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.

I have searched and there is no mention of him previously having mental health problems
@Jongleterre you didn't search very effectively.

i support people who have committed sexual offences, serving either a custodial or non-custodial sentence. HE has not committed a sexual offence but he made a choice. Life is about choices. It’s not an illness, it’s a choice.

The BBC absolutely need to investigate whether they have handled the complaint appropriately and if not, why they haven't learned from previous massive fuck-ups in that space.

If someone (or their channel/publication) has taken the moral high ground then they're always going to be vilified for hypocrisy.

And as PP have pointed out, it's always harder to hear of the failings of people we like than people we don't.

But let's not pretend there wasn't a clear anti- BBC agenda in the way the story was handled by those outlets that want it to be dismantled.

Spot on. It doesn't matter what Edwards has been accused of, it only seems to matter whose side he's on. Where were all these people defending him when other public figures were exposed? It wasn't his private life either, it was a work issue because some allegations are from junior colleagues

Anyway, I completely agree with you, OP. His mental health can't be used a shield to get him out of the consequences of his own actions.

No, you don’t base his journalistic abilities on his private life, however I’m sure many would and do otherwise there wouldn’t be the almost ghoulish speculation.
HE knew though that his public image was as a church going, God fearing guy who commanded respect.
I’m sure you’re right that it probably added to his feelings of shame. But he’s an intelligent man, and if the allegations are true he’s seriously mucked up his life, for what? A quick thrill!
As for The Sun, yes there were heavy implications in their story as I understand, I never read it first hand.

Depression and anxiety do not equate to making excuses for sordid sexual behaviour.

What an insult to people to people who suffer with depression.

I searched for mental health issues regarding his sexuality and penchant for grubby solicitation.

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

Well this just proves what was being said earlier in the thread. That the bar for women is higher. While im on this i found an old Caroline Flack thread a few days ago The second post down? "17 is barely a man"

It’s ok to be against the BBC. I am not, personally, but there are perfectly acceptable arguments against a publicly funded broadcaster on this model. If the BBC doesnt like criticism it should act so as to avoid it.

@Jongleterre You said 'I have searched and there is no mention of him previously having mental health problems'

You didn't say you were searching for 'mental health issues regarding his sexuality and penchant for grubby solicitation'.

I think you are reaching here.
Anyone who has Mental Health issues connected with untoward sexual behaviour will be in prison and/or on the Sex Offenders Register and certainly not employed by an organisation that is a household name.

What an insult to people to people who suffer with depression.

No-one is 'insulting people who suffer from depression', where does that come from??

It's turned into a tedious Left vs Right discussion... like everything nowadays.

There are several cases where people have lost jobs because of this behaviour, even when it’s legal behaviour.
There are double standards at play here.

@ThirtyPercentRecycled There are several cases where people have lost jobs because of this behaviour, even when it’s legal behaviour.

Such as?

I agree with you OP. Scummy men with low standards and poor impulse control will carry on being creepy, predatory, abusive and lie to their families because people, including a chunk of women which I can never understand, will continue to make excuses for their poor behaviours.

Mental health, depression, mid life crisis, emasculated by their much cleverer and stronger female partners, age crisis, in the closet etc etc. Bollocks. They are entitled and think they can do what they want and sod the consequences because they're rich/famous/powerful/a man. I'm not buying it and it's not what I'm teaching my sons.

In my mind it boils down to thinking that sexual behaviour is private. Lawful sexual behaviour which some people disapprove of does not cease to be private. I can disapprove of his behaviour and still disagree that it should have been made public in this hugely disproportionate fashion, and therefore feel sympathy for him. And yes it's quite possible to feel sympathy for both Edwards and for the person who sold the photos.

If as a society we want private behaviour to be punished then we should criminalise it and use proper process not twitter and the tabloids, which will just wreck more lives.

op I agree
There is another thread here
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4847799-the-amount-of-women-condoning-prostitution?page=9&reply=127675034

Unfortunately if you name Huw in the title you get the HE fan club. If you put porn or prostitution you get the MRAs. Quite hard to have a sensible conversation about anything really.

As you can't come up with any then it would appear your statement is spurious.

There are double standards at play here.

What does that even mean in this context?

I think you are a bit naive when it comes to paid employment.
Let me clarify.
When anyone takes up a post with an employer they will need to sign a Contract of Employment which is a legal contract setting out the Terms & Conditions of that employment.
It should be made very clear what actions by the employee would result in Instant Dismissal eg; being drunk on duty or fighting at work.
It should specify what actions will render them liable to disciplinary action.
It might also include a 'Morals Clause' ie; not bringing the organisation into disrepute by their behaviour.
It might include a clause that says members of the company are not allowed to have relationships.
etc etc.
As none of us know what was in HE's contract I think we should all 'button up' until the BBC have completed their investigation.

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

Completely agree

@StefanosHill After the announcement that the seedy male is HE,

There was no such announcement - get your facts straight.

No idea what you mean here. Take it up with the op anyway.

It’s their wording you seem to have an issue with.

Phillip Schofield?
John Leslie?
Sarah Jayne Honeywell?

Numerous teachers if you google

Perhaps you should learn how to 'search' as you seem to have no clue hot to enter the simplest of searches into google. Notice this report is from 2021.

I agree with you OP.

Phillip Schofield resigned.

John Leslie was named incorrectly as a rapist and was sacked after these allegations. He was not convicted of any wrongdoing.

Sarah Jayne Honeywell was the author of her own misfortune. She broke her contract.
This was not due to her sexual activity.
Sarah-Jane, who was asked to take part in a topless shoot because she was a vegan, said stars were forbidden from saying anything crude or rude, even when off camera and with no children around.
Sarah-Jane admitted she also lied about ever having taken illegal drugs when she was asked during a medical at the BBC.
The star had previously dabbled with cocaine and pills but feared being honest would cost her the job.