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.

As I said the only ground likely to succeed is that of protecting the children, so on grounds of privacy. The other two reasons would be groundbreaking and unlikely.

The question for me is if a 60 year old female newsreader was accused of paying a 17 year old for explicit photos, would there be the same support as the male presenter is getting? Would people say it's not illegal, private life blah blah blah. Or would she be getting handed her arse, even if she'd conveniently checked herself into a mental health facility?

Also agree that setting the bar at 'it's not illegal' is too low. Sleazy and grim is still sleazy and grim, even when there's no law against it!

Well it would be illegal as it is illegal. No one has said that procuring explicit photos from a 17 year old is legal?

Just out of interest, are you a lawyer? Surely if publication could be contempt of court that's hardly groundbreaking?

He isn't being accused of paying a 17 year old for explicit photos, that has already been determined by the police to be a false narrative. Why continue to perpetuate what is false?

@IClaudine the police have said no law was broken

Those were the allegations were they not? That a high profile BBC presenter had paid someone who was initially 17 at first contact for explicit pictures. And this arrangement continued and the money paid went on supporting their drug use?

I was under the impression that no law was broken by the presenter as the 17 year old was supposed to be 18 to be on that site in the first place

There is to my knowledge no established doctrine for an accused to succeed in an injunction preventing the reporting of the fact they are accused of a crime. The law sees its own visibility, i.e. that justice is seen to be done' as an important doctrine. The Metoo movement showed its importance, in that it encourages other victims to come forward.

If it wasn't true id have thought HE would've made a statement saying so in the 5 days in-between the story breaking and admitting himself into a MH clinic.

No denial in the wife's statement either.

I agree with you OP, it's very depressing.

That was the allegation made by the parents but since the young person has denied that , and that would have been illegal, the fact that the police have said nothing illegal has happened puts that accusation as a lie. That's the whole point, as of yet there are a few allegations but no proof, and the allegation that was made by the paper has been shown to be at least partially false. Yet HE has and is being treated as if he is definitely guilty in the court of media.

Yes, exactly. So he didn't procure photos from a 17 year old.

It blows my mind how people suddenly have such confidence in the MET to competently investigate incidents of SA. On the feminism board too 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you are talking about whether the young person was on Only Fans, well that is speculation.

I thought the young person has also said this and the Sun has backtracked on that pert of the story?

Pert. Part!

I would be very surprised if a newspaper today would publish allegations of this nature without having some kind of evidence to substantiate it - the world isn't how it used to be in this regard. And I'm surprised there's no public denial - if I had been accused of behaviour that didn't reflect well on me personally, I'd be lawyered up to the teeth and suing for defamation, having issued a very public denial.

I haven't read the whole thread. I'm posting to register my fury that all those of us enjoying righteous indignation that someone so highly paid by the British public is spending his money on seducing young people have been silenced. Yes, people can have private lives. But bringing your employer and your fucking country into disrepute should rightly put you in deep shit. Where you should stay. I have a lot of understanding (and experience) for/of mental illness but using it as a get-out when you've shamed yourself at our expense isn't on. Like it 'isn't on' to give even older teenagers money for pictures, or to meet people out of area during lockdown for other than humanitarian reasons. It's not on, and the old creep needs to be made fully aware of that and suffer the consequences.

I think as nothing illegal has been found by the police it is not of concern to the public - my view would be the same if this was a unknown member of public .

No. The police said there was no criminal activity. That doesn't mean there were no photos and it might not mean there were photos of a 17 year old. I assume if HE met the person on a website for over 18s, then the police would say there was no crime on his end even if the person in the pics was 17.

Why split hairs? A 60 year old paying an 18 year old for photos is grim.

Quick google showed up this

Sarah Jayne Dunne was fired for having an onlyfans site.

A teacher was fired for appearing in a sexy advert.

None of these cases did anything illegal.

OK I have a relative who is a legal professional so I'll ask him.

I agree with you OP. I wonder how Huw himself would feel if one of his 60 year old BBC colleagues took a fancy to his son/ daughter and paid them 35k for nude pics. My guess is, he wouldnt like it one bit. Isnt it funny how "harmless" behaviour is suddenly not ok when it involves our own family.....

I haven’t seen anything confirming the young person is male - can you link it please?

So if indeed this case doesn’t involve a woman, it’s still a feminist issue because it’s predominantly women who are the sexual object in these cases, and whoever is affected personally, women are still allowed an opinion on poor male behaviour.

Parliament decides what laws they want to be enacted to protect the public, particularly children. If they want 18 year olds to be protected from a 60 year old they would pass them.

18 year olds are perfectly entitled to have sex with men or women or both, and give photos to anyone they choose within the law for money or not and it's not up to me to moralise over whether that's right, wrong, or whatever.

Different people have different moral standards depending upon culture, religion, upbringing etc and it really isn't up to me or anyone else to impose my view that they are right, or wrong.