younger age and was in a position of immense power over him.

1. The police and the young person dispute the parent's account of what happened. At the moment all that seems certain is that HE has been using Grindr.

1. ITV ignored (or possibly covered up) the issue for years. The BBC only got agreement from the Sun to pass on the details they have yesterday.

1. PS was given the chance to put his side across first by the Sun. They sat on far better evidence than they used to attack HE and continued the attacks on HE for days while not disclosing that there were large holes in the parent's story. Doing that hurt a lot of people.

None of that is me defending HE. If any substantive part of this is true then his career should be over.

It's not 'end of' - an older male cannot be left to behave in any way they choose leaving vulnerable junior colleagues feeling unable to speak out in any workplace. Every allegation must be listened to and thoroughly investigated. HE was deemed well enough to work with no recent prolonged periods of sickness absence and some of these allegations are very recent.

I think that is due to a reluctance to out him. I think if they were women, they'd have said.

We honestly can't assume it was a young man it hasn't been said.

At the end of the day, the detail doesn't matter. Most, if not all, employment contracts include a clause "not to bring the employer into disrepute" or similar, and people are sacked on a daily basis for breaching that term. There's no doubt HE has brought his employer (BBC) into disrepute by his actions, which may not be illegal, but that's not the "standard" - the BBC has clearly suffered reputational damage due to HE's conduct, and his job, rightly, is at an end because of it.

Because just now they need a distraction from all the Tory crimes, like Boris Johnson’a phone. But if they plaster this all over the news then they weaken the bbc and distract from Tory corruption in one. Don’t be fooled one is worse than the other.

It’s different because Philip Schofield met his young lover when he was a child. He then arranged for him to get a job working beside him at itv & the boy became his personal runner. When the relationship ended the young lad lost his job on this morning & was moved onto loose women. It reeks of grooming & manipulation & a shocking abuse of power. Everyone at itv knew and did nothing. It is in no way the same as the huw Edwards thing at all.

Girls and women are expected to be abused by men & older men. I think there is a toxic masculinity homophobia tinge to the story but mysogyny and patriarchal society are what cause lives and health of girls and women to be so undervalued.

I don’t think this is quite fair about CF or HE tbh.

CF had had ongoing serious mh difficulties which, according to her mother, centred around abandonment. I’m not defending violence or domestic abuse under any circumstances but her mh condition definitely exacerbated the incident that led to her demise. And a so-called friend sold a photo to the tabloids showing blood in her apartment without it being made clear that the blood was mainly hers (she had cut her wrists in response to her bf’s infidelity). The Met police eventually made a formal apology to Caroline’s mother about the way they had pursued the case, appealing the CPS’s recommendation of just a caution. We know this bc the facts came out at the inquest.

We really don’t know anything about HE’s case as yet because the facts have not been formally established by any reliable source. He has spoken publically about having had long term depression before. We don’t know why he felt unable to come out as gay, if he is indeed gay, but attitudes were very different thirty even twenty years ago to how they are now. His behaviour does not look good and I’m not condoning moral sleaze but we all know that the Sun has its own agenda here.

Surely there is the wider issue at stake as to whether we believe individuals in the public eye are entitled to a private life or not? Obviously exploitative relationships are morally reprehensible but if someone acts within the law should they still be subject to the equivalent of a public flogging in the tabloids, which are morally objectionable themselves?

There has been no suggestion that the young man was on Only Fans at all.

Huw Edwards isn't claiming after the event. He has said before he's had serious depression

Huge Edwards gets paid around half a million pounds of licence payers money a year for reading out loud. That’s not what earns respect!

On the face of it they both exploited their positions of power for personal gain which is wrong

however wrt HE we still don’t really know what happened. It seems possible that the whole thing was made up. It also seems like a deliberate effort my Murdoch/the Sun to further weaken the BBC and deflect media interest in other very important stories.!

Yes that's what it is distraction. We all know if you are watching/ reading news that Boris Johnstone didn't had over his phone for investigation. Its ongoing and to trot out that the huw Edwards story is just distraction is ridiculous!

Did HE ever actually meet any of these people? If he found them on onlyfans had they said they were 18? PS knew the boy from a young age and got him a job + lied about it - and did have a ‘physical relationship’ with him. PS actions seem considerably worse imo.
That's the difference to me

Whilst HE's actions are wrong, if he had reason to believe everyone was over 18 then that is very different to PS knowing someone as a child, grooming them, helping them get a job in the industry and abusing his more senior position in the workplace.