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'm still laughing at The Sun pretending it is the benchmark for morals and values - what a shit show this is and for The Sun to try to hold the moral high ground is laughable. The Sun ffs !!!!

This seems to come perilously close to suggesting that only those free from sin (however you define that) are permitted to complain of poor behaviour in others. I think we can probably all see the problems that would result if that were accepted.

I mean, of course you can lose your job over behaviour that falls short (well short) of criminal. How is this in any way controversial?
plenty of sexual harassment falls short of criminal behaviour but pretty well all organisations (reputable ones anyway) have policies which prohibit it and make clear that disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination may apply if you are guilty of it.

No, it's because holly is a TV personality, so she projects a different image.

Huw reads the news off a teleprompter. His only persona is to be professional and well-spoken but his job has nothing to do with his personality

@AgathaSpencerGregson normally I'd agree that brining other people/company's behaviour is whataboutery

But the Sun did the EXACT same thing by having topless 16 year olds, in fact they did even worse. And now they're running an exclusive story on someone else.

Not sure when they stopped featuring 16 year olds, but have they ever addressed this or made an apology? It does seem like the Sun, in particular, are out for blood when they themselves have done the same!

I guess they think it's fine because it wasn't illegal then?

I get it, they’re scum. so what? If the story’s true it’s true. Daft to block your ears and say you won’t listen until someone you deem acceptable tells you.

The Sun have zero accountability but are keen to throw out accusations to Edwards. Saving their own skins, probably, even against the young persons wishes.

It doesn't make HE any more or less guilty or involved, as the case may be, but it's interesting. Makes you wonder if they may have been printing inaccurate details like the age being 17.

Actually Op some of us are pissed off by the constant trial by media which not only undermines police investigations but undermines the persons ability to obtain a fair trial (if any).

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.

How is he supposed to police how the money was spent? If we buy any service from someone - legal, moral or not - we cannot tell the recipient how they should spend that money. And there isn't a shred of evidence HE knew they were an addict ( if indeed they are since there's no proof offered). How he spent it isn't the issue, other than it was the alleged reason the mother spoke out at all.

Which is the reason someone else (no idea who) has requested an injunction preventing them from being named as being under investigation by the police for serious sexual offences against women.

But it's definitely not all true, as demonstrated by the police response, and is disputed the 20 year old!

I don’t see the choice as Binary - the Sun shouldn’t exist, it’s a vile piece of tabloid that should have been wound up and closed after it’s Hillsborough reporting.

As for Hew, I’ve read what BBC stated (relating to their viewing of the 2nd allegation pics, and they’re reporting that 2 current members of staff have reported him and 1 ex staff members.). I’ve also seen that Sky news has a person come forward to them.

The sun - i ignore. For reasons stated above. it’s a piece of c**p.

He is a sexual predator. 6 allegations I believe BBC are investigating. so time will tell.

One of his pics is doing the rounds on internet…. No way the bbc can ignore it, whether it’s criminal or not. Especially as it’s now known he likes the under 18’s, which whilst not illegal, is inappropriate even by their standards.

If he survives this - it just shows the power of the left wing within the bbc.

guess we shouldn’t be surprised after Saville cover up, which went on for years. Saville allegations became public in 2012, Children in need ran from the 1980’s and there was informal ban that those running it inside bbc knew about, on JS being involved the entire time he was alive. No one has ever explained that.

So Hew will be back…. And I won’t be watching. The only question remains, how many others are at it in that sack of rats called the bbc.

Enormous chasm between 'free from sin' and 'news organisation behaving with basic integrity'

The power of the left wing within the BBC?

So if you're politically left, you support sexual predators and don't believe they should face justice?

Is that what you mean?

The only reason a person could possibly be successful in attempting to obtain an injunction under those circumstances will be to protect children from the type of speculation and nasty articles apparent in the Sun and on here, or are you saying that's wrong too.

The person you quoted said "There are several cases where people have lost jobs because of this behaviour, even when it’s legal behaviour."
I pointed out some examples where people lost their jobs for sexual indiscretions. And you are splitting hairs with Sarah Jane. She lost her job for nude pics, Huw might lose his job for buying nude pics. I don't really see that much of a distinction.

This. Although I condemn HE's behaviour, what he has done is no different to what people do everyday (35K notwithstanding I suppose). There will be people moralising on this thread who use porn, or whose husbands/partners/sons/daughters use it. HE is just a small piece in the fetid jigsaw. That is what we should be angry about instead of baying for the head of one man, especially when we don't know the full facts. Let's wait until we know the truth before passing final judgement and calling him a "debauched, smug faced sleazebag".

HE is being largely treated as a victim here, and I can’t get my head round it.

He is being treated as a victim because the Sun falsely accused him of obtaining explicit photos of a child.

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

Well, at the moment, yes. It's been reported by the Sun, that's the only source of the allegations. So not necessarily true. The fact he has not denied it doesn't mean anything at all.

At this point we don’t know the truth, do we? We know that junior colleagues have come forward with complaints too.
if it weren’t for the sun this would still be sitting in an in tray somewhere. The BBC did next to nothing until the press got involved. Maybe you’re ok with that. I’m not.

Male sexuality isn't a feminist issue

I think that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on the feminist board and I've been here ages.

The Times would not have run this story, knowing that the alleged victim denied that anything inappropriate had happened.

Is there? What’s the difference? What threshold of righteousness does a person or organisation have to meet before they’re allowed to mention misconduct elsewhere?

Where did I say it was wrong?

And it's because they say they won't get a fair trial. Quote from application below. He already has an interim injunction. He may not even be married.

"By that claim, he seeks permanent injunctive relief on the grounds that publication of the specified information would constitute (1) an invasion of his right to privacy, (2) a contempt of court and/or (3) an unjustified interference with his rights to a fair criminal trial as guaranteed by Art.6 of the European"

I should point out that unlike HE, he has been arrested and interviewed under caution.