To wonder why Huw Edwards is being treated a lot more sympathetically than Phillip Schofield was ?

[Barnybrown]

That’s it really - the tone of the media coverage re Huw seems much more sympathetic than the coverage Phillip received and discussion generally just seems much more sympathetic of Huw than Phillip, I can’t quite understand why?

Don't be silly. Children are more protected now than at any time in history, their biggest threat comes from pornography and digital prostitution. Foucault's accuser waited until he had died to accuse him of paying very young children to abuse them, yet nobody has come forward to confirm this or corroborate it.

Foucault's work was mostly about how power actually operates, how we're disciplined and punished to follow social norms. He argued that science was concerned with deviant types, rather than the act. Which is how people are conflating Edwards & Schofield. Entirely different acts.

Similarly, his work on history, his rejection of traditional history in favour of what he calls archaeology.

Both approaches challenge dominant ideological positions which is why the right want him cancelled. Truss ridiculously blamed the teaching of Foucault in schools for their failure to teach literacy and numeracy.

It's part of the culture war being enacted by people with power and control desperate to hang on to their privilege.

Once upon a time a 61 year old man sniffing around teenagers would be known in the neighbourhood as a dirty old man. Now people are defending him. Mental health or no mental health, he knew exactly what he wanted and exactly what he was doing.
It might be legal but that doesn't make it right. He could have paid mature adults for sexual pictures couldn't he, but no, barely legal kids is what he wanted.
I doubt any of those defending him would be jumping for joy if he was sniffing around their teenage daughter/son.
Mark my words, there will be lots more to come out about the married committed Christian and father of 5 that is Huw Edwards!!

There’s ok, not ok, and whether it is even relevant for someone to keep a job as a talking head reading a script in TV. What’s next? The BBC has to sack every employee that’s watched porn? Because it’s “not ok” for anyone over 30 to be seeing 18yr olds all sexual and stuff?

I can understand certain professions being held to a higher ethical standard than what is legal, but a talking head? That could be replaced by AI (and has been in many countries)?

This.

Huw Edwards is one of the faces of the Establishment, not one of the anonymous backroom stuff. He is more than just a newsreader---he has presented progs and done interviews on his religion, Welsh identity, etc, so has no hesitation in mining his personal life for money when it suits him. As the public pay his ludicrously high salary, he should have accepted that public interest goes with the territory

So, he is subject to a purity test then? Care to lay out what level of purity anyone should have to be able to read a script on TV?

Once upon a time a 61 year old man sniffing around teenagers would be known in the neighbourhood as a dirty old man. Now people are defending him. Mental health or no mental health, he knew exactly what he wanted and exactly what he was doing.

absolutely this.

What next, we’re told just #bekind?

well if it’s legal then by definition it is ok. That doesn’t make it any less sordid but thats generally a personal matter. Unless you’re arguing to raise the age of consent to early 20’s?

From inside a relationship, along with the secrecy and dishonesty, it’d be hard to forgive but anyone outside of that would have nothing to do with it and nothing to ‘forgive’.

If I was married with a 19 year old and my 59 year old husband was paying for explicit photos of a 19 year old I would likely feel revulsion but I also accept that’s not how titillation and attraction work. Just because I make that connection doesn’t mean he would be or it’s an intrinsic part of the attraction. It’s an older man finding a sexually mature person sexy. That’s just biology. That doesn’t mean I could continue my relationship.

Circumstances change depending on the power involved and abuses of that but then I doubt we’d be having the same conversations if the young people involved with both HE or PS had been in their early twenties rather than late teens despite similar positions of power.

There had been rumours about PS being gay for decades so he had obviously been fairly indiscreet about it in the past, I always assumed he came out on air to get in before a newspaper outed him, his actions with the young runner suggested he had groomed him and misused his power over a colleague.

Whereas HE cheated on his wife with adults outside of the workplace, so he didn’t have the same power dynamic, if anything they had the power over him because they could out him without damaging their own careers.

If I am watching someone read the news from Ukraine (for example), I do not expect it to be read by a person of disrepute. It's known as standards in public life

It’s his “mental elf”. Top marks to his crisis management company that have stepped in I say.

@ProtestantsHateAbba "Also the man is so ill he’s currently in hospital and he has a history of mental illness." That may be, but you can bet it won't be an NHS hospital. The NHS doesn't admit people with MH problems on an in-patient basis unless a desperate emergency - and only if there are beds available, which is often not the case - and discharges them as quickly as possible The Priory advertises: "We are currently able to offer fast access to private inpatient treatment at Priory. Please call us today and speak to our expert advisors." Perfect for wealthy citizens who need to get away for a while. HE has checked in to a private clinic. He may well have serious MH issues, but he is able to use his wealth to access resources that others could only dream of. I feel slightly sorry for him, because I think he is collateral damage and a victim of the Sun's vendetta against the BBC, but I do think his actions have been sleazy to say the least and I believe that BBC presenters should be held to high ethical standards. What he did can't be laid at the door of depression, which isn't a get out jail free card for sleazy behaviour, but no doubt he is feeling extra depressed now that he has been exposed.

Chopper, yeah pretty simple really - just be one of the good guys- how hard can that really be? I manage to be married with kids without paying other adults for naked pics - surely a news reader can manage it

Understand what you are saying, but I can have the same revulsion at seeing such a person on my screen reading the nightly news. Sexuality is part of a person's identity, not separate from it. Another poster summed it up with the 'dirty old man' description.

@Sigmama

Agreed. I’ve just taken a phone call from my uncle who’s been admitted into an NHS MH hospital. He’s in great spirits (admittedly he is a on a high) and he’s been in and out his whole life. He’s very ill. He’s still a great guy. He has somehow managed not to be a dirty old seedy perv, despite his illness.

I agree. The Guardian reported that the Edwards family were using the services of Andy Coulson, ex News of the World hack (and hacker) hence favourable poll in The Mirror. Andy is no slouch in positive spinning.

Thanks! DH was right then!

Because PS has admitted to having a 'consensual moment' in his dressing room with someone that he met when they were a child. It's a power imbalance on lots of different levels. It was widely discussed online for years and then people e.g. HW are faux shocked and saddened by the news.

We don't as yet know what HE actually did, it's all speculation.

Media friends have swung into action. Like with Gideon.

HE was squeaky clean whereas PS had already started to lose fans after the rumours of bullying and general nastiness. While both used their power to try to quash the stories, PS's was more about first hand grooming.

One of Huw's peers (Adam Boulton from Sky) wrote this in his column today:

"Our free society would be the worse if the privacy of the powerful was protected to the point that they could gratify themselves in private at the expense of others – while enjoying their status as pillars of rectitude. Huw and I have both presented programmes in which the main reports have been about the questionable activities of politicians, business leaders, celebrities, sports personalities and, yes, other TV presenters.

We cannot complain if our behaviour comes under scrutiny as well. I note that Vicky did not do so in her revelatory statement last week.

For those criticising The Sun, the argument goes that Huw’s conduct is nobody’s business unless criminal activity is alleged. This, however, is demonstrably misguided. Many people working for a range of other businesses across the country have been rightly sanctioned, even sacked, for behaviour that falls well short of a crime."

Thought he summed it up pretty well.

I have no idea why they’re being treated so different morally. Legally there may be a difference, yes. But I can’t stomach the idea of someone using their fat stack salary and power to basically take advantage of someone’s vulnerable position. It’s disgusting and I have absolutely no desire to watch them on television . I would feel the same about ANYONE, male or female.

im sure he DOES have mental health issues. When you’ve done something more than once that you know to be morally wrong then I’m sure it DOES fuck with your head, yes. You can’t argue that it’s just the media backlash that’s causing his mental anguish now. I’m sure he got an extra kick all along out of knowing that he was behaving like that while projecting this wholesome, if not smarmy and fawning, image on TV and no-one knew. He knew that being in the public eye there would be a backlash if it came out and huge public speculation and discussion and still chose to go ahead and risk his family’s embarrassment anyway. Shame on him. He has to own that now and deal with the consequences of his choice, to own it and to try and make it up to his family.

I am really not comfortable with anyone coming out and publicly supporting him if their stance is that he should be allowed to carry on on our screens. If they are simply criticising the way the gutter press have dealt with it all then fine. But I don’t want to see people with such a low moral code on my screen reading news stories about similar situations in the future, or indeed any salacious events. I do NOT want someone like him, or Schofield, informing me about Prince Andrew developments, for example, or about Trump’s behaviour.

Yes, @grass321 that’s exactly how I feel. His journalistic career is over.

Yes, his career is over and he could retire very comfortably. He can then do what he likes and live the life he wants. I do not want to see him on TV. It can be spun however you want but the crux of the matter is he is a dirty old man.

Exactly. Defending such sleazy behaviour will do absolutely nothing for the BBC’s rep. They’ve spent years trying to improve it since Savile. I don’t want any more coverups or minimising. There is nothing that should defend HE’s behaviour itself.

I'm going with the homophobia theory.