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”.
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.
Heidi Alexander has been appointed the new transport secretary after Louise Haigh stepped down.
The Swindon South MP had been serving as a justice minister until her promotion today, and worked as Sadiq Khan’s deputy transport mayor between 2018-2021.
Ms Haigh resigned after Sky News revealed she pleaded guilty to an offence related to incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.
In a letter to the prime minister, she described the incident as a “mistake” but said that “whatever the facts of the matter, this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government”.
She called the incident a “genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain”.
The Tories have said it raises questions about what exactly Sir Keir knew when he appointed her to his shadow cabinet in opposition.
More on Transport
Related Topics:
Responding to her resignation letter, the prime minister thanked Ms Haigh for “all you have done to deliver this government’s ambitious transport agenda” and said: “I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
A 16-year-old girl has been charged with the murder of a man in King’s Cross.
The teenager, from Brixton, south London, will appear at magistrates’ court later today charged with the murder of Anthony Marks, 51, in August this year.
Mr Marks was assaulted on Cromer Street on Saturday 10 August.
A 17-year-old boy has previously been charged and remanded in custody to face trial next year.
Police are keen to hear from any witnesses who may not have come forward yet, as well as Mr Marks’s next of kin, who still remain unidentified.
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.
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.
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.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
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.
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.
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.
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.