This is an article with two subjects; a villain named Emma Jane Taylor, and a protagonist named Huw Edwards. It also comes with an important lesson on why MAPs need to be bolder, unflinching, and very much in-your-face. If you're new to this site, then yes, I'm a pedophile. Let's get on with it!

The protagonist

First, I'll talk about Huw Edwards. Until very recently, he was a senior journalist at the BBC, handpicked to announce the death of the Queen. In 2024, however, it was revealed that he was under investigation for 'making indecent images of children', which is silly British legalspeak for having watched criminalized images or videos on his phone or computer. To the public, such is apparently worse than murder, even in a country that treats twink porn as 'CSAM', and where most criminalized images are literally kids doing nothing more than posing for the camera. Yes, those with an interest in promoting hysteria say that isn't the reality, but they are lying.

In Mu's very detailed article on The lynching of Huw Edwards, we discussed how the accused hadn't asked for criminalized images, and was therefore not legally liable for having 'made' them. In fact, Edwards had specifically asked his online acquaintance to not send anything underage. The allegation that he was into underage males was derived from a media circus following the bombshell that he'd been flirting with a 17-year-old male online... and while receiving pictures from someone of that age would technically be a crime due to the globalization of imagery law, such an individual would still be over the UK's age of consent. It's worth remembering that the same tabloid which led the lynching of Edwards had no issue getting 16-year-old females kicked out of school for their porn shoots back in the 80s when such was legal, as discussed in that aforementioned Mu article which you really ought to read.

To me, Huw Edwards did absolutely nothing morally or legally wrong, unless you want to get into a good old-fashioned gay bashing. Maybe The Sun would like to organize a game of pin the tail on the queer? I guess they're too busy pretending to celebrate Pride.

Huw Edwards has responded rather well to the whole drama, not exploding with rage, but also not flinching or clamming up when wrongly attacked. The man is of a generation where a gay celebrity had to marry a woman to be able to get anywhere - quite a sad reality for both parties - and now he has found himself a victim of an equivalent moral panic surrounding anything involving a person under the magic age of eighteen. In an attempt to salvage some kind of career, he's started a blog where the focus is not on excusing his quite excusable behavior, but on merely sharing his thoughts with the world. He even expressed remorse for something that really doesn't necessitate it, which was accepted by a sum total of no-one. It seems that nothing short of whipping himself in public would sufficiently gratify the salivating mob.

The villain

Of course, once labeled a witch, you're not allowed to be anything more. And given the modern money-grab of child abuse preventionism and 'awareness', there will always be someone looking to jump down your throat and capitalize on the hysteria. Here enters Emma Jane Taylor...

Emma is quite the grifter, presenting herself as a foremost expert on... well, everything. She's desperate for you to book her to ramble on about nothing, I guess because the sex-crazed old men she so vehemently claims to despise would rather enjoy leering at her. A jane-of-many-trades, much of her marketing - from her book to her dance program - refers to her experience of childhood trauma and abuse. She has more or less monetized the abuse.

Of course, monetizing child abuse is not a new thing. It's a well-trodden path of law firms, media organizations, YouTubers, and even psuedo-charities like THORN. It comes as no surprise that Emma, who is obsessed with selling courses and programs commercially, just so happens to have her very own 'charity' selling 'safeguarding' programs to schools. She even funnels proceeds from commercial activities through the charity. I'm sure it's all very proper and transparent though!

The BBC article

No doubt as a means to promote the many pies in which she has her fingers, Emma managed to stir up drama about Huw Edwards' new blog. She is the kind of woman the BBC loves, perhaps second only to child sex offenders. Let's take a look at some snippets.

"He is on the sex offenders' register – that should not entitle him to a blog. We don't want to hear from you, Huw," [Emma] said.

[Emma] added she was particularly "angry and deeply upset for his victims" following the publication of the blog.

"They had to dig so deep to bring this man to justice. They are trying to rebuild their life. It will put survivors back in their box. We need to get to a point where victims can be heard, believed and seen without having the pressure of celebrated perpetrators... where survivors have a voice and paedophiles don't."

First of all, Edwards didn't have any victims, unless you count the person over the age of consent who claims to have been 'groomed'. Edwards neither purchased nor commissioned the images and videos over which he was convicted, and it's highly doubtful that any of the children involved even know he viewed them. So how would publishing the blog upset them exactly? The people upset about this story are not the children featured in the images, but the hateful British public who yearn to see a witch burn. Remember we're talking about the same country that pushed war hero Alan Turing to suicide over his homosexuality, a crime under the very same statute that raised the age of consent beyond 13.

The claim that 'survivors' have no voice, but pedophiles do, is a completely backward absurdism frequently trotted out by the child abuse industry. Victims of alleged abuse are free to publish absolutely everywhere and lauded as heroes, whereas anyone attracted to children is viciously bullied and silenced unless they beg and grovel and apologize... and even that is normally not enough. Try writing that you're a non-offending pedophile on any major social media site, and see where that gets you.

The statement that people convicted of a certain type of offense should "not be entitled to a blog" makes clear what kind of woman we're talking about. One with zero empathy or concept of rehabilitation, who conflates feelings with actions via her choice of words, possesses a blatant disregard for free speech, and has an entitled belief that she has the right to tell complete strangers what they can and can't do. She is the very definition of a Karen, and her status as a victim does not excuse the behavior.

Ultimately, comments like Emma's are dangerous. They make MAPs feel they need to hide, as if they have no place in the world and therefore have nothing to lose. I've written previously about how this can lead to extremely negative outcomes, although it should be downright obvious. Of course, the purpose of Emma's commentary is presumably to promote her work, so I doubt she even cares about the consequences as long as the money pours in and can be funneled through her little charity.

The lesson for the MAP community

I made a point of commenting on the Edwards blog in several places, even admitting that I'm a MAP when challenged. At least one of the people to whom I replied blocked me, and their comments seem not to be visible unless logged in, so I have no idea what they might have said in response.

The comments in general highlight that what normies really want is for MAPs to go away and be silent, or rather to offer the illusion of such. If there's a MAP in their neighborhood, they'd probably rather not know, because they don't want to deal with what they consider 'icky' and 'gross'. Protecting children has little to do with it; it's all about preserving hateful adult sensibilities while pretending to stand for something virtuous.

MAPs really need to force their existence in people's faces, at least to the extent that is possible online. And these shouldn't be pathetic, groveling MAPs like the VirPed losers. No, they must be proud, pro-choice, aggressive, and not apologizing for their existence or their demands. Right now, there isn't even a fight.