Among the numerous unedifying points of the autumn of Huw Edwards has been a potential glimpse into how the person sees himself. On the listening to on Monday, the chief Justice of the Peace, Paul Goldspring, held Edwards firmly liable for his personal actions – specifically, being in possession of sexually specific photographs of youngsters – and gave him a suspended six-month sentence. However whereas Edwards’ barrister mentioned the previous presenter “apologises sincerely” and acknowledged the “repugnant” nature of the pictures, the narrative that the defence workforce provided through the listening to sought to inform a much less contrite and extra acquainted story.
You’re taking with a pinch of salt the testimony of professional witnesses, after all. What’s fascinating in regards to the opinions put forth about Edwards by psychiatrists and therapists launched by his authorized workforce is that they had been thought sufficiently compelling – and sympathy-inducing – to behave as mitigation for a criminal offense this severe. Components launched by the defence workforce ran the gamut from psychological anguish introduced on by Edwards’ emotionally abusive father, to his repressed sexuality, to the much-mocked competition that Edwards’ failure to get into Oxford contributed to lifelong points with shallowness – a declare so audacious you virtually needed to admire it. A case as severe as this can be a powerful gig for the very best of attorneys, and at some stage – hats off – they gave it a punt.
The Oxford declare was immediately and broadly ridiculed, however it is just a barely extra ludicrous instance of a standard defence utilized by attorneys in intercourse crimes or home violence circumstances. It’s arduous to think about a lady within the dock pleading mitigation on the premise that she didn’t get into the college of her alternative, and never solely as a result of 98% of adults prosecuted for intercourse crimes in England and Wales are males.
{That a} man accused of accessing youngster abuse photographs can launch the defence that he didn’t get what he needed, that his station in life was much less elevated than he felt it ought to be – that his satisfaction had been so mortally wounded it contributed to, because the defence daintily put it, in search of validation on-line – is extraordinary. That is the beginning place of the “incel”. That this ought to be used within the context of Huw Edwards is an indication of how acceptable the excuse has change into.
And it crops up on a regular basis, alongside a spread of different mitigating components dropped at bear when males are convicted of intercourse crimes. Take the weaselly defence of, for instance, the “Stanford swimmer” Brock Turner, whose conviction for 3 felony accounts of sexual assault was excused by, amongst others, the journalist Malcolm Gladwell, because of the disinhibiting impact of alcohol. Ladies get drunk on a regular basis and don’t are inclined to rape individuals, however regardless of. The concept as a disinhibiting issue misogyny, or entitlement, or any variety of circumstances within the Diagnostic and Statistical Guide of Psychological Sicknesses that defence groups are inclined to keep away from – narcissism, say, or psychopathy – would possibly play a pivotal position in any given intercourse crime not often options in these accounts.
As a substitute it’s all the time “low self-esteem”, isn’t it? Or within the case of apologists for Roman Polanski, a convicted intercourse offender, prior trauma. Or within the case of Harvey Weinstein, the weak place entered into by a person within the public eye. (Weinstein’s lawyer, Donna Rotunno, contended that it was Weinstein himself who had been manipulated by ladies, the same line of defence furthered by Donald Trump’s attorneys in 2023, when the civil courts discovered him accountable for the sexual abuse of E Jean Carroll.) There may be, it seems, no finish to the self-victimising ideation of the highly effective man.
The unbelievable factor shouldn’t be that Huw Edwards would possibly genuinely nonetheless be clinging to this grievance about being snubbed within the office by BBC poshos – though, as a supply of low shallowness, I’d have thought WhatsApping with a convicted paedophile could be an even bigger blow than not going to Oxford – however that it was thought a sufficiently credible harm to deliver up in court docket. Harm to a person’s satisfaction shouldn’t be seen as a dismissable occasion, nor would possibly he be anticipated to metabolise disappointment in ways in which don’t end in harm to others.
Which isn’t to say that particulars rising from Westminster magistrates court docket this week haven’t been fascinating. For anybody in search of to put in writing a novel in regards to the Disappointments of Huw Edwards – the place’s Trollope once you want him? – this details about how he sees himself is fascinating. In a court docket setting, it’s totally, offensively irrelevant.
-
Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
-
Do you may have an opinion on the problems raised on this article? If you want to submit a response of as much as 300 phrases by electronic mail to be thought of for publication in our letters part, please click on right here.
