Huw Edwards accused of sending ‘flirtatious’ messages to BBC employees
Huw Edwards has been accused of sending inappropriate messages to BBC employees.
The newsreader was named yesterday as the presenter who had been suspended for allegedly paying £35,000 to a teenager in exchange for sexually explicit images.
According to Newsnight, one current BBC staff member claims they were contacted on social media by Edwards, and the messages left them uncomfortable and feeling awkward.
Huw Edwards latest: BBC presenter ‘suffering serious mental health issues’
Pic: BBC News
The messages were reportedly suggestive in nature, appeared to be flirtatious, and referred to his colleague’s appearance.
“There is a power dynamic that makes this inappropriate,” the staff member said.
Another BBC employee alleged that Edwards had also sent them a private message on social media that commented on their appearance and gave them a “cold shudder”.
Meanwhile, someone who used to work at the corporation – who had never met the newsreader – claimed they had received late-night messages from Edwards that were signed off with kisses.
The former employee told BBC Newsnight that they felt this amounted to an abuse of power.
Two of the three complainants said they felt they could not report their allegations of inappropriate behaviour to BBC managers.
A BBC spokesperson told Sky News: “We are communicating with staff and will continue to do so. We always treat the concerns of staff with care, and would always urge any staff members to speak to us if they have any concerns.
“We have clear processes for making complaints within the organisation, including whistleblowing procedures should someone wish to do so anonymously.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Huw Edwards: Career at the BBC
Huw Edwards in hospital
Allegations about the presenter had first been made by The Sun last Friday, but their identity was not officially confirmed for five days.
They were suspended by the BBC on Sunday – and in recent days, further allegations have been made by a number of other young complainants.
Several other high-profile BBC hosts – including Gary Lineker, Jeremy Vine, Rylan Clark and Nicky Campbell – had denied being involved in the scandal as speculation grew on social media.
Yesterday, Huw Edwards was publicly named in a statement issued by his wife Vicky Flind.
She said her husband was suffering from serious mental health issues and is now receiving inpatient hospital care “where he’ll stay for the foreseeable future”.
Ms Flind said the presenter intends to respond to the allegations once he is well enough to do so, adding: “I know that Huw is deeply sorry that so many colleagues have been impacted by the recent media speculation.”
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Her statement came shortly after the Metropolitan Police revealed there was “no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed”.
Scotland Yard said it will be taking no further action, and an internal BBC investigation can now resume.
In a note sent to BBC staff, director-general Tim Davie said it was a “difficult time for many” – and the corporation’s immediate concern “is our duty of care to all involved”.
Turning to Vicky Flind’s statement, he added: “It is a reminder that the last few days have seen personal lives played out in public. At the heart of this are people and their families.”
But Mr Davie stressed that it is important for the BBC to continue its investigation into the allegations that have been made.
“This remains a very complex set of circumstances,” he wrote. “As we have done throughout, our aim must be to navigate through this with care and consideration, in line with the BBC values.”
Read more:
Who is Huw Edwards? Newsreader named at centre of scandal
‘An awful and shocking episode’: Huw Edwards’ friends and colleagues react
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Sun ‘wasn’t wrong to publish the story’
Newspaper under scrutiny
The Sun, which originally printed the claims about Edwards last Friday, has said it has “no plans to publish further allegations”.
In a statement, the media outlet said it will now provide BBC investigators with a confidential and redacted dossier containing “serious and wide-ranging” claims, including from BBC personnel.
However, the newspaper is coming under scrutiny for deciding to publish the claims in the first place.
David Yelland, who was editor of The Sun from 1998 to 2003, tweeted: “I wish [Huw Edwards] well. The Sun inflicted terror on Huw despite no evidence of any criminal offence.
“This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper. Huw’s privacy must now be respected. Social media also needs speedy reform.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘This is not a BBC crisis’
Jon Sopel, former North America editor of BBC News, called the scandal “an awful and shocking episode” and said the presenter’s “complicated private life” does not “feel very private now”.
And Alastair Campbell, a former Downing Street head of communications, said the presenter “is the perfect target for those who would undermine and indeed would like to destroy the BBC”.
But Adam Boulton, a former Sky News political editor, said The Sun’s reporting “looks like it is in the legitimate public interest”.
He told Sky’s Sophy Ridge: “Those on television who hold others to account for their behaviour have to be prepared to be held to account.
“A lot of careers ended a long way short of criminality because it was felt that they were bringing the organisation which they represented into disrepute.”
Boulton said most people would see it as “fairly reprehensible” for a man in his 60s to pay large amounts of money to a young person for illicit material, and to phone the youth threatening them afterwards – claims which have been levelled against Edwards.
Ridge pointed out the young person had denied this happened, but Boulton said they are “clearly a very vulnerable person” with a “serious drug problem”.
Boulton argued that this made the young person’s statement less reliable than what their parents had alleged in The Sun.
“I think this is behaviour which, if I’d done it or you’d done it, we’d be held to account by our employers,” he told Ridge.
UK
Heidi Alexander named new transport secretary after Louise Haigh’s resignation over mobile phone guilty plea
The first vote on the assisted dying bill is not only hugely consequential, it’s also hugely unpredictable and even as the vote draws near it still feels like it could go either way.
MPs will debate the bill, brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, in parliament today before they get a free vote on the legislation.
There are a few reasons why the potential outcome of the vote is difficult to predict. Firstly, the last Commons vote on this issue was back in 2015. It was also a Private Members’ Bill and a free vote, that was defeated by 331 to 119 – 199 MPs didn’t vote and one abstained.
That may seem like a useful starting point to predict future results but there has been an unprecedented turnover of MPs since then.
Politics latest: Starmer blames Tories for ‘open borders’
It was less than a decade ago but over two-thirds of those MPs from 2015 are no longer in parliament. This means there’s no voting record that can help us out this time round.
Secondly, it’s a free vote so we can’t, as we usually would, look to the political parties to work out the numbers.
Every single one of the 650 MPs must make up their minds for themselves and they have all taken a slightly different approach to the process.
How MPs have told Sky News they will vote on assisted dying
Some came out straight away and declared their position publicly. Some took their time and have only decided in the last few days, putting out statements on social media platforms.
There are also those who prefer to keep it to themselves, and some who are genuinely still undecided and will be until they walk through the voting lobbies.
So, to get a sense of what could happen, at Sky News we have been monitoring declarations as well as reaching out to every MP personally.
This has given us, on the eve of the second reading, an informative but still incomplete picture.
So far we have confirmed that 181 MPs will vote for the bill, while 148 say they will vote against, and 300 are either undecided or haven’t revealed their decision.
There are also 20 MPs that won’t vote – the SNP because the changes won’t apply in Scotland, Sinn Fein who don’t sit in Westminster, and the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.
Of those who will vote but whose position is still unknown, about two-thirds are Labour MPs – a big chunk of those are brand new.
This is the deciding cohort, who just a few months into their roles will make a life-or-death decision that will influence generations to come – no pressure.
Ms Leadbeater has said she hopes parliament will “show itself at its best” by voting in favour of the bill.
In a statement on Thursday night, she said: “I hope this parliament will also be remembered for this major social reform that gives people autonomy over the end of their lives and puts right an injustice that has been left on the statute books for far too long.
“People will be looking in on parliament as it debates this important change to the law – a change that, when we most need it, could bring comfort to any one of us or to somebody we love.”
Read more on assisted dying:
Analysis: Bill could be wrecked by dirty tricks
Five stories that bring the assisted dying debate home
David Cameron comes out in support of bill
How MPs are making up their minds
What does the bill propose?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Lord Cameron to support assisted dying bill
What could make the difference?
Most MPs tell us they have been poring over the legislation line-by-line and listening intently to their constituents.
But beyond that, there are external factors that will no doubt have influenced their thinking.
Public opinion will be high on the list, with the latest YouGov poll – one of many – showing an overwhelming majority (73%) of the public are in favour of a change in the law.
The other will be how Cabinet ministers vote, with many high profile and respected names, Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn among them, coming out in favour.
MPs will vote in the House of Commons on the bill
More controversial though are those who oppose the bill.
In particular, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting and the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood have made the news with their views.
They will both have to take a leading role in implementing the legislation if it passes.
Mr Streeting shocked Westminster when he revealed he had changed his mind after voting for the 2015 version.
He also ruffled feathers among colleagues when he appeared to breach the etiquette around free votes, by repeatedly raising concerns around extra pressures on the NHS and making the case for improving palliative care instead.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting changed his mind on the issue. Pic: PA
Mr Streeting’s position and approach have made the bill’s supporters nervous that new MPs will fall in behind him.
In contrast, other big beasts – the prime minister, the chancellor and the foreign secretary – remain silent on which way they will go, aware that their opinions could sway the result.
As it stands, after all the number crunching, it looks likely that this landmark legislation will pass the second reading.
But with so many unknowns, both sides will feel that even at this late stage, it’s still impossible to call.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway