Call me a cynic, but I doubt Jolyon Maugham, Alistair Campbell, Jon Sopel, John Simpson and Dan Walker would have rallied to the defence of Huw Edwards if he was a GB News presenter. It’s only because they regard him as one of their own that these panjandrums have urged the press to back off, with Sopel stressing there is “no illegality” and any further reporting of this story is therefore an unwarranted intrusion into “someone’s private life”.
This isn’t a considered reaction, but a tribal one. Given that the allegations originally surfaced in the Sun and the reputation of the BBC is at stake, these metropolitan liberals are prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt to Edwards. Again and again, his defenders emphasise that these are only “allegations” and the police have decided not to take any further action, overlooking the fact that numerous other public figures have been thrown under a bus in similar circumstances, e.g. Michael Fallon, who was forced to resign as Defence Secretary after far milder allegations were made against him in 2017. But, of course, it’s one rule for Conservative MPs and another for the BBC’s highest-paid broadcasters.
It probably helps that the charges against Huw Edwards involve four young men (two of whom, it is alleged, were only 17 when the presenter first made contact). If they involved young women, it’s hard to imagine so many bien pensant members of the media class leaping to his defence. They certainly wouldn’t have if he’d been accused of breaching a woke speech code, as Danny Baker was in 2019. When Archie was born to Harry and Meghan, the then BBC presenter tweeted a picture of a couple emerging from a hospital with a chimpanzee, which led to accusations of racism. He claimed it was an innocent mistake – and I believe him – but when he was summarily dismissed there was barely a squeak of protest from any of his BBC colleagues.
Incredibly, the anger you’d expect the BBC’s defenders to feel towards Edwards – after all, it is the charge that he paid a young man £35,000 in return for sexually explicit images that has brought the BBC into disrepute – has been directed at the Sun instead. How dare the tabloid print this allegation?
“A number of people have been in touch with the presenter to say they feel righteous fury over the way the Sun has covered this and it is fair to say that the presenter at the heart of this is also extremely angry over a lot of the Sun coverage and is convinced they’re trying to dig and find new dirt to harm this particular person’s reputation,” Jon Sopel said on The News Agents on LBC.
Hacked Off, the campaign group lobbying for state regulation of the press, published a piece saying the Sun had “questions to answer”, arguing it had got the balance wrong between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know.
“Shame on The Scum for its homophobic lies – and shame on all the Murdoch titles, including the Times, for poisoning our country,” tweeted Jolyon Maugham. “Solidarity with @thehuwedwards.”
“I hope the media will look at themselves in the coverage of this story,” said Alistair Campbell on Channel 4 News last night, who stressed that in light of the fact that the police had dropped its investigation it was just a story about “someone’s personal life”. (Same argument Jon Sopel made.)
But, surely, the public interest defence here is the same as it is when the New York Times exposes a MeToo scandal, as it did recently in the case of Nick Cohen, the Observer columnist (and lockdown zealot) – namely, that an abuse of power is involved. To add to the Sun’s defence, the allegation it reported was that the boy Huw Edwards had paid for sexually explicit photographs was only 17 when this first happened, which is a criminal offence. Turns out, that wasn’t true – at least, judging from the police’s decision not to pursue the matter – but those were the facts as relayed to the Sun by a member of the boy’s family (according to the Sun).
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the story would never have ended up in the taboid had the BBC done what the mother wanted when she first contacted the broadcaster back in May. She told the BBC she was making the complaint because she wanted Edwards to stop sending her son money who was using it to fund a drug habit. In response, the BBC passed on the complaint to the Corporate Investigations Team, but it didn’t even question Edwards, let alone place him under investigation, until July 7th, when the Sun got in touch asking for a comment on the story it was about to run. (This is according to a timeline of how the scandal unfolded in the Mail.). In other words, the boy’s family only contacted the Sun because the BBC’s response to their original complaint was inadequate. And, incidentally, the Sun didn’t pay anything for the story.
I suppose it’s possible that the BBC’s internal investigation into Huw Edwards, which has resumed now that the police investigation is over, will conclude that he hasn’t done anything wrong. Perhaps the four young men who’ve made allegations against Edwards will all turn out to be fantasists and his BBC colleagues who’ve accused him of sending “inappropriate and flirtatious” messages will just be over-sensitive snowflakes. Perhaps the fact that his wife, who named him yesterday and revealed he is now a patient on a psychiatric ward, did not actually deny any of the allegations was of no significance. It may all turn out to be a giant miscarriage of justice, with the Sun having triggered a witch-hunt against an entirely innocent man. But I doubt that’s how this story will end.
What’s really at stake here is the future of the BBC and its current funding model. What will it say about the judgement of the BBC’s senior executives if the presenter who announced the death of the Queen and reads the News at 10 is a wrong-un? How damaging will it be to the public’s trust in the Beeb and, by extension, its willingness to shell out £159 a year to fund it, if an independent investigation into the BBC’s handling of the original complaint – which will surely happen – concludes it left a great deal to be desired? That’s why the BBC’s defenders are circling the wagons and trying to shoot the messenger. It’s a desperate attempt to defend their beloved Auntie because they know just how damaging this is likely to be.
I can’t help feeling a bit of humility and a period of reflection might serve their cause better. But that’s not how they roll.
Stop Press: Watch me talking to Mark Dolan about this on GB News last night.
'If we're paying their salaries, I think we have a right to know.'
— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 12, 2023
Toby Young praises the ‘vital role’ the press play as the fourth estate in reporting on matters in the public interest.Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604
GB News on YouTube https://t.co/Wa58gYGZwF pic.twitter.com/2mA05Dbujk
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Regarding risk aversion the problem is one of balance with regard to imposing that aversion on everyone else. It seems to me that we had fairly well established boundaries, more recently those boundaries have been trampled on.
Indeed. And it is something that both genders (or should I say these days, ALL genders) are guilty of.
‘How else to explain the emergence of ‘safety’ as a sacred value in all areas of public policy?’
Another great article.
I think ‘safety’ as a sacred value also derives from ‘The Precautionary Principle’, itself a product of German, then EU, environmentalism.
Feminisation itself is now under threat from the monster of progressivism; no idea how that one ends.
But nut zero, a product of the replacement of scientific method by radical, expedient, venal zealotry, seems to me now to be the greater threat to the Humanist Democratic Capitalist way of life.
P.S. Mr Young, if you really are intending to take statins, why not set up a debate regarding their merits on here first?
‘….these drugs sometimes may cause neuromuscular side effects that represent about two-third of all adverse events. Muscle-related adverse events include cramps, myalgia, weakness, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy and, more rarely, rhabdomyolysis. Moreover, they may lead to peripheral neuropathy and induce or unmask a preexisting neuromuscular junction dysfunction.’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9369175/ dated 28 July 2022
Another possible explanation is that socialism as it was having suffered a resounding defeat, people who love to force other people to live their lives in a certain way needed to find new pretexts for doing so.
Aseem Malhotra is not keen on statins!
Very impertinent of me to bring up the matter of statins but, from observation of a relative, I am a bit suspicious of them:
‘There is no evidence that high levels of total cholesterol or of “bad” cholesterol cause heart disease, according to a new paper by 17 international physicians based on a review of patient data of almost 1.3 million people.
The authors also say their review shows the use of statins – cholesterol lowering drugs – is “of doubtful benefit” when used as primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.’
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391
And statins do seem to have unpleasant side effects.
Indeed there is limited evidence linking statin use to cognitive impairment or dementia.
I would say not impertinent at all-
of all places people of sincerity should speak freely here.
It wouldn’t be the only time that the medical industry has oversold and under tested a product.
The “statin shuffle” walk. Also, statins deplete C0Q10 which is needed for mitochondrial function. Bet they are not good for the brain either.
I wasn’t aware that Toby was contemplating taking statins. If Toby reads these comments, please do as Monro suggests. My brother-in-law was put on them some years ago but went downhill in various areas so my sister got him to agree to come off them and they used mineral and vitamin supplements instead. He died last year, aged 96, on no medication, with no pain, in his own home, with good care and those he lived beside him. The pharmaceutical industry gains from as many people as possible being on such drugs, which should make us think carefully before taking them. Has that industry proved trustworthy?
Very well said, and much appreciated.
Mr Young mentioned it in last week’s Spectator.
Research gives very mixed signals, but ‘brain fog’ does appear to be quite common on commencing statin treatment, not, one would say, a ringing endorsement of that treatment but maybe it is balanced out by the benefits?
I agree with you. Exercise and diet are so important. The zeal with which statins are pressed upon the unwary also makes a convinced sceptic even more so!
I am with your last sentence 100%!!
Toby I wish you would stop using the ‘cisgendered’ bollocks. We’ve got perfectly good word for that, it’s ‘man’. You were at it on this week’s pod cast as well.
Thanks for pointing that out and seconded. We must not use the language of the enemy because it is deliberately designed to confuse and corrupt.
Before this nonsense I was aware of the term cis from Cisalpine Gauls, Gauls who lived this side of the Alps from Rome’s point of view compared to Transalpine Gauls who lived on the other side.
Is gender something you’re therefore either on the near side or the far side of, from which perspective, and what does the word gender in this context actually mean?
Your comment is stirring long lost memories of Latin O Level studies!
Absolutely. We must not fall for the language of the oppressors.
Men who believe they have been physically misgendered by evil, supernatural forces are also men. The best one can do with this inane pseudo-theologic terminology is to avoid it.
I’m not saying there isn’t a kind of female privilege BUT we’ve had years or decades of policy wrong-turns by men as well – QE by Ben Bernanke, liberalisation of the banks by Bill Clinton, Iraq war courtesy Bush, Blair etc. Maybe these were all “reckless” male policies as opposed to the “safety-oriented” policies ascribed to women.
I don’t think TY or any of us are saying that men don’t make bad decisions or that all “male” type decisions are good, just that certain shifts over the decades could be ascribed to increased “female” type thinking influencing decisions.
I see what you mean. Fair point.
Fairly based, for Toby.
I’m concerned that without James as a counterfoil, and no disrespect to Nick (surely the greatest podcast host of all time), he will retract into cuckery.
The relish with which he disavows the “conspiracy theory” that the US 2020 election was stolen annoys me every week. Specifically, it is the relish that annoys me.
“Fairly based, for Toby.”
And “based” means what exactly?
Talk about ceding the language.
From what I have gathered it means “talking sense”, but I may be wrong…
“It’s very recent internet slang, used as a compliment. Someone is “based” when they are courageously stating an opinion or otherwise being themselves without worrying that they might be unpopular. A “based” person doesn’t care what other people think. It was used a lot on 4chan and is sometimes associated with that crowd.”
This is one definition offered on Reddit.
Thanks, sounds about right. I’m not against it as it seems like a neutral term rather than a nonsense one designed to deceive, confuse and corrupt.
Just sounds like yet another made up American slang word that’s been exported over here to Europe and insidiously becomes mainstream before you know it. Well, in a certain age group anyway. Kiddo keeps saying ”slay”, like WTF is slay? I keep telling her it means to kill something, although probably more in a ‘George and the dragon’ dramatic type of way than merely swatting a housefly. I blame TikTok.
Historically “base” was a term for the lowest of the low of society. It may be construed that being based means your have reached the lowest level of todays’ society. In King Lear, there is a reference to being base bast**d base and another ref from where I cannot remember other than being a base footballer. I would suspect, that not unlike the Shakespeare reference towards the gutter, the modern one could be construed as from the gutter.
It was originally coined as the opposite of “debased”, I think.
The election actually was not stolen though. No more “stolen” than any other election, at least.
On average, women don’t make policy decisions and hence, claiming that certain policy decisions would be due to women being on average more risk averse makes no sense.
Spot on.
I think it is more nuanced than that. For lockdowns and such, men were the ones who originally imposed them and were most gung-ho about them, while women were the ones who were more likely to maintain such measures long after the curve was flattened. While men were more likely to intiate the the lockdowns, they were also the ones more likely to want to end them sooner. For men, acute lockdowns were a perversion of the hero instinct, while for women, chronic lockdowns were a perversion of the caregiver instinct.
It is entirely possible for both to be true at the same time, however. There is much nuance to this story that gets glossed over. Patriarchy (or androcracy) still exists in some form, but it is gradually (then suddenly) hollowing out as it inevitably gives way to what comes next.
As for what comes next, the late, great Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century, saw the writing on the wall:
https://fullerfuturefest.com/2013/01/14/why-women-will-rule-the-world-by-buckminster-fuller/
What tragic figures Toby quotes. They make me weep, particularly as our eldest grandson (22) currently makes up part of the prison population.
Women haven’t necessarily benefitted from so-called ‘equality’ (in the workplace, in the home, wherever). When was anyone or anything created equal?
Maybe boys fare worse than girls at school because they’re late developers, which is why 35,000 fewer 18-year-old boys will go to university this month than 18-year-old girls. Perhaps men are more likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol and account for three-quarters of all suicides because they don’t talk about their feelings as freely. And perhaps men make up 96.2 per cent of Britain’s prison population because they commit more crimes (women are more risk averse, remember?) and are 23 times more likely to die at work than women because they are stronger and oftentimes are the ones performing more physically demanding jobs. The Committee of 300 is mostly made up of men who orchestrate the divide and rule Punch n Judy show that has kept them (and the bankers and aristocrats) in power for so long. So don’t worry, you’re still in charge. And yes, there is going to be a minister for men.
Maybe boys fare worse than girls at school because they’re late developers, which is why 35,000 fewer 18-year-old boys will go to university this month than 18-year-old girls.
Assuming this would be true, the conclusion would be that the educational system is stacked against men who are expected to compete against their physical betters at a time when they still can’t.
I think a word that needs to be introduced here is ‘entitled’. Women are far more entitled than men and always have been. This starts early when little girls are treated far better than little boys who “have to be toughened up”. Then, as puberty arrives, we get the curse that boys fancy 80% of girls, but girls only fancy 5% of men. The result is that young men spend a lot of time sucking up to girls who play them one off against each other. So for the first 15 years, girls get treated like little princesses by the whole of society, then from 15-35 men (except alpha men) treat them as goddesses. This used to do much to ‘equal’ the sexes in society. Women retain this sense of entitlement, as a type of defence, for as long as they can – often for their whole lives.
The feminisation of society now means everyone can have a sense of entitlement and judging by the younger generation they have! However, this does not equal equality as men find entitlement and sitting back expecting things to be handed to them, goes against their genetic hard-wiring.
After 10,000 years of doing things one way, the radical feminist have taken society in an entirely different direction. I can’t say it looks good unless you are one of those globalist who are just trying to bring down white western cultures for the greater good.
‘Women are far more entitled than men and always have been’. Says a man. Men want power to get sex, women use sex to get power. It’s called nature.
Women may still be a minority in the chancelleries of Europe – although for how much longer? – yet because they’re so much more confident and morally forthright than their ‘privileged’ male colleagues, they’ve become the key decision-makers. How else to explain the emergence of ‘safety’ as a sacred value in all areas of public policy?
A truly heroic logical leap. Can Toby really think of no other explanation? He might consider, for example, that we have more to lose these days or that this is an increasing litigious society or ….. there must be hundreds of possible explanations. Here is an idea for seeing if women are the key decision makers – count how many of them are in a position to make key decisions compared to men – I think we all know what the answer will be.
One possible explanation would be that this is simply wrong: While the Corona-policymakers used to bang on about safety without end, the policies they actually implemented where all untried, reckless and very harmful.
Some people get mixed up between the words ‘equal’ and ‘same’.
Women and men are equal but they are not the same.