Page 5 | Are we being scaremongered by the news or is this reality

FlatWhite2 · 2024-09-18T11:34:41+00:00

I tend not to watch the news but have seen an article this morning about Huw Edwards and his lenient sentence. The article went on the highlight other lenient sentences handed to pedophiles who committed horrendous crimes. As a mother, and just a normal person I’m horrified by this. Is the media manipulating us into believing these crimes are more common and prevalent than they are & that they’re not as ‘frowned upon’ as they should be, or is this reality? Asking to put my own mind at ease! Thanks

soupfiend · 19/09/2024 20:29

BigLeafyTree · 19/09/2024 20:19

Who was the comedian who pointed out that arguing over the terminology of paedophilia makes you sound like a paedophile?

Probably someone trying to play to simpletons and who doesnt understand that the paraphilia is not the crime, the crime is the offence.

So in answer to OPs question, yes we are being scaremongered by the news but at the same time there are a number of child sex offenders and people who are likely to offend living in our communities.

And as I said, the vast vast majority of those will be the men that you know and associate with. Children are harmed (all harm, not just sexual harm) more likely by people they know

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 20:33

feellikeanalien · 19/09/2024 18:18

You can argue about the technical definition of a paedophile all you like but the bottom line is that men watching the type of things HE watched are contributing to the sexual abuse of children and teenagers. He may not have felt a sexual attraction to children in general but his actions and those of others like him are contributing to the sexual abuse of minors.

What a previous pp said about there not necessarily being an attraction to children per se but more an ever increasing thrill is needed as a result of porn addiction is incredibly worrying. I am absolutely convinced that the easy access to porn today is a major contributor to the increase in violence against women and children.

You can see that in the normalisation of things like choking in "regular" sexual relationships and boundaries in safeguarding being pushed further and further with any attempt to object to this leading to accusations of prudery or shaming of people. There is definitely a push to make more and more things acceptable which should not be and I fear we are sleepwalking into this.

I think you're probably right about both the access to pornography and the nature of it. There's also the growing incel movement & people like Andrew Tate.

It needs taking seriously, at least as seriously as online radicalisation.

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:05

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 17:11

You seem fond of the word literally, look up the literal meaning of paedophile. All the rest is in your head.

Show quote history

It's extremely weird how you keep insisting a man who enjoyed watching videos of children some as young as 7 being raped is somehow not a paedophile.

Would you say this stuff in public? Or are these sick excuses (assuming the worst of you) or pathetic arguements over terminology in light of how sick this man is (assuming the best of you) reserved for the safe anonymous space behind the keyboard?

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 19/09/2024 21:05

@Hatfullofwillow

Totally agree

Porn is a Pandora's box of sinister behaviours.

Normalising rough and unwanted behaviour to woman that do not want to participate.

Child abuse

Animal abuse

Extreme Violent behaviour

However as men rule the world it is woman and children that pay the price.

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 21:08

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:05

It's extremely weird how you keep insisting a man who enjoyed watching videos of children some as young as 7 being raped is somehow not a paedophile.

Would you say this stuff in public? Or are these sick excuses (assuming the worst of you) or pathetic arguements over terminology in light of how sick this man is (assuming the best of you) reserved for the safe anonymous space behind the keyboard?

Show quote history

You're an idiot.

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:11

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 21:08

You're an idiot.

Show quote history

What a well thought out intelligent response!

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:17

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 21:08

You're an idiot.

Show quote history

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.

So please go ahead and explain to us idiots why in your superior intellect you've come to the conclusion a man who watches videos of children being raped and describes it as "amazing" is not a paedophile?

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 21:28

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:17

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.

So please go ahead and explain to us idiots why in your superior intellect you've come to the conclusion a man who watches videos of children being raped and describes it as "amazing" is not a paedophile?

Show quote history

It isn't the definition, the definition is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

"In December 2020 Alex Williams said that he had ‘a file of vids and pics for you of someone special’,” prosecutor Ian Hope told the court.
“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person.”
That person was aged between 14 and 16 and the images were “Category C” in the table of severity of abuse, the lowest of the three tiers.
Williams then asked Edwards whether he wanted the “full file”.
Edwards responded: “Yes xxx...”
Williams then sent further and more severe images of abuse and a final video file of a Category A incident involving abuse of a boy aged between 13 and 15. Edwards and Williams wished each other a Happy Christmas.
When Williams said he had “hot” files that were big to send, Edwards recommended Dropbox. In time, the former newsreader referred to some of the material as “amazing” but it is not clear whether that meant the legal or illegal images."

Now you explain why it's less horrific, as in minimising, to suggest that his deviance was the sexual abuse of teens rather than of pre-pubescent children. Because that's what was proven in court.

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:44

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 21:28

It isn't the definition, the definition is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

"In December 2020 Alex Williams said that he had ‘a file of vids and pics for you of someone special’,” prosecutor Ian Hope told the court.
“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person.”
That person was aged between 14 and 16 and the images were “Category C” in the table of severity of abuse, the lowest of the three tiers.
Williams then asked Edwards whether he wanted the “full file”.
Edwards responded: “Yes xxx...”
Williams then sent further and more severe images of abuse and a final video file of a Category A incident involving abuse of a boy aged between 13 and 15. Edwards and Williams wished each other a Happy Christmas.
When Williams said he had “hot” files that were big to send, Edwards recommended Dropbox. In time, the former newsreader referred to some of the material as “amazing” but it is not clear whether that meant the legal or illegal images."

Now you explain why it's less horrific, as in minimising, to suggest that his deviance was the sexual abuse of teens rather than of pre-pubescent children. Because that's what was proven in court.

Show quote history

So you really are being pedantic over the use of the word paedophile as opposed to "hebephile".

Are you aware that "I'm not a pedo I'm a "hebephile" is an argument that actual pedos make.

Yes it minimises the crime because most people have never heard of the word hebephile and your comments about this on page one of the thread strongly implied that it wasnt as bad as being an actual pedo.

Besides the fact that you are incorrect it wasn't just teenagers there was also a child between age 7-9. Think about the fact actual children real people were abused to be made into videos/images for huws pleasure. And then sit here and argue over freaking terminology.

In your last comment you mentioned he received a cat a video of a boy between age 13-15, you're aware boys start puberty later than girls and he most likely was pre pubescent (not that it makes it ok just pointing out your pedo Vs hebephile argument is complete bullshit anyway)
I'd also look up what cat a means, because there really is no way anyone in the right mind can sit here and minimise this and insisting that Huw isnt a paedophile but rather a hebephile (a word that practically no one has heard of) is minimising this.

Hatfullofwillow · 19/09/2024 22:02

Leah5678 · 19/09/2024 21:44

So you really are being pedantic over the use of the word paedophile as opposed to "hebephile".

Are you aware that "I'm not a pedo I'm a "hebephile" is an argument that actual pedos make.

Yes it minimises the crime because most people have never heard of the word hebephile and your comments about this on page one of the thread strongly implied that it wasnt as bad as being an actual pedo.

Besides the fact that you are incorrect it wasn't just teenagers there was also a child between age 7-9. Think about the fact actual children real people were abused to be made into videos/images for huws pleasure. And then sit here and argue over freaking terminology.

In your last comment you mentioned he received a cat a video of a boy between age 13-15, you're aware boys start puberty later than girls and he most likely was pre pubescent (not that it makes it ok just pointing out your pedo Vs hebephile argument is complete bullshit anyway)
I'd also look up what cat a means, because there really is no way anyone in the right mind can sit here and minimise this and insisting that Huw isnt a paedophile but rather a hebephile (a word that practically no one has heard of) is minimising this.

Show quote history

Nobody used the term hebephile though and you're still suggesting it's somehow not as bad as paedophilia. Because how on earth can it be minimising to simply draw a distinction between two different forms of deviance?

Yet again you're making stuff up, for which you've no actual evidence for.

I've not insisted he isn't a paedophile, but you have insisted he is, despite clearly not knowing what a paedophile is until 20 mins ago. I simply pointed out that wasn't proven in court.

Leah5678 · 20/09/2024 09:06

He is a paedophile. I really don't care about your pontification over terminology.

On page one of this thread someone used the term hebephile I went back and checked seeing as you want to keep acting like you didn't say all the dumb shit you said on page one. It wasn't you who said it but someone basically saying the same crap as you.

I've never seen so many people making excuses and arguing over terminology in light of a literal nonce enjoying watching children being abused. Honestly wtf is this thread. I won't bother responding anymore everything I needed to say has been said.

boobingbriefly · 02/03/2025 08:18

Purposefullyporous · 19/09/2024 01:31

I work in mental health and worked on a ward with sex offenders.
It's shockingly common.
But the thing is there's a lot of men for whom it's not really 'peadophilia' as in how you would traditionally think of it. It's more passive. It's rooted in sex addiction. So it's not so much about them being inherently attracted to children... it's about getting more and more numb to ordinary pornography and getting thrilled by anything which is taboo or feels powerful. So you see many guys who are convicted of possessing child porn who basically have general sex addiction and are not really predatory paedophiles. They have been obsessed with pornography downloading progressively more extreme pornography in order to get the same 'high'.
This is actually the most common type of possession of child porn. It's frighteningly common and on the rise. But these guys compartmentalise it so much because it's on a screen. They would never approach a 'real' child in their lives it's just they've lost sight of the fact that these are real children being harmed in the stuff they've accessed. So you get quite otherwise 'normal' seeming nen with normal families and previously normal sex lives, cropping up in this situation due to sex addiction.

Of course the harm to kids is the same but if you are thinking these are like paedophiles who lurk in park bushes waiting to snatch your kids.. they aren't. That's still incredibly rare.
But this sex addiction slow numbing to progressively more fucked up content is sadly on the rise and is frighteningly common.
Obviously my experience is from the mental health side of things o I would come across a lot more mental health/addiction based stuff.
But it's distressingly common. I'd say over 50% of male patients I'd come into contact with thru my job had had some issues with accessing child porn.
Even where I currently work for example, in one night not long ago, I dealt with 4 male patients in one night, every single one of them had child sex offenses on their record.
But I have 3 kids myself and I don't actually think of any of these people as a direct threat to my kids. Sadly it's consumption of child porn and occasionally opportunistic exploitation of kids who are already in very fucked up situations. So it's kids from very difficult backgrounds at risk. As it usually is.. kids in care.. kids from the poorest parts of the world.
It's incredibly depressing yes.
But I don't feel afraid for my own children in that respect although I have many other fears Obviously.
I think when people say Edwards isn't a paedophile they aren't trying to defend his behaviour. His behaviour is obviously horrific and harmful. It's just that they mean he isn't predatory and it was based on an escalating sex addiction. Guys in that situation become very detached from reality. I don't know much about the law but I guess it has to treat that kind of thing differently to actual predatory paedophilia. Particularly as this passive consumption is on the rise in men. More needs to be done about it. As its addiction and mental health based harsher consequences don't really address it. I don't mean this to say anyone should be let off the hook.. but if you are trying to protect children from harm we need to look at why thus is happening and try and prevent it from happening before it does.

I get the porn addiction point and getting desensitised....but that scares me even more because children shouldn't be the next level for anyone..it's like suggesting it's normal if men consume too much porn that's the direction they're going to go.