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.

Yes I know, but I still can’t believe that they would print this without any evidence at all, because that would backfire on them spectacularly.

I know Murdoch’s aim was always to bring down the BBC, but they really are helping him out!

South Wales Police statement:

Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified.

Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made.

At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police.

However, should evidence of criminality or safeguarding issues be identified at any point in future then they will be investigated.

Met Police:

Detectives from the Met's Specialist Crime Command have now concluded their assessment and have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.

In reaching this decision, they have spoken to a number of parties including the BBC and the alleged complainant and the alleged complainant’s family, both via another police force. There is no further police action. As such, the Met has advised the BBC it can continue with its internal investigation.

Should evidence of criminality or safeguarding issues be identified at any point we would expect matters to be referred to the relevant police force.

I’m not sure what spin the Grauniad has put on this?

Officers at Scotland Yard have now concluded there is no evidence to support this allegation, leaving the Sun facing questions about its reporting. South Wales police also believes there is no criminal case to answer.

Oooh, im sooo scared

Firstly, as is clear from thise statements, the Met are relying quite heavily on the findings of South Wales Police's inquiry for their conclusions. The Grauniad are reporting it as if there were two distinct and separate inquiries that arrived at the same finding.

Secondly, neither of the statements from the two police forces states that "there is no criminal case to answer" as reported by the Grauniad; only that there was an absence of evidence. In fact, by both stating "should evidence of criminality or safeguarding issues be identified at any point in future then they will be investigated" (or simiiar) they indicate that they (or another relevant force) are open to the possibility of further investigation should that be appropriate.

I agree there's a lot of defence going on. Same with Ant McPartlin. Yet not with Caroline Flack...

There’s an absence of evidence of criminality at this point and both police forces have said if further evidence comes to light then they’ll review.

The Met liaised with South Wales police who had gathered the original evidence.

The Met stated There is no further police action and the Guardian reported Officers at Scotland Yard have now concluded there is no evidence to support this allegation.

Secondly, neither of the statements from the two police forces states that "there is no criminal case to answer"

South Wales police stated At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed and the Met said the relevant department have determined there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.

I’m still not sure what your point is.

Pretty sure Huw Edwards hasn't denied it, nor did his wife (on his behalf) in her statement.

If someone was accusing me of that I'd speak up sharpish if it was bullshit 🤷🏻‍♀️

The only accusations have come from the Sun. HE has, quite wisely refused to give that rag any more copy by making any statement.

The 'victim' has said quite clearly that they have no complaint.

The BBC are still investigating.

So no proof of anything.

Loving this new system of justice: accusation + no denial = guilty. Could really speed things up in the courts if they only have to do the sentencing bit.

😁

As several have already said, setting the bar at ‘it wasn’t illegal’ doesn’t make the behaviour any less disgusting or seedy.

80 year old men paying to ‘spend time’ for 18 year old prostitutes of either sex wouldn’t be illegal either, but would still be seedy disgusting behaviour. Let’s do better and expect better.

Please show me evidence that anything 'seedy' actually took place.

From The Guardian The Sun has rowed back on its initial suggestion that illegal underage activity could have taken place and insists its story was always about concerned parents. The 20-year-old at the heart of the story has dismissed their mother and stepfather’s suggestions of illegal behaviour as “rubbish”.

Let’s do better and expect better.

You can do what you like and expect what you like, but nobody is obliged to conduct their lives according to your ideas of morality. Just as you are not obliged to conduct yours by anyone else's.

The only accusations have come from the Sun. HE has, quite wisely refused to give that rag any more copy by making any statement.

Yeah, he got his wife to do it instead!

Didn't this investigation take all of two days?

Did it really take you 12 hours to think that one up? 😆

The press has to be VERY careful nowadays with what it prints, especially The Sun with its past history. I would be surprised if their lawyers hadn't gone over the story very carefully before it was published.

neither of the statements from the two police forces states that "there is no criminal case to answer" as reported by the Grauniad

South Wales:
there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed.

Met:
there is no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.

Both forces are very clearly saying that there is no case to answer. They are saying that there is no evidence. Without evidence there is no criminal case to answer. What case do you think Huw Edwards has to answer?

Adding that if evidence does emerge then there will be a criminal case to answer is a statement of the obvious, and is as true of you or anyone else as it is of Huw Edwards.

@Worldgonecrazy Let’s do better and expect better.

OK so you start the ball rolling.🙂

Start a campaign to shut down OnlyFans and Pornhub, give stronger penalties for the use of 'recreational' drugs, vote to pass laws making prostitution illegal.

Even on these boards there are divided opinions.

There are posters defending the use of both 'recreational' drugs and pornography on other threads.

It seems some MNetters wants to have it both ways.

Depressing that even on the Feminist board so many posters are seeing this as another opportunity simply to argue that HE is innocent and that only things that are expressly prohibited in law are wrong. What a low bar for being a decent human being. Some people in this thread aren't feminists at all of course, but libfems have got a lot to answer for. Had expected some acknowledgement at least that the objectification and commodification of young people and their bodies and the abuse of power were significant factors.

@EnfysPreseli Depressing that even on the Feminist board so many posters are seeing this as another opportunity simply to argue that HE is innocent and that only things that are expressly prohibited in law are wrong.

But he is innocent, legally.

He may be morally culpable but that has yet to be decided, as we don't know yet what he has actually done.

What I find depressing is that some 'feminists' seem to be OK with prostitution, illegal drug use and pornography.

so many posters are seeing this as another opportunity simply to argue that HE is innocent

I'm amazed to find people who think the presumption of innocence is "depressing". It's the basis of our justice system. None of these allegations are anything but that at the moment. It's shocking that people are willing to judge someone based on nothing more than a report in the Sun.

The trouble with age of consent laws is that they don't protect very young adults from being preyed on by much older people. There's a fundamental power imbalance between a middle aged (or older) person, established in their careers, financially secure and a teenager, even at 18/19. That's before you add in drug addiction or other conditions which add to vulnerability beyond just being very young.

There really ought to be stages built in to age of consent, with further age parameters. Maybe making total age of consent 21, just to protect terms from exploitation by older predatory people.

People aren't arguing about guilt and innocence, they are expressing concerns about trial by media, also known as trial by Rupert Murdoch. Moral panics, instigated by a rag like The Sun - does no one else see the irony in that?

Morality or a perceived lack thereof is not a crime. As a pp said, just turn on the TV.

Incidentally Murdoch's former wife Wendy Deng is 54, Murdoch is 92. 40 years age difference. So when she was 20 he was 60. Hmm.

Pots and Kettles . . .

What you say is eminently sensible but getting such a Bill through Parliament is about as easy as cleaning the Town Hall steps with a toothbrush.