With Huw Edwards in hospital with “serious mental health issues” and facing no further action by police, the newspaper that broke the story is now under the spotlight.
The Sun is facing questions over its coverage of allegations against the 61-year-old newsreader– with some asking whether the claims should have been reported at all.
After Edwards’s wife Vicky Flind publicly named him and police said there was no evidence of criminal offences on Wednesday evening, the paper released its own statement, stating it had “no plans to publish further allegations”.
Described as a “very carefully crafted legal statement” by former Mirror editor Paul Connew, it said: “The Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations.”
The words are strictly true as there was no reference to any police involvement or allegations that a specific crime was committed when the story was broken in Saturday’s paper.
However, it did originally report that a “top BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated”, “the well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” and “sleazy messages are alleged to have started in 2020, when the youngster was 17”.
More on Huw Edwards
Related Topics:
While the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, it is a crime to make or possess indecent images of anyone under 18, and the details prompted speculation from other news organisations about whether the allegations could amount to a potential crime.
The Sun correctly recognises this in its statement, which said: “Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC.”
Advertisement
The Sun on Sunday carried a comment from former Home Secretary Priti Patel that the BBC “must cooperate with the police if they are contacted to investigate”.
Image: The Sun’s front page story about an unnamed BBC presenter
A story on the paper’s website published the same day was headlined “BBC SEX PROBE Top BBC star who ‘paid child for sex pictures’ could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says”.
The piece reported comments made by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal to the Times – which is owned by the same company as The Sun – that the presenter could potentially be charged with sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
By Monday, when the Metropolitan Police said it was “assessing information” supplied by the BBC, the headline on the paper’s spread read “At Last, BBC Calls in the Cops – Politicians furious over delay”.
The story in the next day’s Sun repeated the claim that the young person’s mother had said “the household name star paid her child more than £35,000 for sordid images, starting when they were 17”.
This time it was followed by: “Under the Protection of Children Act it is a criminal offence to make, distribute or possess an indecent image of anyone under 18.
“The Met Police were last night assessing the allegations.”
Wednesday’s paper carried fresh allegations that Edwards – who was still not named – sent “creepy” messages to a different 17-year-old and broke lockdown rules to meet them, while Thursday’s splash, with Edwards now named by his wife, made clear: “Cops said they had found no evidence her husband had committed any crime.”
The Independent Press Standards Organisation, the UK’s newspaper and magazine regulator, said on Thursday the “complex, fast-moving and very serious story” had attracted around 80 complaints, adding: “We are watching the developments carefully.”
Mr Connew told Sky News that Edwards could potentially take legal action because The Sun’s original story “did suggest” an offence might have taken place, even though he wasn’t identified.
David Yelland, who was editor of the paper from 1998 to 2003, tweeted: “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.”
Allegations were ‘rubbish’
And 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”.
The Sun had already faced criticism after the lawyer representing the young person dismissed the initial allegations as “rubbish” in a letter to the BBC on Monday, telling the broadcaster a denial had been sent to the paper on Friday evening.
There was no reference to the apparent denial in the original coverage of the story.
But The Sun has defended its journalism, reporting that the young person’s parents approached the paper – “making it clear they wanted no payment” – after becoming “frustrated” that Edwards remained on air and was still allegedly sending money after they complained to the BBC on 19 May.
“The allegations published by The Sun were always very serious. Further serious allegations have emerged in the past few days,” the paper’s statement said.
“From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person.
“We reported that the parents had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help. The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon.”
Story ‘still legitimate’
Adam Boulton was among senior media figures to defend the paper for covering the story in the face of a “lot of recriminations”.
Speaking to The Take with Sophy Ridge, he said: “I would take the counter view… people such as yourself, such as ourselves, on television who hold others to account for their behaviour have to be prepared to be held accountable for behaviour – not just criminality.
“There’s 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 were made against Edwards.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of The Sun, also backed the tabloid, telling Sky News: “They broke a story of massive public interest. They handled it with, as far as I can see, discretion.
“They gave desperate parents an opportunity to stop what they saw as a terrible thing.”
Speaking to Sky News, the former chief executive of ITN Stewart Purvis said the story is “still legitimate” but argued The Sun should have run the young person’s denial.
He said the story poses some “big questions for journalism”, and asked whether it is legitimate for other news organisations to repeat the allegations or make their own investigations.
The BBC had its own story that another young person felt “threatened” by messages they received from its then unnamed presenter and aired further allegations from one current and one former BBC worker, who said they had received “inappropriate messages” from Edwards, after he had been named.
“I don’t think it’s for broadcasters to point the finger at newspapers or vice versa. All of journalism has to ask itself some quite awkward questions this morning,” said Mr Purvis on Thursday.
A woman who is under police investigation after assisting the suicide of her husband at Dignitas in Switzerland has told Sky News she has no regrets.
Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband’s death in December, as parliament prepares to vote again on legislation to introduce assisted dying in England and Wales.
Mrs Shackleton surrendered herself to police after returning from Switzerland having seen her husband Anthony die. He had been suffering with motor neurone disease for six years.
“I have committed a crime, which I have admitted to, of assisting him by simply pushing him on to a plane and being with him, which I don’t regret for one moment. He was my husband and I loved him,” she said.
“We talked at length over two years about this. What he said to me on many occasions is ‘look at my options, look at what my options are. I can either go there and I can die peacefully, with grace, without pain, without suffering or I could be laid in a bed not being able to move, not even being able to look at anything unless you move my head’.
“He didn’t have options. What he wanted was nothing more than a good death.”
The law in the UK prohibits people from assisting in the suicide of others, but prosecutions have been rare.
Image: Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband Anthony’s death
In a statement, a North Yorkshire Police spokesman told Sky News: “The investigation is ongoing. There is nothing further to add at this stage.”
The next vote on the assisted dying bill for England and Wales has been delayed by three weeks to give MPs time to consider amendments.
The legislation would permit a person who is terminally ill with less than six months to live to legally end their life after approval by two doctors and an expert panel.
‘He was at total peace with his decision’
Mrs Shackleton says she saw her husband “physically and mentally” relax once on the flight to Switzerland.
She said: “We had the most wonderful four days.
“He was laughing. He was at total peace with his decision.
“It was in those four days that I realised that he wanted the peaceful death more than he wanted to suffer and stay with me, which was hard, but that’s how resolute he was in having this peace.
“I was his wife, we’d been together 25 years, we’d known each other since we were 18. I couldn’t do anything else but help him.”
‘We need to safeguard people’
She said the hardest part of the journey came after her husband’s death.
“There was this panic and this fear that I was leaving him,” she said. “That was a horrific experience.
“If the law had changed in this country, I would have been with family, family would have been with us, family would’ve been with him. But as it was, that couldn’t happen.”
Opponents to the assisted dying bill have raised concerns about the safety of vulnerable people and the risk of coercion and a change in attitudes toward the elderly, seriously ill and disabled.
They say improvements to palliative care should be a priority.
“I think that we need to safeguard people,” said Mrs Shackleton. “I think that sometimes we need to suffer other people’s choices, and when I mean suffer I mean we have to acknowledge that whilst we’re not comfortable with those, that we need to respect other people, other people wishes.”
Anthony, who died aged 59, was a furniture restorer who had earned worldwide recognition for making rocking horses.
“I think the measure of the man is that nobody has ever said a bad word about him in the whole of his life because he was just so caring and giving,” his widow said.
‘This is about a dying person’s choice’
She said she had chosen to speak publicly because of a promise she had made him.
“I felt that my husband’s journey shouldn’t be in vain. We discussed this on our last day and my husband made me promise to tell his story.
“He told me to fight and the simple thing that I’m fighting for is people to have the choice.
“This is about a dying person’s choice to either follow their journey through with disease or to die peacefully when they want to, on their terms, and have a good death. It’s that simple.”
A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
How do you define a woman in law?
The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.
“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.
“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”
However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.
Image: Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland celebrate after the ruling. Pic: Reuters
“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.
“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:12
‘Today’s ruling only stokes the culture war further’
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
Image: Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”
And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.
Apple Podcasts
This content is provided by Apple Podcasts, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Apple Podcasts cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Apple Podcasts cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Apple Podcasts cookies for this session only.
“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.
She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.
“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.
“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”
Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.
The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.
It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.
Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.
Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.
The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.
More on Arsenal
Related Topics:
Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.
But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.
Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.
Image: (L-R) Arsenal’s Declan Rice and Mikel Merino celebrate after the defeat against Real Madrid. Pic: AP
‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice
Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.
Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.
“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.
“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.
“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”
‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.
“We played against a team with the biggest history.
“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”
He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”
Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.
Mbappe twisted ankle
Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.
The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.
The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.
The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.