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 you'll see from my other posts, I'm definitely not OK with it.

You’re conveniently ignoring the many posts all over SM basically canonising HE and vilifying the parents - when all that is know right now about them is that they were desperately trying to stop the funding of their child’s drug habit. Wouldn’t most parents do that if the had the opportunity?

I'm not OK with it either. The BBC should have been proactive in investigating the allegations well before they did. That's a different issue to moralising over an 18 year old with a 60 year old.

Allegations of sexual misappropriation need to be dealt with quickly and properly following their protocol to the letter. To not do so is dreadful and questions need to be answered as to what has happened to bring about this failure in their workplace practices.

Broadcast news is a sleazy world - the right story can make your career and it would appear that some of Huw Edwards' colleagues at the BBC were already building dossiers.
As a result of these enquiries, I believe the BBC may have tried to deal with this quietly, earlier in the year but badly:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1647549462196404225

What confuses me is the different standards society holds at different . If power differences are the issue then prostitution, lap dancing clubs, onlyfans type sites should not happen at all. If age gaps are the issue, we need that built into our laws. If the age of the young person is the issue ditto. If it's the fact that they were using it to fund drugs, then most prostitution should not happen. Often it feels like the actual issue is that people get caught because society wants to continue to ignore stuff and brush it under the carpet. We give our confused and confusing messages all the time. Of course it's sleazy so I'm not defending it but the reality is that some people who are outraged defend the porn industry at other times. That's why it's in a muddle.

If objecting to a man in his 60s using his public profile to pursue an adolescent - IF that’s what’s happened - is “moralising”, then pass me my knitting. I’m in. We should do more of it.

What adolescent?

I know. Beggars belief.

You, I think, referred to people objecting to the age of the young person involved as “moralising” and gave the age of the young person as 18.

Eighteen is legally an adult. Not an adolescent.

there is in fact no legally defined concept of adulthood in English law. For practical purposes, however, most of the rights commonly recognised as belonging to adults can be exercised from 18 now (eg voting). Note that Scots law (controversially) requires a different approach to sentencing for under 25s on grounds that people are not fully mature until that age.
The WHO defines adolescence as lasting from 10 to 19. https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1
as a matter of common usage it’s quite usual to refer to an 18 year old as adolescent.

A married man used hook up sites and ended up paying someone thousands of pounds to protect his privacy. It is no one else's business other than him and his wife.
I am not defending 'grim behaviour'. There is no evidence of criminal or wrong behaviour other than The Sun sad face accusations of the estranged mother of the person who was paid: whether as blackmail or through an online porn type arrangement and a few tail-gaters with no proof apart from 'discomfort'.

The general consensus is that lewd and sleazy behaviour is increasingly acceptable. Millions of people watch Love Island, Naked Attraction and all manner of dating and reality shows where people either behave lewdly or actually have sex for money. FWIW I wish this wasn't the case but it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Choosing to make an example of any one person, especially one with mental health issues is just sensationalist and just as, or more, sleazy than the original action.

People here seem to be reading a lot into the fact that the police found no evidence of criminality. Absence of evidence isn't evidence that the parents made the whole thing up. The Met statement doesn't say that there was no case to answer, nor that the parents' claims were unfounded, nor that HE is exonerated. It just says that they didn't find any evidence to support an allegation that there was criminal behaviour. It may be that the payments started when he was 17 but it's unclear what they were for; or it could even be because any photos or videos no longer exist; or it could be because it never happened. Maybe the young person - who seems pretty troubled - claimed that it did happen during an argument, just to shock or upset their Mam and Stepdad. Maybe more evidence will come to light during the BBC's investigation, or maybe other young people will come forward. We just don't know.

That's very convenient for sexually exploitative men then

For present purposes I think the consensus has moved in a direction opposite to that which you suggest. Post the Metoo movement there has been growing acceptance that exploitation of a position of power (whether due to age, wealth, position or all three) to gain sexual gratification is morally wrong even where it’s not a crime.
seems fair enough to me.

Exactly. We don't know what went on. But we do know there is no basis for legal action and that the only purported 'victim' of any criminal act has denied it happened.

Or women . . .

Women who are being abused by their partners will often deny it's happening. We know from grooming and child abuse scandals that those being exploited often don't realise what's happening when they are in the middle of it. In one of the big scandals in Wales the boys who were being abused and went to police years later, stood by their abuser when first asked. Given the complexity of the young person's circumstances and the fact that there's other evidence of a pattern of behaviour - paying another young man £200 for making him a cup of tea, messaging a schoolboy - I don't think anyone should be taking the young person's denial as gospel. It needs proper investigation.

The law deems adults as being from 18. That is the age at which they are tried in law in an adult criminal court. Under 18 its a youth court.

I don't defend anyone who pays for sexual pictures online. Not something I'd choose to do or agree should be done.

In the same way I don't defend those wiling to sell their bodies online. I don't think they should either.

But that's an issue. You can sell sexual pictures and you can buy them.

My issue is with labelling a side who buys what's available to sell as deviant etc and making it an issue purely about one sex.

Sadly people defend many people for behaviour that falls below what I'd think is acceptable. They also choose who to hold to account more than others. It's a really sad and dangerous side of SM.

I think instead of looking at "who" is doing what we need a bloody good overhaul of our laws and social expectations and rules around media reporting.

Currently there are actually no proven facts around the HE case. Until there is I won't make assumptions - but that doesn't mean I think his behaviour is 100% acceptable.

The age is important because there is a criminal offense for procuring photos of a person under 18 etc. So it's very relevant.

As mentioned, there is no legal definition of adulthood, although rights and duties commonly regarded as appertaining to adulthood now generally vest at 18. But that’s not the argument. You contended that an 18 year old cannot be described as an adolescent. That is nonsense.

Worth noting that for the crime of murder, an under 18 will be tried in the crown court not the youth court. The law does not define “adulthood”. The rights and duties commonly regarded as belonging to adulthood have generally accrued by the age of 18 (some accrue earlier - one can be held criminally liable from the age of 10).

How do we know his public profile had any influence? If it was OF then HE was paying, same (or more?) Than anyone else.

Do we think that a news at 10 anchor has cachet and currency for an 18 year old?

Isn’t that something that we need to wait for the investigation to determine?