The Sun's McCarthyist Persecution of Gay Men

[Glenda's Legs]

Have I missed something? I’ve read half a dozen articles from different media outlets re this story and not seen one mention of Huw Edwards being gay or the person he paid being a man. Also not seen any confirmation that it was through OnlyFans but I guess that’s highly likely given how popular the platform is.

I have been wondering the same (about the person being male) but when I very first heard the story on the radio news, I am sure there was something specific that immediately made me assume it was a male (I think the pronoun "he" was used, and not about the TV presenter) but since then that hasn't been referenced so maybe I jumped to a conclusion.

 

[JerusalemMan]

If the allegations had been involving young women, considering the MeToo climate, I don't think there'd be so many people coming forward to demand his privacy and saying that because there's no criminality it's a purely personal matter.
So maybe the Sun are actually being remarkably enlightened and progressive by spearheading this...
Or maybe not.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I wonder whether his hundreds of other customers also paid the thousands of pounds that were sustaining a crippling drug habit. Allegedly.

He's working as a contractor/sole trader, so it'll probably be in his tax returns.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If the allegations had been involving young women, considering the MeToo climate, I don't think there'd be so many people coming forward to demand his privacy and saying that because there's no criminality it's a purely personal matter.
So maybe the Sun are actually being remarkably enlightened and progressive by spearheading this...
Or maybe not.

I'd imagine most Only Fans contractors are female. It's big business - pay for university by spending a few hours a week sat at home touching yourself up.

 

[Grays_1890]

I saw some celebrity lawyer on Twitter was having a go at the Sun for being homophobic over all this.

Been panellists on the news who has said about its being a "boy" and others about him hiding his sexuality and it being a pressure cooker situation that likely broke him

 

[Grays_1890]

I have been wondering the same (about the person being male) but when I very first heard the story on the radio news, I am sure there was something specific that immediately made me assume it was a male (I think the pronoun "he" was used, and not about the TV presenter) but since then that hasn't been referenced so maybe I jumped to a conclusion.

Also reference being used to using the App grndr

 

[Grays_1890]

If the allegations had been involving young women, considering the MeToo climate, I don't think there'd be so many people coming forward to demand his privacy and saying that because there's no criminality it's a purely personal matter.
So maybe the Sun are actually being remarkably enlightened and progressive by spearheading this...
Or maybe not.

MeToo refers to an abuse of power in order to abuse someone, he paid for images in what was an exchange with someone of age of cencent, like I said its not to my taste but in the world where we now see OF promoted at major sports (I am not saying it was on OF but there is no difference) then the cats out the bag for it to really be such a media frenzy. The drugs issue was one that came after the fact but does the sex industry at large safeguard those legally using platforms to know where the money goes after? Im not saying it reads right and its something I agree with but my point is that in todays world where we accept a load of norms like drug use, onlyfans, including outlets using their clout for interviews (OF Boxer Elle Brooke on Piers Morgan) etc it seems highly hypocritical for people to take a dumbfounded moralistic shock to it. I also think the public using the BBC links to liken him Rolf Harris and Saville to be shameful TBH

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

The whole thing is distasteful to me, as a parent and grandparent I would be very concerned if one of my family had the sort of money that had been mentioned and hope I would have acted quicker and this being so close to the Schofield incident makes me question their motives.

 

[JerusalemMan]

MeToo refers to an abuse of power in order to abuse someone, he paid for images in what was an exchange with someone of age of cencent, like I said its not to my taste but in the world where we now see OF promoted at major sports (I am not saying it was on OF but there is no difference) then the cats out the bag for it to really be such a media frenzy. The drugs issue was one that came after the fact but does the sex industry at large safeguard those legally using platforms to know where the money goes after? Im not saying it reads right and its something I agree with but my point is that in todays world where we accept a load of norms like drug use, onlyfans, including outlets using their clout for interviews (OF Boxer Elle Brooke on Piers Morgan) etc it seems highly hypocritical for people to take a dumbfounded moralistic shock to it. I also think the public using the BBC links to liken him Rolf Harris and Saville to be shameful TBH

I'll confess to not having read all the details of this 'story' but I was under the impression that the drug thing was what brought the parents of this person forward in the first place. Because their son's life had been damaged by drugs, funded by the money from Edwards, and that they didn't get a response from the BBC that satisfied them.
Subsequent to that, there appear to have been other people coming forward with stuff that seems relatively lightweight.

 

[P.D.]

If the allegations had been involving young women, considering the MeToo climate, I don't think there'd be so many people coming forward to demand his privacy and saying that because there's no criminality it's a purely personal matter.
So maybe the Sun are actually being remarkably enlightened and progressive by spearheading this...
Or maybe not.

Of it had been a more hated figure like Farage for instance.

Maybe nothing illegal happened but there's reports that other staff at the BBC have come forward with some claims so it feels like there's some indecent behavior going on but we'll have to wait for the full picture.

 

[scaramanga]

Are we now in a time which is now an instant world which means peoples lack patience has meant that their demand for info now means they tend to believe things they really should be questioning more? With this example there was a clear we want info now now now which then means that people in the meantime believe what ever they read, often on rent a journo on social media which adds to the fire. I have been thinking about it alot recently and with the news with Dele it got me thinking more, do we now as humans have a greater responsibility to take a more waiting brief for actual facts to emerge in order to show greater empathy towards all people or is it now open season? My fear is that the horse bolted a long time ago

Stupid and impatient people have always been around. They just have a voice now because of social media.

 

[Grays_1890]

Stupid and impatient people have always been around. They just have a voice now because of social media.

Everyone's a part time journo now

 

[Grays_1890]

Absolutely nailed it

 

[SpurMeUp]

I hope Edwards takes the rag to court and sues them for lost earnings and defamation. The Sun saying he faced years in prison. When the police have said there is no criminal case to answer!

 

[Baleforce]

Everyone's a part time journo now

and a full time clam

 

[P.D.]

I hope Edwards takes the rag to court and sues them for lost earnings and defamation. The Sun saying he faced years in prison. When the police have said there is no criminal case to answer!

A few articles out tonight saying he's not got much chance of winning as they didn't name him. We need to hear what evidence the parents provided really.

 

[Lemonade Money]

A few articles out tonight saying he's not got much chance of winning as they didn't name him.

He's had his pants pulled down?

 

[SpurMeUp]

A few articles out tonight saying he's not got much chance of winning as they didn't name him. We need to hear what evidence the parents provided really.

Interesting. From a legal standpoint they could have been referring to someone else?

Their ‘story’ is clearly the catalyst for losing his job and public awareness of his private life, which both can affect his reputation and earnings. If the story - which was about him - was untruthful then there could be a case still. Intimating that the seriousness of the offence was far greater than it was, and dragging someone - even unnamed - through the mud, causing them to be named and disgraced seems ample reason to sue for damages. I don’t really know the detail of the stories published but hope he can fight back.

He’s already winning the moral battle.

 

[P.D.]

Interesting. From a legal standpoint they could have been referring to someone else?

Their ‘story’ is clearly the catalyst for losing his job and public awareness of his private life, which both can affect his reputation and earnings. If the story - which was about him - was untruthful then there could be a case still. Intimating that the seriousness of the offence was far greater than it was, and dragging someone - even unnamed - through the mud, causing them to be named and disgraced seems ample reason to sue for damages. I don’t really know the detail of the stories published but hope he can fight back.

He’s already winning the moral battle.

I dont know enough about the rules or the story but I guess they didn't name anyone, maybe the parents gave them info that led them to believe it though wouldn't be the first time the sun exaggerates though I doubt they'd just make up the story entirely. He's winning the morale battle for now but if it turns out he's been harassing multiple people then the tide will turn.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I dont know enough about the rules or the story but I guess they didn't name anyone, maybe the parents gave them info that led them to believe it though wouldn't be the first time the sun exaggerates though I doubt they'd just make up the story entirely. He's winning the morale battle for now but if it turns out he's been harassing multiple people then the tide will turn.

The Sun published a comeback to criticism of its story. One sentence stuck out, they said: the family who flagged up the story "sought no money" from reporting the story. Which is a far cry from the Sun giving them no money. Had they not given this family money, surely you'd write "no money was paid for the story", instead of "no money was sought" by the family.

Glad that there is some public pushback now. The Metoo movement is important, but it is also important to recognise how media and consumers were thirsty for, and drive these stories. Such stories got huge clicks and coverage. Stories of the rich and famous plus sexual transgression were fascinating to readers. While all sorts of more common (and often more damaging) sexual abuse, trafficking etc are less well covered.