Jump to content

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

"Mental Health Sufferers" absolutely are an 'identity' in the regard that it is possible to collectively advocate for Mental Health, when it is an umbrella term that encompasses everyone who has ever had to deal with any sort of mental health issue, temporary or otherwise.

Edwards owes no duty of care to anyone else, that much is true, and I'll be clear about the fact that I have no doubt whatsoever that his own mental state right now is likely through the floor, he absolutely requires respite and care, and I'm in no way surprised this is the outcome after the events since the weekend.

So he's done nothing more than be mean to someone on a dating app. I don't think that in any way justifies having his personal life made public in the way that it has been. Why I'm angry, is that he, or his wife, could simply have admitted that he is the person at the centre of this without having to make any mention of his mental state. In fact, I can't for the life of me understand why he would want that in public domain, because as much as it may well paint him in a more sympathetic light, it's just going to yet again create more and more stigma and misconception about what mental illness is, how it affects individuals, how it affects their behaviours, and no, it doesn't in any way excuse any of his behaviours, so it does scream of 'poor me/I'm the real victim here' anyway, in exactly the same way Schofield's vomitous routine did in the aftermath of his fall from grace.

It's not about you or your advocacy group though, it's about someone falsely (at the time of writing, who knows what could come out further) accused of being a paedophile by the national press. It is mental to the point of sociopathy to suggest that it's unfair to others to mention the effect this has had on their mental health. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

It's not about you or your advocacy group though, it's about someone falsely (at the time of writing, who knows what could come out further) accused of being a paedophile by the national press. It is mental to the point of sociopathy to suggest that it's unfair to others to mention the effect this has had on their mental health. 

 

I don't recall at any point there was ever any assertion that there was a paedophile involved, merely that someone had been acting inappropriately with someone much their junior, and that it possibly began when the junior person was 17, meaning the exchange of photographs would have been a criminal offence unless there was substantive proof of a meaningful relationship between the two. The police are seemingly satisfied this wasn't the case, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been a completely inappropriate element to the relationship, or an abusive of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, throbber said:

I think people criticising Huw for “playing the mental health card” are doing this because they are comparing it to the Schofield case. Let’s just remind ourselves that Schofield actually had an affair with a young man who he had been hanging about with since he was a child and who he had used his influence to get the young man into a good job. He also fabricated a nonsense “coming out story” on air when the lid was nearly blown on the entire thing a few years ago which treated the general public like mugs (not the only time he did that). And then finally not only did he play the mental health card he used someone else’s suicide as an example to get the media and the public to back off him.

Huw has actually done nothing that there is any evidence of yet other than speak to other adults on dating apps.  All of this media speculation could send anyone into a nervous breakdown. 
 

 

Yes, in fairness, it is a significantly different set of circumstances.

Again, I admit I'm quite possibly more prone to becoming angered at the introduction of 'mental health' because of my background than I should be, but I do think that if anything, it serves to highlight how genuinely toxic individuals like Schofield attempting to excuse themselves by claiming a mental health crisis does actually undermine and toxify that for people who may well genuinely be in the grip of one.

His bringing up Caroline Flack did incense me, because he didn't seem to be aware that he was citing someone who was herself a known toxic abuser. It's a standard routine of abusive individuals to claim mental health breakdown, suicidal intent etc etc when they are finally confronted, which is why I'm always on high alert for it happening, and why I'm always sceptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't recall at any point there was ever any assertion that there was a paedophile involved, merely that someone had been acting inappropriately with someone much their junior, and that it possibly began when the junior person was 17, meaning the exchange of photographs would have been a criminal offence unless there was substantive proof of a meaningful relationship between the two. The police are seemingly satisfied this wasn't the case, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been a completely inappropriate element to the relationship, or an abusive of power.

If you've reached the stage of saying it's not ok for his wife to mention he is in a mental health facility because it wasn't exactly paedophilia but a different form of underage sexual abuse of which  he was falsely accused then I don't think there's much point continuing to discuss it tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

If you've reached the stage of saying it's not ok for his wife to mention he is in a mental health facility because it wasn't exactly paedophilia but a different form of underage sexual abuse of which  he was falsely accused then I don't think there's much point continuing to discuss it tbh.

I have no idea how you've mangled what I've said and come up with this ridiculous conclusion, but aye, probably best we just ignore each other form here on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

His bringing up Caroline Flack did incense me, because he didn't seem to be aware that he was citing someone who was herself a known toxic abuser.

This fucking infuriates me.

Any time there is any criticism of a public figure, the morons are out with the "Be Kind, remember what happened to poor Caroline Flack", while conveniently not remembering that she nonced a member of One Direction and battered her boyfriend with a lamp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

This fucking infuriates me.

Any time there is any criticism of a public figure, the morons are out with the "Be Kind, remember what happened to poor Caroline Flack", while conveniently not remembering that she nonced a member of One Direction and battered her boyfriend with a lamp

I'm right there with you on that front.

Thought it was monumentally significant that Schofield either 1. Is so narcissistic that he doesn't even recognise abusive behaviours in other individuals 2. Absolutely does and does not care, hence citing Flack, or 3. Genuinely thinks there is no element to the Flack story beyond the tragic suicide of a persecuted individual.

Regardless of the reality, if it's any sort of combination of those, it paints a really unsavoury picture of PS himself. Armchair psychiatry here, but I suspect he would absolutely meet the criterion for a diagnosis of both NPD and Psycopathy, based on both the behaviour throughout the years-long saga, and the histrionics after being unmasked.

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

This fucking infuriates me.

Any time there is any criticism of a public figure, the morons are out with the "Be Kind, remember what happened to poor Caroline Flack", while conveniently not remembering that she nonced a member of One Direction and battered her boyfriend with a lamp

I’m not sure if that’s worthy of a death sentence, mind you…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caroline Flack didn’t nonce anyone. She also didn’t batter her boyfriend with a lamp, the Met police leaked photos of her bedsheets soaked with blood after she self harmed and the Sun published them as if the blood was from her boyfriend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

Talking of major dangers, Winnipeg based P&Bers watch out for this guy.

 

I can't quite put my finger on what the solution could be to the danger posed by releasing a violent sexual predator from prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Talking of major dangers, Winnipeg based P&Bers watch out for this guy.

 

Releasing someone considered high risk of re-offending seems sensible right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...