Huw Edwards #16

1
Thing is the teenager involved spoke up and the police charged him with nothing. I was thinking more of the messages he'd exchanged with men (or tried to - "steady on Huw" will never leave me!) when I wrote that. I thought he was a gay man who'd been outed. Anyway, he really couldn't hide his real personality and it was shocking.(For the person who asked there were 3 messages from him basically telling me off for passing judgment) it just makes me think how it must have been dealing with/working with/living with him. Thanks for reminding me that he is in the wrong as blimey I was taken aback. Perhaps no more supportive letters to people until a few years after the incident!

Thing is you thought you were being supportive to someone who had been outed very publically. You were being nice. You were not to know what was really going on. I've been caught out like this as well in the past. It's not a nice feeling to sit on your hands and not support someone until you're 100% sure there's nothing else coming out of the woodwork, but manipulative people like HE will use that to their advantage. I'm stunned that he's back on social media.
 
Thing is you thought you were being supportive to someone who had been outed very publically. You were being nice. You were not to know what was really going on. I've been caught out like this as well in the past. It's not a nice feeling to sit on your hands and not support someone until you're 100% sure there's nothing else coming out of the woodwork, but manipulative people like HE will use that to their advantage. I'm stunned that he's back on social media.
Quite frankly I am heartily sick of old married men like Edwards and Schofield being sympathised with because they only cheated on their wives with males.

If a 60 year old married TV presenter were to be found having multiple affairs and sleazy e-liaisons with girls young enough to be their granddaughters no one would have any hesitation in calling them lying, cheating, predatory old creeps. But they don't only get a pass from far too many. It's more than a pass they get. It's voluble support and good wishes if it can be couched in terms of "He is so brave to have come out!" or "Poor darling having his privacy invaded by the scummy media outing him."

No. They have lived a lie for decades, betrayed their marriage vows, deceived the public who made them rich and famous and behaved like dirty old men. Just as a hetero man does in the same circumstances.

The trope about them being gay does so much damage to the community. No one says "Rolf Harris is hetero" They say he's a pervert because he abused young lasses. No one says Jimmy Savile was bi. No they say he was a pdf file who abused both boys and girls - and in his case old aged pensioners and dead bodies. Any hole was a goal but no one calls that him being pansexual do they?

Those grooming & abusing young lads are not gay. They are predators, just like Harris & Savile. It's very different.
 
Those grooming & abusing young lads are not gay. They are predators, just like Harris & Savile. It's very different.
Some of them will be gay though, and I think if you don't acknowledge that it also harms the community because it ends up looking like you're saying that gay people can't be abusers, which will be jumped on by those with an axe to grind.

Schofield is a bad example as well, because his sexuality has been widely rumoured about long before anyone accused him of anything, including rumours about him being with men around his age.
 
Some of them will be gay though, and I think if you don't acknowledge that it also harms the community because it ends up looking like you're saying that gay people can't be abusers, which will be jumped on by those with an axe to grind.

Schofield is a bad example as well, because his sexuality has been widely rumoured about long before anyone accused him of anything, including rumours about him being with men around his age.
My point is that if a heterosexual man abuses girls he is not called heterosexual anymore. He's called a n becaus that's what he is. They may have a sham marriage to an adult woman but they go after children for their real pleasure. The wife is a mask they wear to conceal who they truly are. Pdf files.

To say Schofield is gay or Edwards is gay is as much of an insult to gay people and as much of a misnomer as it would be to say Gary Glitter is a straight male. That too is an insult to all straight males. Do you not get that? How do so many people not get that? No one says Glitter is straight. They call him what he is.

Their sexcuality is they want to duck kids. There are many names for that but gay is not one of them. Gay men want to duck men.
 
They don't want to have sex with children though. There's a big difference between Schofield and Glitter (for example). Schofield and Edwards were/are interested in men.
---
I see Scofe is back doing something for channel 5. Some people have no shame.

I'm incredulous that he thought this was a good idea... But then Barrymore came back from a young man being murdered at his house, didn't he? I think there must be a real lack of shame in such people, and an inability to consider a normal job like working in a supermarket or on an IT helpdesk.
---
Schofield at least admitted he'd been "unwise". Edwards, to me, said "I do not misunderstand what happened" and totally distanced himself from the whole thing as if it were beyond his control.
---
Schofield at least admitted he'd been "unwise". Edwards, to me, said "I do not misunderstand what happened" and totally distanced himself from the whole thing as if it were beyond his control.
 
Last edited:
Not according to the judge, who had presumably access to more information than we do. There's no evidence that Schofield does either. The runner was a teenager at some point in his life clearly but not I think when PS was involved with him in that way.
 
I'd need to read more about the PS thing as I only heard about the runner. HE was paying the teenager but had also been trying it on with anything with a penis by the sound of it.

Glitter and Harris were both found to be paedophiles - I knew/know one of Harris 's victims - the latter aren't, and I'm not defending them by differentiating. But we've been there and I've learned from this that I'm not going to go sending supportive messages to random people anymore.
 
It really sounds like you're trying to justify or make excuses for his behaviour and seem so reluctant to accept that HE and PS are interested in boys.

It doesn't matter whether he messaged men, whether he sent pictures to men, whether he is married to a woman. None of that matters.

HE is interested in boys.

I don't want to come across that I'm personally attacking you here, I just don't understand why you're twisting yourself up like this.
 
We've been over and over this on numerous threads, not just me. You can think what you like really, it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. They've got what they deserve at the very least, although HE deserves far worse IMO.
 
What? Honestly, I'm just saying I can't go over and over it so I'm not going to. What I think doesn't matter, it's not a discussion I at least can have easily on a forum and I'm going to stop trying. That's all.
 
I'm completely lost here. HE had images of children (it doesn't bleeping matter whether they are male or female, other than in assisting in identifying the poor souls to try and help in their rescue). It's completely irrelevant if he also has interest in adult men, unless he has also abused them. Yes we absolutely can say he has a sexual interest in children, as does any sick bleep who is willingly in contact with another n, has such images, or sees them by accident and doesn't report them. PS also liked to blur the line and is lucky enough to have not been caught with crimes against anyone younger. Any adult, regardless of their gender, is a n if they are attracted to children, regardless of theirs. We may have a grey zone of teenage, but we all know they are still bleeping deviants with sexual interest in non-adults who can't properly consent, they just know what 'legal' line to draw to get away with it.
 
Eubank Jr has just got away with rape (IMO) of a 16 year old. Earlier I read on here that any sexual contact with an under 18 is illegal even if it's consensual, which I didn't know (HE getting the photos of the 17 year old). How did he get away with that? I know it's a different crime, but I don't understand how Eubank hasn't been done for statutory rape at least in these circumstances?
---
I don't want to come across that I'm personally attacking you here, I just don't understand why you're twisting yourself up like this.

I've pondered on this and I think it's because I'm doing online what I do in real life which is try and figure out stuff and consider all the angles, often to an irritating level. This is because I've been told off for being judgemental over the years. I now try very hard to 'know" everything, not to explain it but to understand definition, law, etc. as a result. This is musing I'd do with knowledgeable (particularly legal) friends IRL or by myself, reading a variety of sources, and clearly doesn't work well online.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top