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.

Agree, I don't know much about Huw Edwards so can't really comment on that story but fully agree that people make excuses for men all the time. It was the same with Micheal Jackson.
When I disclosed to a family member that I'd been sexually assaulted by a man in his late 20s (I was 16) and said I was going to the police I was told " Is it really fair to ruin his life, he was young and made a mistake"
Another girl I know was raped by 2 men at her party, People's first response was to point out she'd been having an affair. Happens all the time.

Errr just a minute lady, you were the one incorrectly splitting legalistic hairs over the difference between "no case to answer" and "no evidence", and now seem to have attempted a pivot to avoid that particular issue!

I suppose the other thing is that a lot of people have now realised how much BBC newsreaders are paid and are thinking that if they can spend £35,000 on porn, they are chronically overpaid. And it's our money. I guess there's a grudging acceptance of Gary Lineker getting paid shitloads because he's doing more than reading an autocue - the BBC is paying for his specialist insight and unique experience. A newsreader undeniably has skill and talent but it's not unique or even that rare so I do think a lot of people are wondering what justifies his enormous salary.

Jeez. My eyes rolled so hard.

Where does it say that the presumption of innocence is depressing? Where does it say that this should be judged solely on a report in the Sun. Some posters are being deliberately obtuse. As someone who has worked with children and young people and in safeguarding roles, including on child protection investigations, I do find some of the attitudes expressed by some posters in this thread profoundly depressing.

Instead of discussing the broader issues outlined in the OP some posters are still fixated on claiming that conclusions can be drawn from what is known at present and to criticising anyone who still has concerns. As I've said previously, this needs proper investigation. The limited information we (understanably) have as members of the public is insufficient to draw any conclusions one way or the other. Mumsnet is a diverse community, but surely we are allowed to have a civilised discussion.

There seemed to be no point in revisiting it. I don't think subsequent posters have refuted what I've said, just restated their disagreement. I stand by it.

Where does it say that the presumption of innocence is depressing? Where does it say that this should be judged solely on a report in the Sun.

You said it was depressing that people were arguing that he is innocent. People are arguing he is innocent because of the presumption of innocence.

Those judging and making assumptions about Huw's behaviour are doing so based on an article in the Sun. There is no evidence of anything yet.

The main point of starting this was my feelings that this happens at all.

Whenever there’s an announcement that someone is being investigated for sexual misconduct (not talking about HE here), or that an allegation crops up like this, we know it’s a man.

Throughout women’s lives we are disadvantaged by men’s behaviour. From the age of 10 (iirc the average age that men start to look at girls differently) women and girls are subjected to crappy behaviour from men, whether that behaviour is legal or not.

At the very same time women are making excuses over and over again for this crappy male behaviour - why? Why can’t we say “this is shit, we’re not putting up with it any more!”? Without the inevitable backlash of NAMALT, or numerous other excuses, including blaming women.

Why are libfems often so astute in recognising poor male behaviour, but at the same time defend these men’s right to view women as objects?

None of this makes sense.

Law: The no-case-to-answer point is pretty simple. It's a legal binary. If you disagree with the Guardian then you say that there is a case to answer. In which case what is it! There is no evidence.

Morally: we all have different moral codes. Discuss porn in abstract by all means. But don't publicly expose, shame and humiliate someone whose morals you disagree with.

We often discuss legal and moral issues concerning women's reproductive rights on this board. A significant proportion of people have (in good faith) different views about abortion from most people here. Would you be comfortable if a public figure was splashed across the front page for having multiple terminations, "using abortion instead of contraception", some "late" abortions? All legal but "close to the wind". Of course it would be appalling. But why shouldn't those who think abortion law and behaviour are wrong use public shaming of legal private activity any more than those who think the law concerning legal sexual behaviour?

Basically the whole thread proved your op..
It makes sense if you view society as a patriarchy where mens needs are paramount

Exactly. And that’s so depressing.

Before I had children I honestly thought that things were moving in the right direction for things to be better for them.
My daughter is 20 now, and as far as I can see things are worse for women than they were decades ago!

I feel this about the world generally! I wonder if it's just an inevitable age thing? I'm pretty sure our mothers said the same thing. Thankfully the 20-somethings are mostly optimistic.

When the BBC cannot find the money, apparently, to fund its world renowned choir or classical music ensembles. It needs to go back to its public service remit. If Mr Edwards really is such great box office let the market take care of him.

Just listening to the lunchtime news story about Kevin Spacy.. Elton John and David Furnish are giving statements. David furnish is quoted as saying that he complimented the victim on his looks and he seemed to enjoy the attention!
How is that any different from saying "She was wearing a short skirt or "Why was she walking home in the dark alone "?
Remember we're talking about a man (in this case) who has been accused of 13 sexual assaults.
Victim blaming bullshit and that comment should have been dismissed as completely irrelevant, not read out on a national news channel.
I'm so sick and tired of people trying to make excuses for rich powerful sexual predators!
But then again Kevin spacy was really good in American beauty so let's not pick on him.

Yes, well said but you can’t expect m’netters to stick to the points

"Male sexuality" is not the same as gay mens sex lives.
"Male sexuality" means sexuality linked to being power. That includes things like exploiting those less fortunate for sexual gratification, paying prostitutes, raping and sexually assaulting people, having weird fetishises that you expect to be indulged in public.

Male sexuality is the root cause of a lot of harm to women, that's why its a feminist issue.

In that week’s Sunday Times there was a piece describing how grand and unmanageable HE had become at the BBC, refusing to be dealt with by anyone lesser than the Director General. He had allegedly upset a lot of people on his way up so colleagues were not universally supportive. It was also stated that , when doing after-dinner speeches he bragged that nobody would be watching the news at 10 because he had wasn’t presenting. It was well known that he was very active on social media and dating sites.

God almighty no one is doing this. They are discussing perfectly reasonable points to do with men exploiting positions of power to behave badly. If Edwards has done this - IF - then public opprobrium is surely justified.
anyway everyone is worrying about Nigel’s bank account now so looks like he’s off the hook

Interesting from Private Eye who say they have seen the original complaint that was made by the Stepfather. " AT WHAT precise point did News UK realise that it had dropped something of a bollock on its story?"
Private Eye Media News: Sun v BBC: Huw's sorry now? (private-eye.co.uk)

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting that @Greenthrow. If News UK has been untruthful in any of its reporting. I hope Huw sues.