Huw Edwards and backlash defending grim behaviour

[ThirtyPercentRecycled]

I’ve scanned through and can’t see a thread similar to this, but happy to ask for this to be deleted if it’s already done to death.

After the announcement that the seedy male is HE, there seems to be a backlash defending him, and defending men’s rights to behave exactly how they want to.
I’m not sure I will ever feel comfortable with men paying for sexually explicit photos, and I definitely won’t ever accept what I’m being told now that “all men do it, as long as it’s private it doesn’t hurt anyone” (have come straight here from watching a Jonathan Pie video saying this - all men wank, what’s the problem).

Every time there’s a glimmer of hope that men will be held accountable for their actions, people go into overdrive to excuse their actions and focus blame elsewhere.

HE knew what he was doing. No one forced him.
I have 1 friend that feels the same way I do, but everyone else I know thinks this is a huge overreaction and focus on the parents (definitely being paid, money grabbing scum), the young person (a druggy, not a potential victim, deserves everything he/she gets) and the Sun (Sam Fox etc). HE is being largely treated as a victim here, and I can’t get my head round it.

If my child had a life threatening drug habit, funded by a celebrity, I’d probably do the same thing. The police couldn’t do anything. The BBC didn’t do anything. As a desperate parent what would you do?

Me too had the potential to be world changing, but apparently asking men to respect women/young people and not treat them as commodities and sexual objects was a step too far for many, including many women.

Opinions I’ve heard on revenge porn, usually with a female victim, tend to blame the woman for allowing herself to be filmed in the first place. Rape victims (unless male) are asked what they were wearing, were they drunk, they are compared to objects/possessions - if you leave your house open don’t be surprised when someone takes your stuff.

So is this where we are? A world by men and for men, where they can get their grubby rocks off however they want but are still seen as the victim when it comes out?

It’s honestly disgusting me, the lengths that people go to to defend these men, I’m horrified that people I respected are defending HE, and I can’t see any solution to it. It’s so depressing.

People feel sorry for Huw - and indeed it’s sad that any human being is hospitalised with a mental health episode. It’s also sad for his family. Huw was a highly respected and distinguished broadcaster, trusted to deliver some of the biggest stories of our times, so it’s sad that he has tarnished a glittering career. Above all, it’s very sad for the young person allegedly funding a crack addiction via this sordid saga.

Huw’s behaviour - which the police have concluded was not criminal - was nonetheless sleazy and grim, and only he is accountable for his actions. No-one put a gun to his head and told him to do what he did. He did it all by himself - and only had a meltdown when it all came out in the wash. Very easy for these men to regret their actions once their reputation is at stake.

People make all sorts of excuses when men make mistakes, and that is male privilege in action. I believe women are held to much higher standards of behaviour than men are.

For what it’s worth, The Sun is indeed a despicable rag with no moral compass. Paying young women to get their assets out for the lads; counting down the days until 15-year-old girls turned 16, all absolutely inexcusable creepy behaviour.
However, Huw’s actions were indefensible too.

@KalimbaMoon Pretty much sums it up for me. No sympathy here except for the wife who's been wheeled out to pick up the pieces despite being no doubt devastated. Any slight sympathy I might have felt (I say might) evaporated with the arrogance of the announcement that we'd just have to wait until he felt like addressing the issues raised but I'll be charitable and put that down to unfortunate phrasing by whoever wrote the statement.

Any interest I have lies solely in the issue everyone is skating round - how exactly does an 18 year old crack addict find and afford an expensive solicitor?

After the announcement that the seedy male is HE, there seems to be a backlash defending him, and defending men’s rights to behave exactly how they want to.

Not at all.
What some of us are doing is not speculating when the full facts are not known.

The Police have said there is no case to answer.

The BBC have not finished their internal investigation.

The Sun is backpedalling so fast you can almost see the smoke rising.

defending men’s rights to behave exactly how they want to.

That's nonsense and you know it - no-one has said or inferred that at all.

I have reported your post for being goady, borderline defamatory and superfluous.

I have reported your post for being goady, borderline defamatory and superfluous

Oooh, get you.

One of the reasons there is currently support for HE is that as of now all there is is allegations. His private life has been splashed all over the media and as yet no one knows if the allegations are true. The young adult in the suns report has said through a solicitor that the allegations made by their parents were completely false, and that they'd told the sun there was no truth in the claims before publication. The sun it appears have failed to even consider that the parents might be lying and their evidence is apparently an affidavit signed by the parent that it's true, no actual evidence. It's only the mother that has said there's a drug addiction as well, so there's no way of knowing if that's true either. The police have said that nothing illegal has occurred, so we know the parents lied about the age of the young person when the alleged incidents started, and they've apparently done nothing for three years now all of a sudden want it stopped? The facts don't add up at all. If he has been having an online relationship with young adults then that is not illegal, people can have an opinion on whether it's immoral but that's all it is, their opinion.

@Lizzt2007 One of the reasons there is currently support for HE is that as of now all there is is allegations.

That is exactly my point.

The phrase used in the announcement was 'felt well enough' not felt like, HE has extensive and well documented mental health issues. Believing that this media circus wouldn't have massively affected someone with already fragile mental health is ridiculous. And since the only reference to a drug addiction has come from the parent who took this circus to the sun and has already been shown to be a liar then let's not assume the young person actually is an addict. Also they're currently 20 years old, not 18. And estranged from their mother.

If you have a problem with my post, and don't like my opinion, please spit it out.

His private life has been splashed all over the media and as yet no one knows if the allegations are true.

Thats absolutely true, though on the other hand if it had been a presenter from say GB News, or an editor of say the Mail or the Spectator then there would have been uproar from the Guardian, the Labour Party and many posters on here.

😋

has already been shown to be a liar then let's not assume the young person actually is an addict. Also they're currently 20 years old, not 18. And estranged from their mother

Aren't those allegations as well?

I agree. I've been appalled by some of the reactions within Wales in particular. They seem to have trouble understanding that sometimes even much-loved personalities behave appallingly.

I very much doubt that the parents would have gone straight to the Sun. Other outlets probably wouldn't want to risk covering it. This isn't a simple matter of equals hooking-up for meaningless sex via a dating app. There's the issue of payments totalling £35k+ to a vulnerable young person over a sustained period of time. The information from another young person that he gave him £200 after they first met for making him a cup of tea hints that this is a concerning pattern of behaviour, whether that's being a sugar daddy, grooming or hush money. Setting the bar at "it's not illegal" is morally repugnant. Lots of appalling behaviour isn't illegal. People object to 'nanny state' laws but then use their absence to excuse exploitative, manipulative conduct.

Acting as if the prominent person is a blameless victim without even knowing the details is very naive. It also makes it less likely that other young people who have or are experiencing this type of behaviour (not necessarily from HE) will come forward or realise that they are being groomed and exploited.

First of all where is the proof he has 'a very expensive solicitor' ?

Some firms will do 'pro bono' work.

I’m not speculating on any legalities or allegations surrounding this.

I’m basing this on the fact that he has paid for sexual images, full stop. Is there any question that this has happened?

My issue is that men often behave in appalling ways, and when called out are then seen as the victims.

@EnfysPreseli There's the issue of payments totalling £35k+ to a vulnerable young person over a sustained period of time. The information from another young person that he gave him £200 after they first met for making him a cup of tea hints that this is a concerning pattern of behaviour, whether that's being a sugar daddy, grooming or hush money.

It hints to me of blackmail but we will have to wait and see....

I think you have your answer, OP. Lots of defenders out in force at the drop of a……hat.

@ThirtyPercentRecycled I’m basing this on the fact that he has paid for sexual images, full stop. Is there any question that this has happened?

Is there any proof that he has?

Please state where this has been confirmed.

@EnfysPreseli exactly.

Men get away with this behaviour again and again.
Why do we set the bar so very low for them? It’s as if we accept that men are just animals who have no control over themselves - if that’s what they are then we need to strengthen women’s rights, if not then they need to accept being called out on their behaviour.

I think that this conversation absolutely needs to happen, but that it should be when the public are in full possession of the facts and when there's no known suicide risk. It isn't.accurate to say that HE is playing the mental health card- his struggle is well documented.

FWIW I fucking hate OnlyFans and think it's deeply misogynistic, but the fact that this was labeled as paedophilia for many days in the press and on SM isn't a fair representation imo.

Nothing that Huw Edwards is alleged to have done has been confirmed as fact has it?

There has been no denial at all.
In a case like this if his behaviour was exemplary then there would have been a statement declaring that.
Absence of that speaks volumes.

You’re right, calling him a paedophile was never ok.

Yep. Pretty obvious who they are, as well, demanding threads be withdrawn and chapter and verse to back up comments posters make.

i agree with you op. I think this gets to the problem of this massively expanded/expanding sex industry. The more willing we are to consider sex work as ‘work’ the more likely it becomes that young ppl will utilise this option. As a society we’ve allowed horrific porn and other forms of sex work to become increasingly normalised. And here we are now defending the men that benefit.