The BBC’s Broadcasting House in London, England, on July 10, 2023.
Vuk Valcic/Sopa Images|Lightrocket|Getty Images
LONDON– The BBC’s Huw Edwards has actually been called by his other half as the television anchor implicated of paying a teen more than ₤35,000 (around $45,430) in exchange for raunchy pictures.
According to a report in The Sun paper recently, pointing out the supposed victim’s mom, the payments are declared to have actually begun when their kid was 17– they are now 20.
After 5 crisis-ridden days for the British broadcaster, the other half of the formerly unnamed television anchor launched a declaration to the PA news firm.
“In light of the recent reporting regarding the ‘BBC Presenter’ I am making this statement on behalf of my husband Huw Edwards, after what have been five extremely difficult days for our family,” Vicky Flind stated.
“I am doing this primarily out of concern for his mental well-being and to protect our children … Huw is suffering from serious mental health issues. As is well documented, he has been treated for severe depression in recent years.”
She included that her spouse Edwards had “suffered another serious episode and is now receiving in-patient hospital care.”
“Once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published,” Flind included.
The story established previously today, when the BBC reported that an attorney for the young adult had actually called it to state that the accusations made by the latter’s mom were “rubbish” which “nothing inappropriate or unlawful” had actually occurred.
If the accusation held true, an offense might have been devoted. That’s due to the fact that while the age of permission in England and Wales is 16, the law associating with indecent images classes under-18 s as kids.
In a follow-up story to its initial reporting, The Sun’s phrasing altered to: “It is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17 years old.”
On Wednesday afternoon, right before Edwards was called by his other half, London’s Metropolitan Police supposedly concluded there was “no information to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed.”
In a declaration sent out to CNBC on Thursday, a representative for The Sun stated it would “cooperate with the BBC’s internal investigation process” which it had “no plans to publish further allegations.”
“We must also re-emphasise that 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,” they went on to state.
“Suggestions about possible criminality were first made at a later date by other media outlets, including the BBC.”
BBC newsreader Huw Edwards
Chris Jackson|Chris Jackson Collection|Getty Images
The representative stated the paper had, from the beginning, “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. It is now for the BBC to properly investigate.”
Timeline of significant advancements
The BBC directed CNBC to a timeline of occasions on its site when gotten in touch with for remark.
In reaction to the complainant contacting BBC Audience Services on May 19, the BBC states its Corporate Investigations Team made an evaluation “that on the basis of the information provided it did not include an allegation of criminality, but nonetheless merited further investigation.”
The BBC stated it attempted to call the plaintiff in May and June, however did not get an action.
The Sun then approached the broadcaster on July 6. According to the BBC, the paper’s claims “contained new allegations” and it was on this day that the television anchor was warned of them.
The BBC reached the plaintiff and cops on July 7, with verification of the anchor’s suspension beginning July 9.
Speculation and the law
The reports had actually resulted in extreme speculation on social networks about who the anchor was, with a variety of prominent BBC stars openly distancing themselves from the accusations as an outcome.
Alongside the gravity of the accusations being made, there are likewise possibly major repercussions when it concerns laws on disparagement and personal privacy.
“Individuals who post allegations about any person, including the BBC presenters whose names have been associated with these allegations, do face personal liability for those posts,” Matthew Gill, a senior partner and media conflicts legal representative at London- based law practice Howard Kennedy, informed CNBC.
“And if those posts were to cause BBC presenters reputational damage and the allegations were found to be untrue — either in relation to the presenter at the center of this, or others who have no connection to it — the person who tweets those tweets, or posts those posts on social media … could face legal action,” he included.
They might likewise, Gill described, “be ordered to pay significant damages and costs.”
“Now, the reality is that an individual is unlikely to face legal proceedings if they tweet the name of a celebrity once online in relation to these allegations,” he stated. This was because, “frankly, so many people have posted these types of allegations online over the past few days.”
“However, the celebrities who are not associated with … these allegations but have been linked to it online might consider bringing proceedings, for example, against the first people to have mentioned their name online,” Gill stated.
They might likewise do something about it “against people who have decided to establish a campaign of trying to link the wrong presenters to these allegations.”
