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.

@Whataretheodds If you think porn and Only Fans should be illegal then fight on that issue. But why single out one man?

Exactly.

All over the relationship boards on MN we have 'cool' women saying that 'there is nothing wrong with pornography' and that it is 'harmless'.
Women are their own worst enemies in this respect. If women made a stand against it, we might not be having this discussion now 🙄

I wonder how much sympathy HE would get if this had been revealed by the Times? because a lot of people seem to be calibrating their moral response based on their opinion of the Sun rather than their opinion of HE's alleged behaviour.

I'll ask again: is he not allowed a private life?

Sure.

But are the parents of a teenager not allowed to be outraged/appalled/upset that a 60 year old 'family man' with money and in a position of celebrity was paying their teenager, who he started 'talking to' at 17', for explicit photos? Especially when the money was being spent on drugs that were harming their teenager?

A private life. Sure. As long as it's not damaging other people's lives. And I suspect many think that doing this behind your own wife and family's back and involving a teenager kind of wipes out any cries of outrage and upset for being exposed.

If your actions won't stand up to the light of day, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing them, eh? Because these things tend to come out, especially if you're a well paid (with taxpayer monies), well known celebrity.

You see homosexuality as immoral as porn or adultery? Wow.

Op, why start a thread and just goad posters who disagree with you? Maybe just talk to yourself then?

I can see both sides but really, people are still invested in this story? Let Huw make a statement. Let BBC investigate. Wait for facts.

If adults want to trade pictures and do whatever, that's their business. I don't like porn or support it as a legitimate career, but we live in a free society. The issue is with power imbalances and the fact that Huw represents a huge company. And the adultery, but that's a matter for him and his wife to sort out.

100% this. HE's right to a 'private life' stops at the point it's doing harm to other people

Unsurprisingly, because they've let off a load of allegations, the most serious of which (criminal offences) have been judged by the police to be unfounded, so why would we believe them?

The Sun themselves made money out of exploiting women under 18 for topless photos. Where was their moral indignation then?

Their showbiz editor has been accused by multiple sources of blackmailing and coercing individuals for sexually explicit images and blackmailing them. Where is their moral indignation now?

Their reporting of homsexuality would have you believe that Section 28 hasn't been repealed. It's like the 1980s again.

Maybe let's wait until we know what actually happened before we judge?

@NowItsLikeSnowAtTheBeach But are the parents of a teenager not allowed to be outraged/appalled/upset that a 60 year old 'family man' with money and in a position of celebrity was paying their teenager, who he started 'talking to' at 17', for explicit photos? Especially when the money was being spent on drugs that were harming their teenager?

This has been denied by the 'young person' via a solicitor and the police have not acted on these allegations.

I think his behaviour is sleazy and shitty if it is 100% the case- however I think it's between him and his wife and possibly his employer if he has been harassing other staff -

So @Whataretheodds you've pretty much answered my question there.

I think the problem is less defending this person than lack of proof. The Sun was unable to provide any actual evidence that this had occurred.
Nobody really knows if the pants photo is real or deep fake.
Then some of his colleagues came forward to claim that he had sent them inappropriate text messages.
This needs to be dealt with by an internal investigation and the evidence examined.
I detest sleazy behaviour and I think if he has done all of these things he should be dismissed from his position but as yet investigations are still ongoing.
I think my managers would have a problem firing anyone without a full investigation.

Which question?

This one.

I wonder how much sympathy HE would get if this had been revealed by the Times? because a lot of people seem to be calibrating their moral response based on their opinion of the Sun rather than their opinion of HE's alleged behaviour.

Are the parents not allowed to be outrages/appalled/upset - of course!

But as others have pointed out their adult child complete disputes their version of events, so we don't know what's true except that no crime was committed according to the police.

If this person was on Only Fans (as I understand it, £35k was a total earned from only fans over a period of time, not just from HE) then why are all the other people who bought images not also being named? Why is it only awful if a newsreader does it?

Also, all the moral indignation on behalf of HE' s wife - do you think she wants this publicity for her, her children, wider family and friends? Stop making out you're championing her cause.

Re - "family man" - did he set himself up as that? Was it relevant to his job? He's not Holly Willoughby is he, trading on being a 'normal mum'. Did you even know what his home life was before all this?

I don't like porn. I am deeply concerned by the stories of abuse that have come out of the industry. I worry that young women (as well as young men) will have warped views of what makes them valuable as human beings because of the disproportionate money that can be made selling their bodies rather than their skills. I am fearful for young people growing up in a pornified culture that normalises choking and anal penetrative of women.

But for goodness' sake, rail against that system. Rail against the conditions that lead to young people getting caught up in the drugs trade and selling images of themselves to fuel a drug addiction. Rail against the fact that their concerned parents feel powerless to help even after appealing to public authorities. Don't jump on as-yet unproven allegations by a morally bankruptcy publication to crucify a fucking newsreader and by extension his wife and kids.

That was my intent! I quoted your question.

The Times is still a Murdoch paper, BUT I still expect them not to publish unfounded allegations.

Didnt the young person only say nothing illegal happened?
That doesn't mean nothing happened. Where did the 35 grand come from?
I doubt even a rag like The Sun would run something like this without some strong evidence.
It's already been confirmed that Edwards behaviour at the Beeb was being investigated.
How convenient that he's had a mental health crisis and been admitted to a psychiatric hospital leaving his wife and children to face the shame.
Great timing!!

He has for years presented himself to the public as a dedicated husband, doting father and a pillar of the community and church and enjoyed his celebrity status of his well paid BBC presenting job.

His wholesome image has been beamed into thousands of not millions of peoples homes via their television sets.

It was all a pretence and he was paying thousands to a teenager for sordid photos.

I have searched and there is no mention of him previously having mental health problems and I conclude his sudden stint in a mental health institution has been caused by his histrionics over everyone seeing him expose his bare bum and him being caught out for what he really is!

Let's not forget how hard it is for the people who watch him on the telly for them to get prompt mental health treatment. Often they wait weeks or months before they can be assessed.

Often celebrities check into places such as The Priory for example, claiming mental health issues as a means to excuse their dreadful behaviour.

Let's also not forget that the money Huw gave to the teenager was spent on crack. His money has partly lined the pockets of a crack dealer and funded the criminal underworld which supports adult and child prostitution, adult and child trafficking, drug dealing, gangs which recruit children to sell drugs and commit violent offences which frequently end up with children being stabbed.

Huw's behaviour has wider repercussions than just deceiving his wife and children.

He's a debauched, smug faced sleazebag and his only devastation is that he has been found out.

Of course. The urge to defend stems from the fact this is the BBC, which commands blind support among the “right thinking”. It’s appalling history of failing to act when its talent behaves badly is always to be overlooked.

Surely the reason HE’s mental health has dipped again is because he knows that what he’s alleged to have done is grim and doesn’t measure up with his public image. Remember that a significant percentage of his salary would be based on his reputation as a serious and well respected journalist on the BBC. Someone we could trust with state occasions and grave news.
The Sun are disgusting but if the allegations are true then is HE any better?

I agree with every word.

But you might judge and dislike what he’s alleged to have done – bought soft porn images off someone – but that’s different to breaking the law, right?

#metoo was about sexual assault.

While you might condemn his alleged actions as immoral, there are many things people might do in their private lives which others may judge to be immoral – abortion, taking drugs recreationally, having affairs. Personally I don’t think that’s grounds enough to have them sacked / afforded pariah status, even if I don’t agree with it morally.

@Unclecornelius I think being accused of being a nonce would send most people over the edge.

I don't find someone to be a less credible newsreader because they have a legal sexual predeliction that means they buy sexual images of adults who are choosing to sell them. I might not like them very much though.

I suspect HE was already hugely ashamed of how he was feeling and what he was doing. I suspect that's contributed to his poor mental health over the years. But i suspect that's an internalised shame over a sexual preference which is both legal and normal. But I have no evidence, I'm speculating.

Something I've been pondering since the statement from his wife is what does 'receiving hospital care' mean? Could it be a fudge for hiding away in a rehab type place?

@Jongleterre I have searched and there is no mention of him previously having mental health problems and I conclude his sudden stint in a mental health institution has been caused by his histrionics over everyone seeing him expose his bare bum and him being caught out for what he really is!

Well you haven't searched very hard have you?

I found this in 30 seconds, so I hope you will correct your misleading and potentially defamatory statement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/huw-edwards-alastair-campbell-bbc-welsh-b2374200.html